Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

For a Z_{2^η} lattice gauge theory, the binary Gauss stabilizers g_{s,k} describe the physical Hilbert space exactly and can be converted into a distance-3 bit-flip-correcting code without adding qubits.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 00:52 UTC pith:GFXKIRNQ

load-bearing objection A genuinely new construction—binary Gauss stabilizers from carry arithmetic—proven in 1D, plausible but not fully proven in 2D for general η; worth refereeing with a request for the missing proof. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14861 v1 pith:GFXKIRNQ submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph hep-lat

Binary Gauss Stabilizers for Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories

Matteo Turco , Luca Spagnoli , Alessandro Roggero This is my paper
classification quant-ph hep-lat PACS 03.67.Pp11.15.Ha
keywords binary Gauss stabilizerslattice gauge theoryZ_N gauge groupGauss lawstabilizer codesquantum error correctiongauge fixingquantum simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the advantages of quantum error correction can be brought to a broad family of discrete Abelian gauge theories. Its central claim is that, for a Z_{2^η} lattice gauge theory with staggered fermions, the physical Hilbert space—usually defined by Gauss-law constraints—can instead be stabilized by a set of binary Gauss stabilizers, one for each binary digit of the gauge field at each site. These stabilizers are products of Z, controlled-Z, and (in higher dimensions) multicontrolled-Z gates. The paper then uses this new stabilizer group to do two things: build a distance-3 code that corrects any single bit-flip using only the qubits already present in the lattice, and construct a gauge-fixing transformation that discards redundant site qubits. If the central equality holds, gauge symmetry itself becomes a resource for error correction and for compressing quantum simulations of these theories.

Core claim

For the zero-charge sector of a Z_{2^η} lattice gauge theory with staggered fermions and periodic boundaries, the paper replaces each Gauss operator G_s, which takes values in Z_{2^η}, by η reflection operators g_{s,k} (k=0,…,η−1) that implement the same constraint bit by bit. In one dimension these operators are explicitly g_{s,0}=(−1)^s Z_{(s−1,0)} Z_s Z_{(s,0)} and g_{s,k}=Z_{(s−1,k)}Z_{(s,k)} times a controlled-Z between the two lower-digit qubits, with controls or anticontrols depending on parity; in two dimensions the lower part C_{s,k} is built from all carry patterns produced by adding the four surrounding electric fields, using ancilla registers that are then removed. The paper prov

What carries the argument

The central object is the binary Gauss stabilizer g_{s,k}, defined for each site s and each digit k of the binary representation of the link electric field. It can be written schematically as g_{s,k}=Z_{(A,k)}Z_{(B,k)}Z_{(C,k)}Z_{(D,k)} C_{s,k} in two dimensions (with an analogous one-dimensional form), where C_{s,k} is a product of (multi)controlled-Z operators that encodes the carry structure of the Gauss-law sum. The carrying mechanism is Lemma 1, which rewrites the carry recursion α_{k+1}=a_k α_k as α_k=α_0⊕⊕_{l<k} \bar a_l b_l, so each stabilizer checks one XOR equation per digit. The second workhorse is the circuit identity X^c_{a,b} Z_c X^c_{a,b}=Z_c Z_{a,b}, which lets Toffoli gates

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that in two dimensions the simplified binary Gauss stabilizers, obtained after deleting the ancilla registers, have exactly the same +1 eigenspace as the original Gauss constraints, a fact the paper proves only on the subspace where those ancillas start in |0⟩.

What would settle it

On a small 2D lattice (say 2×3 sites) for Z_4, diagonalize the simultaneous +1 eigenspace of the simplified stabilizers g_{s,0}, g_{s,1} on all site and link qubits with no ancilla restrictions, and compare its dimension with the physical dimension D computed from Eq. (10) (or by diagonalizing the original Gauss operators). A mismatch would falsify the central equality for the 2D construction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In one dimension, the binary Gauss stabilizers are Clifford operators for every N=2^η, so the exact physical subspace of these gauge theories admits a Clifford stabilizer description; the authors conjecture that in two or more dimensions with η>2 non-Clifford gates are required.
  • After the change of basis, the Pauli subgroup gives a distance-3 classical code: [(η+1)V, (η+2)V/3, 3] in 1D, and a [2V, 6V/5, 3] code on the first level in 2D, capable of correcting any single-qubit bit flip on the lattice using only the gauge-symmetry qubits.
  • The gauge-fixing transformation leaves only one link qubit per level unconstrained, removing all site qubits; the residual constraints g_k are not traceless, which is why the physical Hilbert space dimension is not generally a power of two.
  • The unused non-Pauli generators can still detect some gauge-violating errors after the Pauli code is applied, and the authors point toward energy-penalty or dynamical-decoupling schemes for protecting them.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A general recipe suggested by this work: for any additive Abelian constraint, writing it in binary turns the carry logic into stabilizer checks, and the choice of which generators to keep Pauli versus non-Pauli is a design parameter that trades code distance against Hamiltonian cost; this could be ported to other groups or to nonzero charge sectors.
  • The 2D equality between the simplified stabilizers and the Gauss constraints is proven only with ancillas in |0⟩; before relying on the 2D code parameters, one can check the dimension of the full +1 eigenspace of the simplified operators on small lattices. If extra eigenstates appear, the 2D gauge-fixing and code claims would need a modified set of generators.
  • The authors leave open whether the leftover non-Pauli generators can be measured as syndromes to detect arbitrary gauge violations; testing this on a small Z_4 lattice would tell whether the gauge symmetry can provide full error detection, not just single-bit correction.
  • The conjectured necessity of non-Clifford stabilizers for d≥2 and η>2 could be attacked directly by searching for alternative stabilizer sets made only of Clifford gates; either a construction or a no-go would clarify what makes these gauge theories hard to simulate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new set of stabilizers, called binary Gauss stabilizers, for the physical (zero-charge) subspace of Z_{2^η} lattice gauge theories with staggered fermions. In one dimension the authors prove that the simultaneous +1 eigenspace of the operators g_{s,k} in Eq. (22) coincides exactly with the Gauss-law subspace. In two dimensions the same claim is formulated for general η, with Z_4 worked out in the main text and the general construction delegated to Appendix C. The paper then applies this stabilizer description to two tasks: constructing distance-three bit-flip error-correcting codes from a subset of Pauli generators obtained after a suitable unitary transformation, and proposing a gauge-fixing scheme that freezes and removes most gauge-redundant qubits. The central claim is that the binary Gauss stabilizers provide an exact alternative description of Hphys and that this description yields practical error-correction and gauge-fixing tools without introducing extra qubits.

Significance. If fully established, the result gives a concrete, constructive link between gauge constraints and stabilizer codes for a family of discrete Abelian gauge theories that is directly relevant to quantum simulation and quantum error correction. The one-dimensional proof is explicit, self-contained, and correct, including the carry-bit Lemma in Appendix B; there are no fitted parameters and the main construction is deterministic. The 2D construction is detailed and appears very plausible, but the paper does not yet provide a complete proof of the key eigenspace identification for η>2 in two dimensions. Because of that gap, the significance of the 2D claim and of the claimed generalization to arbitrary η is currently conditional.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IIIB and Appendix C, Eqs. (C7)–(C23)] The central equality Eq. (23) is not fully established for d=2 and η>2. The construction defines g′_{s,k} in Eq. (C7), whose eigenvalue on |ψ_s>|0...0> is (-1)^{a_k⊕b_k⊕c_k⊕d_k⊕α_k⊕β_k}, and then obtains g_{s,k} by deleting terms that act trivially on the ancillary-zero subspace. What is missing is the explicit lemma that, for every computational basis state |ψ_s>, the simplified operator satisfies g_{s,k}|ψ_s> = (-1)^{a_k⊕b_k⊕c_k⊕d_k⊕α_k⊕β_k}|ψ_s>, with α_k,β_k defined by Eq. (40), together with the odd-parity variant. The caption of Fig. 13 explicitly restricts the equality to ancillas in |0>; without the final eigenvalue identification, the +1 eigenspace of the simplified generators is not rigorously shown to coincide with the bitwise Gauss-law condition (43). For Z_4 the equivalence is demonstrated in Fig. 6, but for η>2 the loop is closed only implicitly. Since Eq. (23) is the main
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (26)] In the identity for g′_{s,k} the product is written as ∏_{l=0}^{k} g_{s,k}; the summation index l is missing and it should be ∏_{l=0}^{k} g_{s,l}.
  2. [Sec. II and Appendix A] The statement that Hphys cannot be stabilized by a Pauli stabilizer group for N>2 is presented as a conclusion, but the proof in Appendix A covers only N>V/2; for N≤V/2 it rests on a numerical conjecture up to V=600. The conjecture is acknowledged, but the main-text wording could more explicitly separate the proven range from the conjectured range.
  3. [Fig. 10 and Sec. IVC] The two-dimensional accumulation-point pattern is described only informally and for L a multiple of 5. A precise specification for periodic boundary conditions, including the location of dots and crosses for general L, would make the claimed distance-3 code fully checkable. The current treatment of edge cases is somewhat hand-wavy.
  4. [Sec. IVC] The statement that the construction generalizes to η>2 in two dimensions is plausible but is not demonstrated in the same detail as the Z_4 case. Since already the general-η stabilizer identification is deferred to Appendix C, the error-correction generalization should at least state which of the Appendix C operators are used and how the accumulation-point argument applies to the higher-level generators.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the binary Gauss stabilizers are derived from the Gauss law by explicit circuit identities; the 2D general-η proof gap is a rigor issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. In 1D, Eq. (23) is proved by converting each Gauss constraint into bitwise relations (Eqs. 27–33) and then showing the operators g'_{s,k} and g_{s,k} have the same +1 eigenspace via the carry-bit identity of Lemma 1 (Eq. B1). No parameter is fitted and no quantity is predicted from a fitted input. In 2D, the construction is a direct circuit computation (Appendix C, Eqs. C1–C28): carry bits are computed with Toffoli gates, Z operators are conjugated through them using Eq. (C9), and the ancilla registers are removed using Z|0> = |0>. The final g_{s,k} are explicit products of Z and controlled-Z operators whose eigenvalue conditions are exactly the bitwise Gauss relations. The only self-citations (Refs. [23,24,28]) are used for background or for the distance property of the Z2 gauge-covariant code; that property is an external, falsifiable result and does not carry the central derivation. A genuine caveat is a proof-completeness gap in 2D for general η: the simplification in Appendix C is stated as holding only on the ancilla-zero subspace (Fig. 13 caption: "Of course, the equality holds only if the ancillary qubits start in the zero state"), and the paper does not explicitly prove the converse direction for all computational basis states for η > 2. This is a missing formal step, but it is not circularity: the operators are derived, not assumed, and no equation reduces to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The binary Gauss stabilizers are derived operators, not fitted parameters or ad hoc inventions. The only unproved input is the dimension conjecture, listed above.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Master formula for the number of gauge-invariant states D (Eq. 8) from Mariani [38] and its simplification to Eq. (11)
    Used to compute D and to argue about power-of-two dimensionality; Appendix A starts from this cited result.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture that D is not a power of two for N>2 and V>2
    Proven only for N>V/2; for N≤V/2 supported by a numerical search up to V=600. Used in Section III to conclude that no Pauli stabilizer group exists.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions, zero-charge sector, V even, staggered fermions
    Stated in Section II; all derivations and code constructions assume this setting.
  • domain assumption Qubit encoding: η qubits per link in unsigned binary representation and Jordan-Wigner fermions
    Defines the computational basis in which the entire stabilizer construction lives.
  • standard math Circuit identity X^c_{a,b} Z_c X^c_{a,b} = Z_c Z_{a,b} and its multicontrolled generalization (Eq. C9)
    Used to simplify ancilla circuits in 2D and to build the Toffoli transformations in Sections IV and V.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27167 in / 27165 out tokens · 237833 ms · 2026-08-02T00:52:24.487016+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gauge theories and quantum error-correcting codes share the same underlying structure: both use constraints to identify a specific subspace of the full Hilbert space. In quantum error correction, these constraints are known as stabilizers, while in gauge theories they correspond to Gauss law. In this work, we consider a family of discrete Abelian lattice gauge theories described by a $\mathbb{Z}_{N}$ gauge group with $N$ an arbitrary power of two. In this setting, we find a set of stabilizers for the gauge-invariant subspace which is an alternative to the Gauss operators, and we call them binary Gauss stabilizers. We use this alternative stabilizer group to build practical error-correcting codes exploiting the gauge symmetries of the system without the addition of extra qubits. The applications of our finding are not limited to error correction though. We also provide a new strategy of gauge fixing to remove the redundancies based on our alternative stabilizer, which might provide advantages with respect to already-existing approaches such as the axial gauge. Our results provide new tools to study lattice gauge theories and their quantum simulation, and opens directions for future work at the interface of lattice gauge theory and quantum information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14861 by Alessandro Roggero, Luca Spagnoli, Matteo Turco.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Organization of the paper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Two examples of the notation introduced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Representation of links and sites encoded on qubits for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Generators of the binary Gauss stabilizer group for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Generators for the stabilizer group of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Circuital representation of the identity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Effect of the transformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Circuital representations of the transformed link operators. The big gray controls reflect the tilde [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Accumulation points and first-level Pauli generators in the two-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Derivation of the identity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Circuital representation of the identity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Second-level generator for the stabilizer group of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Realizing Error Suppression in Partially Fault-Tolerant Quantum Simulations with IBM Quantum Computers

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Partially fault-tolerant [[4,2,2]] Iceberg-code simulations on ibm_boston improve local Ising observables over unencoded baselines by a few percent in 1D and over 200% in 2D at late times via Observable-Ranked Postselection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    contracted

    TheZ (s,1) is not shared among different generators, in the sense that it appears only ing(1) s,1. This is why, here, the controlled-Z operators are removed, and not moved, by the Toffoli operators. Before applyingU′ 1, eachZ(s,1) operator on the first level is shared between the two generatorsgs,1 andg s+1,1, which is why in Subsection IV the controlled-...

    2025

  2. [2]

    J. B. Araujo, B. Hiller, I. G. da Paz, M. M. Ferreira, Jr., M. Sampaio, and H. A. S. Costa, Measuring QED cross sections via entanglement, Phys. Rev. D100, 105018 (2019), arXiv:1907.10466 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    K.KowalskaandE.M.Sessolo,Entanglementinflavoredscalarscattering,JHEP07,156,arXiv:2404.13743[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Cao, M.-L

    Z. Cao, M.-L. Song, X.-K. Song, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Genuine tripartite entanglement in Bhabha scattering with an entangled spectator particle, Phys. Rev. D113, 105019 (2026), arXiv:2604.26380 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    T. A. Brun and L. Mlodinow, Quantum cellular automata and quantum field theory in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. A102, 062222 (2020), arXiv:2010.09104 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Sellapillay and A

    K. Sellapillay and A. D. Verga, Quantum walk on a graph of spins: magnetism and entanglement, Phys. Rev. E 103, 032123 (2021), arXiv:2006.14883 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Sellapillay, P

    K. Sellapillay, P. Arrighi, and G. Di Molfetta, A discrete relativistic spacetime formalism for1 + 1-QED with continuum limits, Sci. Rep.12, 2198 (2022), arXiv:2103.13150 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Liu and S

    H. Liu and S. Chandrasekharan, Qubit Regularization and Qubit Embedding Algebras, Symmetry14, 305 (2022), arXiv:2112.02090 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    R. X. Siew, S. Chandrasekharan, and T. Bhattacharya, Continuum limit of a qubit-regularizedSU(3)lattice gauge theory with glueballs (2026), arXiv:2603.01215 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    M. C. Bañuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero, C. A. Muschik, B. Reznik, E. Rico, L. Tagliacozzo, K. Van Acoleyen, F. Verstraete, U.-J. Wiese, M. Wingate, J. Zakrzewski, and P. Zoller, Simulating lattice gauge theories within quantum technologies, The European Physical Journal D74...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    E. Zohar, Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories in more than one space dimension—requirements, challenges and methods, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 380(2021), arXiv:2106.04609 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Standard model physics and the digital quantum revolution: thoughts about the interface, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 064301 (2022), arXiv:2107.04769 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhattacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Rinaldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Santiago, M. J. Savage, I. Siddiqi, G. Siopsis, D. Van Zanten, N. Wiebe, Y. Yamauchi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, R. de Putter, A. Delgado, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, E. Fernández-Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. González-Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Holmes, S. Kühn, D. Lacroix, R. Lewis, D. Lucchesi, M. L. Mar- tinez, F. Meloni, A. M...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nature Reviews Physics5, 420 (2023), arXiv:2404.06298 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Davoudi, Quantum simulation of gauge theories for particle and nuclear physics (2026), arXiv:2605.20417 [hep-lat]

    Z. Davoudi, Quantum simulation of gauge theories for particle and nuclear physics (2026), arXiv:2605.20417 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    P. W. Shor, Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  18. [18]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  19. [19]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A57, 127 (1998), arXiv:quant- ph/9702029

    arXiv 1998

  20. [20]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Resilient quantum computation, Science279, 342 (1998)

    1998

  21. [21]

    B. M. Terhal, Quantum error correction for quantum memories, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015), arXiv:1302.3428 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226 (2019), arXiv:1907.11157 [quant-ph]

    J. Roffe, Quantum error correction: an introductory guide, Contemporary Physics60, 226 (2019), arXiv:1907.11157 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    J. R. Stryker, Oracles for Gauss’s law on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A99, 042301 (2019), arXiv:1812.01617 [quant-ph]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Rajput, A

    A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries, npj Quantum Information 9, 41 (2023), arXiv:2112.05186 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Spagnoli, A

    L. Spagnoli, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Fault-tolerant simulation of lattice gauge theories with gauge covariant codes, Quantum10, 1968 (2026), arXiv:2405.19293 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1968

  26. [26]

    Carrozza, A

    S. Carrozza, A. Chatwin-Davies, P. A. Hoehn, and F. M. Mele, A correspondence between quantum error correcting codes and quantum reference frames (2025), arXiv:2412.15317 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Ballini, J

    E. Ballini, J. Mildenberger, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, Symmetry verification for noisy quantum simulations of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, Quantum9, 1802 (2025), arXiv:2412.07844 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    N. Bao, C. Cao, A. Chatwin-Davies, G. Cheng, and G. Zhu, Superselection rules, quantum error correction, and quantum chromodynamics, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 236 (2025), arXiv:2306.17230 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Spagnoli, A

    L. Spagnoli, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Qudit stabiliser codes forZN lattice gauge theories with matter (2026), arXiv:2602.20661 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    J. P. Lacambra, A. Chatwin-Davies, M. Honda, and P. A. Hoehn, Gauss law codes and vacuum codes from lattice gauge theories (2026), arXiv:2604.06087 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Rothlin, C

    E. Rothlin, C. Ferradini, and L.-Q. Chen, Error correction in lattice quantum electrodynamics with quantum refer- ence frames (2026), arXiv:2604.06149 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Yao, Quantum error correction codes for truncatedSU(2)lattice gauge theories (2025), arXiv:2511.13721 [quant- ph]

    X. Yao, Quantum error correction codes for truncatedSU(2)lattice gauge theories (2025), arXiv:2511.13721 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Pato and N

    B. Pato and N. Klco, Trade-offs in Gauss’s law error correction for lattice gauge theory quantum simulations (2026), arXiv:2602.22121 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Z. P. Bradshaw, Approximate error correction for quantum simulations ofSU(2)lattice gauge theories (2026), arXiv:2603.26819 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Preparations for quantum simulations of Quantum Chromodynamics in1 + 1dimensions. I. Axial gauge, Physical Review D107 (2023), arXiv:2207.01731 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Scalable circuits for preparing ground states on digital quan- tum computers: The Schwinger model vacuum on 100 qubits, PRX Quantum5, 020315 (2024), arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    D’Andrea, C

    I. D’Andrea, C. W. Bauer, D. M. Grabowska, and M. Freytsis, New basis for HamiltonianSU(2)simulations, Phys. Rev. D109, 074501 (2024), arXiv:2307.11829 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    D. M. Grabowska, C. F. Kane, and C. W. Bauer, Fully gauge-fixedSU(2)Hamiltonian for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D111, 114516 (2025), arXiv:2409.10610 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Mariani, Counting gauge-invariant states with matter fields and finite gauge groups, The European Physical Journal C85(2025), arXiv:2509.02173 [quant-ph]

    A. Mariani, Counting gauge-invariant states with matter fields and finite gauge groups, The European Physical Journal C85(2025), arXiv:2509.02173 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Hauke, D

    P. Hauke, D. Marcos, M. Dalmonte, and P. Zoller, Quantum simulation of a lattice Schwinger model in a chain of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. X3, 041018 (2013), arXiv:1306.2162 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi, Suppressing coherent gauge drift in quantum simulations (2020), arXiv:2005.12688 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    J. C. Halimeh, H. Lang, J. Mildenberger, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Gauge-symmetry protection using single-body terms, PRX Quantum2, 040311 (2021), arXiv:2007.00668 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Bringewatt, H

    J. Bringewatt, H. Froland, A. Elben, and N. Mueller, Classical shadows for sample-efficient measurements of gauge- invariant observables, Quantum10, 2127 (2026), arXiv:2511.02904 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Elitzur, R

    S. Elitzur, R. B. Pearson, and J. Shigemitsu, The Phase Structure of Discrete Abelian Spin and Gauge Systems, Phys. Rev. D19, 3698 (1979)

    1979

  45. [45]

    D. Horn, M. Weinstein, and S. Yankielowicz, Hamiltonian Approach toZ(N)Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D19, 3715 (1979)

    1979

  46. [46]

    Ukawa, P

    A. Ukawa, P. Windey, and A. H. Guth, Dual Variables for Lattice Gauge Theories and the Phase Structure ofZ(N) Systems, Phys. Rev. D21, 1013 (1980)

    1980

  47. [47]

    J. B. Kogut, R. B. Pearson, J. Shigemitsu, and D. K. Sinclair,Z(N) andNState Potts Lattice Gauge Theories: Phase Diagrams, First Order Transitions, Beta Functions and1/NExpansions, Phys. Rev. D22, 2447 (1980)

    1980

  48. [48]

    M. H. Zarei, Kosterlitz-Thouless phase andZ d topological quantum phase, Phys. Rev. B101, 235126 (2020), arXiv:2004.14669 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Nyhegn, C.-M

    J. Nyhegn, C.-M. Chung, and M. Burrello,ZN lattice gauge theory in a ladder geometry, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013133 (2021), arXiv:2011.06534 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Giansiracusa, D

    J. Giansiracusa, D. Lanners, and T. Sulejmanpasic, Emergent Photons and Confinement: A Numerical Study on ZN Lattice Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 221901 (2025), arXiv:2505.00079 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025