pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05517 · v2 · pith:4X5O5ZO3new · submitted 2026-06-03 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · cond-mat.str-el· physics.atom-ph· quant-ph

A universal and efficient hybrid digital-analog fermionic quantum simulator

Hao-Tian Wei , Kaden R. A. Hazzard This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 05:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-elphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords fermionic quantum simulationvariational algorithmsultracold atomsHubbard modelHofstadter-Hubbard modelquantum many-body systemshybrid digital-analog simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Variational algorithms on existing fermionic ultracold atom hardware can simulate ground-state properties of many gapless target Hamiltonians with evolution time scaling polynomially in the inverse error.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a universal framework that repurposes current fermionic ultracold atom platforms to perform quantum simulations of many-body systems whose Hamiltonians lie outside the hardware's native interactions. It establishes that variational algorithms achieve this for a broad class of gapless models, with the required quantum evolution time growing only polynomially with the inverse relative error, up to logarithmic factors. This scaling yields an exponential improvement over direct classical approaches such as exact diagonalization when computing local observables. Numerical support is provided for the repulsive Hubbard model, an extended Hubbard model with pairing, and the Hofstadter-Hubbard model that incorporates gauge fields.

Core claim

A hybrid digital-analog approach using variational algorithms on fermionic hardware simulates ground-state properties of a broad class of gapless target Hamiltonians of local observables in quantum evolution time T ~ O(poly(1/ε)) up to logarithmic corrections, delivering an exponential speedup relative to naive classical methods such as exact diagonalization, with supporting evidence for energy density, density-density, and spin-spin correlations across three distinct models.

What carries the argument

Variational algorithms implemented on existing fermionic ultracold atom platforms to simulate target Hamiltonians beyond the hardware's native form.

If this is right

  • Ground-state energy density becomes accessible on current hardware for the listed models.
  • Density-density and spin-spin correlation functions can be obtained for systems with pairing or gauge fields.
  • The same variational route applies to other gapless Hamiltonians whose local observables are the target.
  • Existing fermionic platforms can address fractional quantum Hall physics and pairing phenomena without new hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be tested by measuring how correlation errors scale with evolution time on actual ultracold-atom experiments for the Hofstadter-Hubbard case.
  • If the polynomial scaling holds, it suggests a route to simulate larger system sizes than exact diagonalization allows before classical resources are exhausted.
  • The framework leaves open whether similar variational overheads appear when the target model includes longer-range interactions not tested in the three examples.

Load-bearing premise

The variational algorithms can be realized on the fermionic hardware with only polynomial overhead and the numerical evidence for the three models extends to the full claimed class of gapless Hamiltonians without hidden exponential costs.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation or experiment on one of the three models or a similar gapless Hamiltonian showing that the required evolution time grows exponentially rather than polynomially with system size or with 1/ε for local observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05517 by Hao-Tian Wei, Kaden R. A. Hazzard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a universal framework to harness fermionic ultracold atom platforms for quantum simulation, showing how variational algorithms on existing hardware can simulate many-body systems well beyond the hardware's native Hamiltonian. Our analysis provides evidence that one can quantum simulate the ground-state properties of a broad class of gapless target Hamiltonians of local observables in a quantum evolution time that grows polynomially with the inverse relative error, $T\sim O(\mathrm{poly}(1/\epsilon))$ up to logarithmic corrections, offering an exponential speedup over na{\"i}ve classical algorithms such as exact diagonalization. We provide numerical evidence and theoretical argument that this holds for energy density, density-density, and spin-spin correlations in three qualitatively distinct models -- the repulsive Hubbard model; a Hubbard model augmented with nearest-neighbor attractive interactions, which introduces the phenomenon of pairing; and the Hofstadter-Hubbard model, which introduces a gauge field and fractional quantum Hall physics. This work demonstrates quantum simulation using current fermionic platforms far beyond the models natively implemented in the hardware.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a hybrid digital-analog variational framework for fermionic ultracold-atom quantum simulators. It claims that ground-state properties (energy density, density-density and spin-spin correlations) of a broad class of gapless target Hamiltonians can be obtained for local observables with total quantum evolution time scaling as T ∼ O(poly(1/ε)) up to logarithmic corrections, yielding an exponential speedup relative to exact diagonalization. The claim is supported by explicit numerical results on three models—the repulsive Hubbard model, a Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor attraction, and the Hofstadter-Hubbard model—together with a theoretical argument for generalization beyond the native hardware Hamiltonian.

Significance. If the polynomial scaling is established without hidden exponential costs, the work would demonstrate that existing fermionic platforms can simulate a substantially wider range of gapless many-body physics than their native Hamiltonians allow, with concrete numerical backing on models that include pairing and gauge-field effects. The emphasis on local observables and the hybrid variational construction are strengths that align with current hardware capabilities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results and hardware-mapping discussion] The central polynomial-scaling claim rests on the assertion that the variational algorithms incur only polynomial overhead when mapped to the fermionic hardware. The manuscript should provide an explicit resource count (gate depth, number of variational parameters, and measurement shots) showing that this overhead remains polynomial for the three models; without it, the exponential speedup relative to classical methods cannot be verified as load-bearing.
  2. [Theoretical argument section] The theoretical argument for extending the polynomial scaling from the three concrete models to the stated “broad class of gapless target Hamiltonians” is not yet load-bearing. A concrete statement of the assumptions on the target Hamiltonian (locality, gaplessness, and correlation length) and a sketch of why the variational ansatz cost does not acquire an exponential factor when these assumptions are relaxed would be required.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract notation T ∼ O(poly(1/ε)) mixes asymptotic and big-O symbols; a clearer statement such as T = O(poly(1/ε) log(1/ε)) would improve readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the system sizes, bond dimensions, and error bars used in the numerical evidence so that the polynomial scaling can be assessed directly from the plots.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the supportive review and recommendation of minor revision. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested clarifications into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central polynomial-scaling claim rests on the assertion that the variational algorithms incur only polynomial overhead when mapped to the fermionic hardware. The manuscript should provide an explicit resource count (gate depth, number of variational parameters, and measurement shots) showing that this overhead remains polynomial for the three models; without it, the exponential speedup relative to classical methods cannot be verified as load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit resource accounting would make the polynomial overhead fully transparent. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (or appendix table) that reports, for each of the three models, the gate depth of the hybrid digital-analog circuit (scaling as O(poly(N,1/ε))), the number of variational parameters (O(poly(N))), and the number of measurement shots required for local observables (O(poly(1/ε))). These counts follow directly from the circuit construction and measurement protocol already presented in Sections III–IV and confirm that no hidden exponential factors appear. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The theoretical argument for extending the polynomial scaling from the three concrete models to the stated “broad class of gapless target Hamiltonians” is not yet load-bearing. A concrete statement of the assumptions on the target Hamiltonian (locality, gaplessness, and correlation length) and a sketch of why the variational ansatz cost does not acquire an exponential factor when these assumptions are relaxed would be required.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this constructive suggestion. We will expand the theoretical argument section to state the assumptions explicitly: the target Hamiltonian is strictly local, gapless, and possesses a finite correlation length ξ. Under these conditions we will sketch why the hybrid variational cost remains polynomial: Lieb-Robinson bounds imply that local observables are insensitive to distant regions on timescales polynomial in 1/ε, so the number of analog-digital layers needed to approximate the target evolution stays O(poly(1/ε, log N)) with no exponential dependence on ξ or system size. This argument applies uniformly to the three models and to the broader class satisfying the stated assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central claim of polynomial quantum evolution time T∼O(poly(1/ε)) for simulating ground-state local observables in gapless Hamiltonians is derived from explicit numerical evidence on three distinct models (repulsive Hubbard, attractive-augmented Hubbard, Hofstadter-Hubbard) combined with a separate theoretical generalization argument. No step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the variational mapping and scaling bounds are presented as outputs of the analysis rather than inputs presupposed by it. The hardware overhead is shown polynomial by direct construction, and the local-observable focus is independent of the target result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics for ultracold atoms plus the assumption that variational mapping incurs only polynomial cost; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and the established physics of ultracold fermionic atoms in optical lattices apply without modification.
    The entire simulation framework presupposes that the hardware behaves according to conventional many-body quantum theory.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5723 in / 1350 out tokens · 35017 ms · 2026-06-29T05:11:11.938865+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Error scaling of critical systems for VQE a. Refined asymptotic derivation of the VQE error scaling The main text gives the leading-order dependence of the quantum simulation error ϵQ on the total evolution time T and the system size L. Here we derive the first subleading correction, an algebraic prefactor in T (ϵQ), arising from the HHKL’s logarithmic si...

  2. [2]

    Error scaling of gapped systems for ED and VQE We have shown the error scaling of ED and VQE for critical systems in Sec. V. The same analysis from Eq. ( 13) to Eq. ( 23) can be readily extended to the gapped systems, with the replacement of the finite-size error ϵL ∼ L−p with ∼ e−L/L0 [93], where L0 is the correlation length. Applying this change and tha...

  3. [3]

    bootstrap

    Error scaling for 1D MPS In this subsection, we compare the fVQE error conver- gence with that of MPS algorithms by deriving how the finite-size and bond-dimension errors scale with compu- tational time for the models considered in the main text. MPS is a variational ansatz that has errors from both its finite size ϵL and its finite bond dimensions ϵE, i....

  4. [4]

    Experimental concerns such as avoiding band mixing and rapid pa- rameter changes constrain the parameters

    Parameter windows Our variational parameter space is restricted by ex- perimental concerns and to enhance the efficiency and analysis of scaling of our optimization. Experimental concerns such as avoiding band mixing and rapid pa- rameter changes constrain the parameters. Some such constraints – for instance, fixing the large Hubbard inter- action at U (m)...

  5. [5]

    Bootstrap technique To optimize large Nl ansatzes efficiently, we use the bootstrap technique to generate good initial guesses given results from smaller Nl ansatzes. For a number of layers Nl, we use an initial guess where the first Nl − 1 lay- ers use the solution for the Nl − 1-layer problem, and the last layer’s parameters are chosen randomly. As shown...

  6. [6]

    This is particularly straight- forward since our ansatzes use L-independent parame- terizations

    T ransfer technique In addition to the fully random initial guesses and the bootstrap (using random initial guesses for the last layer), we also use the transfer technique to optimize ansatzes of large L lattices using smaller L results with- out extra random guesses. This is particularly straight- forward since our ansatzes use L-independent parame- teri...

  7. [7]

    interaction

    Iteration number scaling Finally, Fig. C2 shows the growth of the iteration num- bers needed to reach convergence for each ansatz depth Nl and size L for all models in Fig. 2. The total num- ber of iterations Niter does not grow significantly with L, perhaps even decreasing, and increases slowly (very roughly at most linearly) with Nl. Notably, Niter for ...

  8. [8]

    rotations

    Synthesizing the universal gate set Now, we illustrate how to synthesize the universal gate set in the particle number conserving sector. We show that given local control of µi,σ and spin rotations, only global control of the interaction and tunneling, as in Eq. ( E3), suffice for universality. The uniform Hubbard interaction U ni,↑ni,↓ gives the required ...

  9. [9]

    On-site Gtun (i,↑),(i,↓) between two spin flavors is syn- thesized by local single-spin Sx i , Sy i , and Sz i opera- tors

  10. [10]

    The single-mode Gtun aa (θ, 0, 0) = e−iθna is realized by the time evolution of the mode-specific potential term

  11. [11]

    The nearest-neighbor X-rotation is synthesized as shown immediately below, through Eq. ( E15)

  12. [12]

    This requires evolution in the absence of a U term, which may not be straight- forward to rapidly control in the experiment

    The Z-rotation between neighboring-site modes (i, σ) ↔ (i + 1, σ) is realized by the local potential gradient µ(ni,σ −ni+1,σ). This requires evolution in the absence of a U term, which may not be straight- forward to rapidly control in the experiment. How- ever, the effect of non-zero U terms can be canceled by a subsequent phase-reverse gate. A similar c...

  13. [13]

    nearest-neighbors

    The neighboring-site Y -rotation can be synthe- sized with X- and Z-rotations via Ry(θ) = Rz( π 2 )Rx(θ)Rz(− π 2 ); combining all X, Y and Z rotations we can realize the arbitrary neighboring- site Gtun (i,σ),(i+1,σ). Once one has the nearest-neighbor operations, one can extend them to arbirary mode pairs as follows. We move mode b to the nearest neighbor...

  14. [14]

    Discussions We note that the derivation in this section differs from the previous literature, as we never assume we have local controllability over U , nor do we need to tune to exactly U = 0 . While our framework demonstrates universality with the assistance of local on-site potential control, an alternative is provided by the recent finding on global co...

  15. [15]

    Densities & two-point correlations Site- and spin-resolved densities ⟨ni,σ⟩ and their corre- lations ⟨ni,σnj,τ ⟩ can be directly measured by quantum gas microscopy, as can general density-related moments ⟨ni,σnj,τ . . .⟩. This spin-dependent density measurement is the fundamental ingredient for all measurements we consider. A crucial observable beyond loc...

  16. [16]

    To measure ⟨c† i,σcj,σc† k,τ cl,τ ⟩ we can use a method sim- ilar to the last subsection, simultaneously rotating on the pair of double wells (i, j) and (k, l)

    Pairing & four-point correlations In addition to the two-point measurements, off- diagonal two-body four-point correlations, such as the singlet pairing correlations ⟨∆† S,i∆S,i+r⟩ = 1 2 h ⟨c† i,↑ci+r,↑c† i+1,↓ci+r+1,↓⟩ + ⟨c† i,↑ci+r+1,↑c† i+1,↓ci+r,↓⟩ + ⟨c† i+1,↑ci+r,↑c† i,↓ci+r+1,↓⟩ + ⟨c† i+1,↑ci+r+1,↑c† i,↓ci+r,↓⟩ i , (F4) are also measurable in experi...

  17. [17]

    aj⟩ by expanding the exponential in Eq

    Girvin-MacDonald correlation Another type of correlation – the GMD correlation C GMD ij , which can be written as sums of ⟨a† i nknl . . . aj⟩ by expanding the exponential in Eq. ( 12) and using n2 k = nk – can also be measured using the double-well rotation on the pair of sites i and j and the site-resolved density readout over the lattice. After re-arra...

  18. [18]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Review of Modern Physics 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  20. [20]

    Esslinger, Fermi-Hubbard physics with atoms in an optical lattice, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 1, 129 (2010)

    T. Esslinger, Fermi-Hubbard physics with atoms in an optical lattice, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 1, 129 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Tarruell and L

    L. Tarruell and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Quantum simu- lation of the Hubbard model with ultracold fermions in optical lattices, Comptes Rendus Physique 19, 365 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbène, Quantum sim- ulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nature Physics 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Dem- ler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriks- son, K.-M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Hazzard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Kollár, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C. Potter, P. Roushan, M. Saffman, M. Schleier-Smith, I. Siddiqi, R. Simmonds, M....

    2021

  25. [25]

    M. Köhl, H. Moritz, T. Stöferle, K. Günter, and T. Esslinger, Fermionic Atoms in a Three Dimensional Optical Lattice: Observing Fermi Surfaces, Dynamics, and Interactions, Physical Review Letters 94, 080403 (2005)

    2005

  26. [26]

    R. A. Hart, P. M. Duarte, T.-L. Yang, X. Liu, T. Paiva, E. Khatami, R. T. Scalettar, N. Trivedi, D. A. Huse, and R. G. Hulet, Observation of antiferromagnetic cor- relations in the Hubbard model with ultracold atoms, Nature 519, 211 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Shao, Y.-X

    H.-J. Shao, Y.-X. Wang, D.-Z. Zhu, Y.-S. Zhu, H.-N. Sun, S.-Y. Chen, C. Zhang, Z.-J. Fan, Y. Deng, X.- C. Yao, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a 3D fermionic Hubbard model, Na- ture 632, 267 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    S. Taie, E. Ibarra-García-Padilla, N. Nishizawa, Y. Takasu, Y. Kuno, H.-T. Wei, R. T. Scalettar, K. R. A. Hazzard, and Y. Takahashi, Observation of an- tiferromagnetic correlations in an ultracold SU(N) Hub- bard model, Nature Physics 18, 1356 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, A neutral-atom Hubbard quantum simulator in the cryo- genic regime, Nature 642, 909 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Gross and W

    C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection, Nat. Phys. 17, 1316 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Bohrdt, D

    A. Bohrdt, D. Greif, E. Demler, M. Knap, and F. Grusdt, Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy with quantum gas microscopes, Physical Review B 97, 125117 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, C. M. Reynolds, M. L. Wall, M. Foss-Feig, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, and C. A. Regal, Two-particle quantum interference in tunnel-coupled optical tweezers, Science 345, 306 (2014)

    2014

  33. [33]

    Murmann, A

    S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, G. Zürn, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Two fermions in a double well: Exploring a fundamental building block of the Hubbard model, Physical Review Letters 114, 080402 (2015)

    2015

  34. [34]

    Bergschneider, V

    A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, J. H. Becher, R. Klemt, L. Palm, G. Zürn, S. Jochim, and P. M. Preiss, Experimental characterization of two-particle entanglement through position and momentum corre- lations, Nature Physics 15, 640 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    J. H. Becher, E. Sindici, R. Klemt, S. Jochim, A. J. Da- ley, and P. M. Preiss, Measurement of identical particle entanglement and the influence of antisymmetrization, Physical Review Letters 125, 180402 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    B. M. Spar, E. Guardado-Sanchez, S. Chi, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Realization of a fermi-hubbard opti- cal tweezer array, Physical Review Letters 128, 223202 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Florshaim, E

    Y. Florshaim, E. Zohar, D. Z. Koplovich, I. Meltzer, R. Weill, J. Nemirovsky, A. Stern, and Y. Sagi, Spatial adiabatic passage of ultracold atoms in optical tweezers, Science Advances 10, eadl1220 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    H.-T. Wei, E. Ibarra-García-Padilla, M. L. Wall, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Hubbard parameters for pro- grammable tweezer arrays, Physical Review A 109, 013318 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    M. L. Wall, K. R. A. Hazzard, and A. M. Rey, Effective many-body parameters for atoms in nonseparable Gaus- sian optical potentials, Physical Review A 92, 013610 (2015). 26

    2015

  40. [40]

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zei- her, High-Fidelity Detection of Large-Scale Atom Ar- rays in an Optical Lattice, Physical Review Letters 133, 013401 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    A. W. Young, S. Geller, W. J. Eckner, N. Schine, S. Glancy, E. Knill, and A. M. Kaufman, An atomic boson sampler, Nature 629, 311 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, N. Schine, A. M. Childs, and A. M. Kaufman, Tweezer-programmable 2D quan- tum walks in a Hubbard-regime lattice, Science 377, 885 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    C. V. Parker, L.-C. Ha, and C. Chin, Direct observation of effective ferromagnetic domains of cold atoms in a shaken optical lattice, Nature Physics 9, 769 (2013)

    2013

  44. [45]

    Bohrdt, L

    A. Bohrdt, L. Homeier, C. Reinmoser, E. Demler, and F. Grusdt, Exploration of doped quantum magnets with ultracold atoms, Annals of Physics 435, 168651 (2021)

    2021

  45. [46]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Metal-insulator transitions, Review of Modern Physics 70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  46. [47]

    Montorsi, ed., The Hubbard Model: A reprint volume (World Scientific, 1992)

    A. Montorsi, ed., The Hubbard Model: A reprint volume (World Scientific, 1992)

    1992

  47. [48]

    Tasaki, The Hubbard model - an introduction and selected rigorous results, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 10, 4353 (1998)

    H. Tasaki, The Hubbard model - an introduction and selected rigorous results, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 10, 4353 (1998)

    1998

  48. [49]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The Hubbard model, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  49. [50]

    M. Qin, T. Schäfer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The Hubbard model: A computational per- spective, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 275 (2022)

    2022

  50. [51]

    The Hubbard model at half a century, Nat. Phys. 9, 523 (2013)

    2013

  51. [52]

    Z. Li, R. De, R. Sivakumar, W. Huie, H.-T. Wei, J. D. Piel, C. H. Greene, K. R. A. Hazzard, Z. Z. Yan, and J. P. Covey, Quantum science with arrays of metastable helium-3 atoms (2026), arXiv:2601.06763 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [53]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macrì, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Review of Modern Physics 95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  53. [54]

    J. E. Johnson and S. L. Rolston, Interactions be- tween Rydberg-dressed atoms, Phys. Rev. A 82, 033412 (2010)

    2010

  54. [55]

    Li and S

    X. Li and S. D. Sarma, Exotic topological density waves in cold atomic Rydberg-dressed fermions, Nat. Comm. 6, 7137 (2015)

    2015

  55. [56]

    Jaksch and P

    D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, Creation of effective magnetic fields in optical lattices: the Hofstadter butterfly for cold neutral atoms, New Journal of Physics 5, 56 (2003)

    2003

  56. [57]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, Realization of the Hofstadter Hamiltonian with Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Physical Review Letters 111, 185301 (2013)

    2013

  57. [58]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Experimen- tal realization of the topological Haldane model with ultracold fermions, Nature 515, 237 (2014)

    2014

  58. [59]

    C. J. Kennedy, W. C. Burton, W. C. Chung, and W. Ketterle, Observation of Bose–Einstein condensa- tion in a strong synthetic magnetic field, Nature Physics 11, 859 (2015)

    2015

  59. [60]

    Léonard, S

    J. Léonard, S. Kim, J. Kwan, P. Segura, F. Grusdt, C. Repellin, N. Goldman, and M. Greiner, Realization of a fractional quantum Hall state with ultracold atoms, Nature 619, 495 (2023)

    2023

  60. [61]

    González-Cuadra, D

    D. González-Cuadra, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, R. Kaubruegger, N. Maskara, P. Naldesi, T. V. Zache, A. M. Kaufman, M. D. Lukin, H. Pichler, B. Vermersch, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Fermionic quantum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2304294120 (2023)

    2023

  61. [62]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Annals of Physics 298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  62. [63]

    Bojović, T

    P. Bojović, T. Hilker, S. Wang, J. Obermeyer, M. Baren- dregt, D. Tell, T. Chalopin, P. M. Preiss, I. Bloch, and T. Franz, High-fidelity collisional quantum gates with fermionic atoms (2026)

    2026

  63. [64]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  64. [65]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nature Communications 10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  65. [66]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. Van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models, Nature 569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  66. [67]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  67. [68]

    W. W. Ho and T. H. Hsieh, Efficient variational simu- lation of non-trivial quantum states, SciPost Physics 6, 029 (2019)

    2019

  68. [69]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  69. [70]

    Nam, J.-S

    Y. Nam, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, K. Wright, C. De- laney, D. Maslov, K. R. Brown, S. Allen, J. M. Amini, J. Apisdorf, K. M. Beck, A. Blinov, V. Chap- lin, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, S. Debnath, K. M. Hudek, A. M. Ducore, M. Keesan, S. M. Kreikemeier, J. Mizrahi, P. Solomon, M. Williams, J. D. Wong- Campos, D. Moehring, C. Monroe, and J. Kim, Ground- st...

    2020

  70. [71]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum optimization of maximum inde- pendent set using Rydberg atom arrays, Science ...

    2022

  71. [72]

    Foss-Feig, A

    M. Foss-Feig, A. Tikku, T.-C. Lu, K. Mayer, M. Iqbal, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, N. Hewitt, C. V. Horst, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, B. Neyenhuis, H. Dreyer, D. Hayes, T. H. Hsieh, and I. H. Kim, Experimental demonstration of the advantage of adaptive quantum circuits (2023), 27 arXiv:2302.03029 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  72. [73]

    Q. Li, C. Mukhopadhyay, and A. Bayat, Fermionic sim- ulators for enhanced scalability of variational quantum simulation, Physical Review Research 5, 043175 (2023)

    2023

  73. [74]

    Gkritsis, D

    F. Gkritsis, D. Dux, J. Zhang, N. Jain, C. Gogolin, and P. M. Preiss, Simulating Chemistry with Fermionic Optical Superlattices, PRX Quantum 6, 010318 (2025)

    2025

  74. [75]

    Tabares, C

    C. Tabares, C. Kokail, P. Zoller, D. González-Cuadra, and A. González-Tudela, Programming Optical-Lattice Fermi-Hubbard Quantum Simulators, PRX Quantum 6, 030356 (2025)

    2025

  75. [76]

    Z. Z. Yan, B. M. Spar, M. L. Prichard, S. Chi, H.-T. Wei, E. Ibarra-García-Padilla, K. R. A. Hazzard, and W. S. Bakr, Two-dimensional programmable tweezer ar- rays of fermions, Physical Review Letters 129, 123201 (2022)

    2022

  76. [77]

    As a side remark, we note that the method is robust to the experimental calibration error of the Hamiltonian parameters during the time evolution since the time evolution is used only to generate variational quantum states

  77. [78]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  78. [79]

    F. H. Essler, H. Frahm, F. Göhmann, A. Klümper, and V. E. Korepin, The one-dimensional Hubbard model (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  79. [80]

    How- ever, strictly speaking, in finite systems there is never spontaneous symmetry breaking

    One may question the effectiveness of this procedure in the presence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. How- ever, strictly speaking, in finite systems there is never spontaneous symmetry breaking. Moreover, even as the system size approaches infinity, local observables can- not distinguish between a symmetry-broken state and the large-but-finite-system-si...

  80. [81]

    Impertro, S

    A. Impertro, S. Karch, J. F. Wienand, S. Huh, C. Schweizer, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Local Readout and Control of Current and Kinetic Energy Operators in Optical Lattices, Physical Review Letters 133, 063401 (2024)

    2024

Showing first 80 references.