Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

This paper shows that the Gauss's law constraints of Z2 lattice gauge theory can be turned into quantum error-correcting codes of arbitrary distance, with the optimal duplication pattern in the constructed family achieving the claimed encod

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

2026-08-04 01:07 UTC pith:3I3BZU6O

load-bearing objection A real generalization of the RRW Gauss-law code to arbitrary distance with an honest optimal-rate theorem in the k_in=1 family; the 2D saturation proof has a gap that should be filled before publication. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00165 v1 pith:3I3BZU6O submitted 2026-07-31 hep-lat hep-thquant-ph

Arbitrary-Distance Quantum Error Correction with Gauss's Law for mathbb Z₂ Lattice Gauge Theory

Neel S. Modi , Lento Nagano , Masazumi Honda , Nobuyuki Yoshioka , Christian W. Bauer This is my paper
classification hep-lat hep-thquant-ph MSC 81P7081T2594B05 PACS 03.67.Pp11.15.Ha
keywords quantum error correctionlattice gauge theoryGauss's lawstabilizer codescode distanceconcatenated codesZ2 gauge theoryHamiltonian locality
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 extends the idea of using Z2 Gauss's law as a quantum error-correcting code from distance 3 to arbitrary distance d. The construction duplicates every lattice site and link a prescribed number of times, turns the Gauss-law constraints plus copy-equality checks into a classical bit-flip code, and concatenates that outer code with a d-bit repetition code that handles phase flips. The paper proves that within this concatenation family the duplication pattern can be chosen optimally: in 1D the encoding rate saturates 2/(d(d+1)), and in 2D it saturates 16/(7d^2) for even d and 16/((7d+1)d) for odd d>3. Because the encoded Hamiltonian terms stay at weight d, the resulting code is attractive for simulating gauge theories: it improves Hamiltonian locality by a factor of 3 in 1D and 4 in 2D compared with encoding each degree of freedom separately, and it uses fewer physical qubits than that baseline for d≤7.

Core claim

The central claim is that Gauss's law is not just a constraint on the physical Hilbert space but can be promoted to a full family of stabilizer codes with tunable distance. The classical Gauss-law code is defined by duplication counts p_n and q_{n,μ} per site and link; its codewords are bit assignments where one representative of each variable satisfies Gauss's law and all copies of each variable are equal. Undetectable errors are exactly flux strings, so the code distance is the minimum weight of an open string (two flipped endpoints plus links) or a closed string (loop of links), and duplication raises that minimum to any desired d. Concatenating with a [d,1,d] repetition code produces a q

What carries the argument

The central object is the duplicated classical Gauss-law code: each lattice site S_n is replaced by p_n copies and each link L_{n,μ} by q_{n,μ} copies, with parity checks enforcing Gauss's law among chosen representatives and equality among copies. Its distance is the minimum weight of a flux string, and the optimal duplication patterns are found by partitioning sites into two staggered sublattices and links into four orientation-parity classes, so that open and closed strings can be raised independently. Concatenation with the d-bit repetition code supplies the Z-type protection and makes the final code a [[n,k,d]] stabilizer code whose stabilizers remain low weight.

Load-bearing premise

The optimality theorems assume the phase-flip protection comes from concatenating with a classical single-logical-bit code, so the claimed O(d^2) qubit overhead is optimal only within that concatenation convention, not among all possible Gauss-law-based codes.

What would settle it

A direct test of the optimality theorems is to search small lattices for a duplication pattern and inner code in the family whose qubit count beats the claimed value—for example, with N=4 and d=5 in 1D, fewer than N d(d+1)/2 = 60 physical qubits while still achieving distance 5. If such a pattern exists, the saturation claims fail; alternatively, demonstrating that the theorems' counting of independent Gauss-law constraints misses a redundancy would also invalidate the rate bounds.

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

If this is right

  • Any number t of single-qubit errors can now be corrected in a Z2 lattice-gauge-theory simulation: choosing d=2t+1 gives a code that detects and corrects all errors of weight up to t.
  • The family-optimal duplication patterns mean that, at fixed distance and lattice size, no code of this concatenated form uses fewer physical qubits; in 1D the optimal code is [[N d(d+1)/2, N, d]] and in 2D it is [[(7d^2/8)N, 2N, d]] for even d.
  • At distances up to 7 (t up to 3), the Gauss-law code uses fewer physical qubits than encoding every lattice degree of freedom with the smallest generic single-logical-qubit code; beyond that the O(d^2) scaling makes the generic encoding asymptotically cheaper.
  • Encoded Hamiltonians remain strictly more local than in the generic encoding: maximum term weight is d rather than 3d in 1D and 4d in 2D, a gap that persists at all distances.
  • Numerical and analytical code-capacity studies show logical error rate decreasing as d grows below the crossing point, with the Gauss-law code outperforming the minimal-length code in X-memory at every simulated distance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the practical niche of these codes is low-distance (d≤7) fault-tolerant simulation of gauge theories, where the factor-of-3-to-4 locality gain can outweigh the qubit overhead; for large-distance quantum memories the O(d^2) overhead is likely prohibitive compared with asymptotically better code families.
  • We infer that the family-relative nature of the optimality result matters: concatenating with a quantum inner code that itself encodes many logical qubits could push the encoding rate higher, at the cost of stabilizers whose weights grow with lattice size, so the stated bounds should not be read as a general lower bound on all Gauss-law-inspired codes.
  • We infer that the same parity-partition and string-weight-counting technique used to optimize duplication patterns could be adapted to Z_N gauge theories or other local constraints, giving a blueprint for symmetry-derived codes beyond the Z2 case.
  • We infer that the absence of circuit-level fault-tolerance and threshold analysis leaves open whether the code-capacity advantages survive under realistic noise; a natural test is to run a full fault-tolerant memory with syndrome extraction and measure the threshold.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Rajput-Roggero-Wiebe construction of quantum error-correcting codes from Z2 Gauss's law constraints to arbitrary code distance. The construction duplicates site and link variables, defines a classical Gauss-law code whose distance is the minimum flux-string weight, and concatenates with a classical [d,1,d] repetition code to handle phase-flip errors. The main theoretical results are Theorems III.5 and III.6, which give upper bounds on the encoding rate within the considered concatenation family and assert that the explicit duplication patterns saturate those bounds. The paper also compares qubit overhead and encoded Hamiltonian locality with minimal-length codes and presents code-capacity simulations with MLD. The construction and the upper-bound half of the optimality arguments are coherent, and the paper is explicit about the family inside which optimality is claimed. The main gap is that the saturation half of Theorem III.6—and to a lesser extent the 1D analogue—is asserted rather than proved, and the 2D locality claim is likewise not backed by a derivation.

Significance. If the saturation claims are fully established, the paper is a useful contribution: it gives an explicit family of LDPC-friendly Gauss-law codes with tunable distance, proves the optimal rate within a natural concatenation framework, and provides careful resource comparisons and decoder details. The paper is also honest about the limits of the optimality result, noting that other concatenation strategies with k_in > 1 can achieve higher rates. The most significant advertised advantage, locality of the encoded Hamiltonian, is plausible but currently rests partly on 'can be shown by casework.' The central issue is therefore not novelty or soundness of the overall idea, but whether the claimed optimal-distance saturation results are actually proved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A / Theorem III.6(ii)] The saturation half of Theorem III.6 is not proved. The proof begins with 'since it is easy to check that the code defined explicitly by the multiplicities in Section III C saturates the bound,' but no check is supplied. Lemma III.3 requires the distance to be the minimum weight over all open and closed flux strings. The lower-bound argument in Appendix A uses only length-1 open strings (A.11) and single-plaquette closed strings (A.13), together with local combinations around a plaquette (A.21–A.26). It never analyzes longer strings, such as length-2 open strings whose endpoints lie in the same parity sublattice, multi-plaquette loops, or non-contractible loops. For the d ≡ 2 mod 4 multiplicities the site numbers take three distinct values (III.63), so the minimum is not visually obvious. If any longer string had weight < d, the proposed 'optimal' code would have distance below d and The
  2. [Section IV A / Table VI] The locality comparison, which the abstract advertises as the main practical advantage of the Gauss-law code, contains an unproved claim. The text says that the X_L X_L X_L X_L plaquette terms for t>1 'also require weight exactly 2t+1' and that this 'can be shown by casework' using the multiplicities of Section III C. No such casework is presented. This claim drives Table VI and the conclusion that the Gauss-law code improves Hamiltonian locality by a factor of 4 in 2D. The authors should either provide the calculation in an appendix or, if the claim fails, revise the locality comparison.
  3. [Appendix C / Fig. 13] The promised exact calculation of the logical error rate is incomplete. For the inner part, Appendix C gives a transfer-matrix expression for p_in in Eqs. (C.27)–(C.31), which is concrete and useful. For the outer part, however, the calculation stops at the reduction p_out = P_{C_out}(p), and then states that 'the exact values can be computed systematically' for the Gauss law code. No expression for the syndrome weight enumerator B(A) or the maximum covering radius A_max is given, and no algorithm or closed formula is supplied. Since Fig. 13 is presented as an exact analytical result to be compared with the depolarizing-noise simulations, this missing derivation prevents the reader from reproducing the curves from the text alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem III.5 / Appendix A] The same 'it is easy to check' phrasing is used for the saturation of the 1D bound. The 1D case is easier, but for consistency the multiplicities (III.47) should be checked explicitly against all open strings, not just length-1 strings.
  2. [Section IV A 1] The text uses 'minimal-length code' and 'n_min = 6t-1' as a benchmark for general t. The known saturating codes cover only t = 1,2,3; for larger t the expression is a Rains lower bound that may not be attainable. The wording should make this distinction explicit, since the crossing-point discussion depends on it.
  3. [Fig. 12 caption] The phrase 'binomial likelihood-factor intervals with a maximum likelihood factor 10^3' is difficult to parse. Please define the interval construction precisely or state the standard Wilson/binomial confidence interval used.
  4. [Eq. (III.67)] The expression n = (7/8)d(d + 1/7)N for odd d is correct but is clearer in the form (7d+1)dN/8, which matches the side of the inequality in Theorem III.6.
  5. [Appendix B.4.b] The proof that z_L^* = 0 for X-memory decoding is intricate and depends on the positivity of the expectation in Eq. (B.105). The authors should state explicitly where the p < 1/2 condition enters in that argument, since it appears only in the preceding subsection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Gauss's law code construction and optimality bounds are derived from definitions, with external benchmarks used for comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's central construction (Def. III.1 and Def. III.4) is explicit: duplication counts p_n, q_n determine a classical code whose distance is computed from open/closed string weights (Lem. III.3), and concatenation with a classical [d,1,d] repetition code gives a stabilizer code with distance min(d_out, d_in) (Lem. II.23). The optimality upper bounds in Theorems III.5 and III.6 are obtained by summing string-weight inequalities (e.g., Eqs. (A.5), (A.12)-(A.31)); no target encoding rate is inserted to force the result. The saturation half of the theorems is asserted as 'easy to check' rather than fully proved in Appendix A, but that is an omitted verification/rigor gap, not a circular reduction. The paper also explicitly restricts optimality to the considered concatenation family with inner k_in=1 and notes that other concatenation strategies can give higher encoding rates, so the O(d^2) qubit-overhead conclusion is not presented as unconditional. Resource comparisons use Rains' bound and externally known minimal-length codes ([[5,1,3]], [[11,1,5]], [[17,1,7]]), while the logical-error-rate demonstrations use an independent ML decoder; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Citations to the RRW code [1] are attribution for the d=3 starting point rather than load-bearing self-citation, and the author self-citations (e.g., [64]) are peripheral to the derivation. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input, imported-uniqueness, or ansatz-smuggling circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted empirical parameters appear in the central claim; the duplication multiplicities p_n and q_{n,mu} are construction variables fixed by the optimality theorems, not data fits. No new physical particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the duplicated variables are ordinary encoding degrees of freedom.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The physical variables of Z2 LGT with matter are one qubit per site and link, and gauge-invariant states are simultaneous +1 eigenstates of the Gauss-law operators G_n (Eq. II.59).
    This is the foundation of the RRW code and the code space here; introduced in Section II.B.1 and used throughout Section III.
  • domain assumption In the classical Gauss-law code, every nonzero codeword corresponds to a collection of open and closed flux strings, so the code distance equals min(w_o, w_c) (Lemma III.3).
    Geometric characterization of solutions to the Z2 Gauss-law constraints; used to prove Lemma III.3 and to justify the lower bounds in Theorems III.5 and III.6.
  • standard math The concatenation of classical codes C_out=[n_out,k_out,d_out] and C_in=[n_in,1,d_in] yields a stabilizer code with distance min(d_out,d_in) (Lemma II.23).
    Standard CSS/concatenated-code distance property; used in Definition III.4 to convert the classical Gauss-law code into a quantum code of the intended distance.
  • domain assumption The optimality theorems assume a periodic lattice with even N_mu along each axis and N_mu >= d.
    Stated in Section III.C as assumptions (i) and (ii). These ensure non-contractible strings do not enter the optimization and that staggered-fermion conventions apply.
  • standard math Minimal-length single-logical-qubit codes saturating Rains' bound exist for t=1,2,3, with n_min=6t-1.
    External benchmark used for qubit-count comparisons in Section IV.A; the cited codes are [[5,1,3]], [[11,1,5]], and [[17,1,7]] from Refs. [80-83].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 63692 in / 17349 out tokens · 202393 ms · 2026-08-04T01:07:33.519894+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

It has previously been shown by Rajput, Roggero, and Wiebe that $\mathbb Z_2$ Gauss's law constraints can be used to build efficient quantum error-correcting codes (QECCs) that are robust against arbitrary single-qubit errors. In this work, we generalize the construction to be robust against arbitrary $t$-qubit errors, where $t$ is any positive integer. This includes a derivation of the optimal Gauss's law code within the considered family by minimizing the number of physical qubits required for a given code distance. Finally, we compare our codes against other efficient QECCs on metrics such as the number of physical qubits, the locality of the encoded Hamiltonian, and the logical error rate in the code capacity setting. Compared to using a domain-agnostic code for every lattice degree of freedom, we find that the Gauss's law code primarily excels at reducing the locality of the encoded Hamiltonian. Moreover, the physical qubit overhead is also reduced for $t \le 3$ (distance $d \le 7$).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00165 by Christian W. Bauer, Lento Nagano, Masazumi Honda, Neel S. Modi, Nobuyuki Yoshioka.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Summary of this paper. We depict the 1D example for simplicity, but we also give 2D results in the main text. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Example 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Illustration of variables participating in a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Different types of Pauli errors in the RRW code, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Excitation of the smallest flux string, if there is an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Example vertex showing labeling of duplicate lattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: From this example, one also notices the important [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Duplicating lattice variables for an optimal code. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Optimal code construction for distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Memory experiment for a 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Logical error rates on a 1D periodic lattice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 58 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    error coset

    Error Syndromes, Cosets, and Logical Equivalence Classes For a classical codeC= [n, k, d] with parity-check ma- trixH, theerror syndromeof any bit stringv∈F n 2 is defined as σ(v)≡Hv∈F n−k 2 .(B.1) The syndrome ofvis zero if and only ifvis a codeword, and therefore, the syndrome can be used for the purpose of detecting errors. If a codewordc∈Cis transmitt...

  2. [2]

    recovered word

    General Syndrome Decoding Here, we discuss general decoding strategies that apply to every classical and quantum code. We begin by defin- ing the general concept of a syndrome decoder for both the classical and quantum case, and then proceed to dis- cuss the two main types of syndrome decoders that are relevant for this work:minimum-weight(MW) decoders an...

  3. [3]

    hierarchical coordinatization

    Maximum-Likelihood Decoding for Concatenated Codes Maximum-likelihood decoding for the concatenated code means the ordinary joint logical-class optimization 35 defined above. Although evaluating this posterior is hard in general, Ref. [85] showed that concatenation permits an efficient message-passing evaluation of the same pos- terior. We will focus on t...

  4. [4]

    partition function

    Explicit Decoders for Gauss’s Law Codes Now we come to the specific decoders used in our code capacity demonstrations in Section IV B. For the depolar- izing noise model (used in ourZmemory andXmemory experiments), we implement marginalized ML decoding, as discussed in Section B 3. Recall that the binary vec- tor representation for the concatenated code i...

  5. [12]

    N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Standard model physics and the digital quantum revolution: thoughts about the interface, Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 064301 (2022), arXiv:2107.04769 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [13]

    C. W. Baueret al., Quantum Simulation for High- Energy Physics, PRX Quantum4, 027001 (2023), arXiv:2204.03381 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [14]

    D. B. Kaplan and J. R. Stryker, Gauss’s law, duality, and the Hamiltonian formulation of U(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D102, 094515 (2020), arXiv:1806.08797 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [15]

    Zohar and J

    E. Zohar and J. I. Cirac, Removing Staggered Fermionic Matter inU(N) andSU(N) Lattice Gauge Theo- ries, Phys. Rev. D99, 114511 (2019), arXiv:1905.00652 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [16]

    Raychowdhury and J

    I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Solving Gauss’s Law on Digital Quantum Computers with Loop-String- Hadron Digitization, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033039 (2020), arXiv:1812.07554 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [17]

    Davoudi, I

    Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury, and A. Shaw, Search for efficient formulations for Hamiltonian simulation of non- Abelian lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D104, 074505 (2021), arXiv:2009.11802 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [18]

    D’Andrea, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [19]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [20]

    S. D. Drell, H. R. Quinn, B. Svetitsky, and M. Weinstein, QED on a Lattice: A Hamiltonian Variational Approach to the Physics of the Weak Coupling Region, Phys. Rev. D19, 619 (1979)

    1979

  14. [21]

    C. W. Bauer and D. M. Grabowska, Efficient representa- tion for simulating U(1) gauge theories on digital quan- tum computers at all values of the coupling, Phys. Rev. 27 D107, L031503 (2023), arXiv:2111.08015 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [22]

    J. F. Haase, L. Dellantonio, A. Celi, D. Paulson, A. Kan, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, A resource efficient ap- proach for quantum and classical simulations of gauge theories in particle physics, Quantum5, 393 (2021), arXiv:2006.14160 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [23]

    C. J. Hamer, W.-h. Zheng, and J. Oitmaa, Series expan- sions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamiltonian lattice theory, Phys. Rev. D56, 55 (1997), arXiv:hep- lat/9701015

    arXiv 1997

  17. [24]

    E. A. Martinezet al., Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Nature 534, 516 (2016), arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [25]

    D. M. Grabowska, C. Kane, B. Nachman, and C. W. Bauer, Overcoming exponential scaling with system size in Trotter-Suzuki implementations of constrained Hamil- tonians: 2+1 U(1) lattice gauge theories, (2022), arXiv:2208.03333 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [26]

    Zohar and J

    E. Zohar and J. I. Cirac, Eliminating fermionic matter fields in lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. B98, 075119 (2018), arXiv:1805.05347 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [27]

    Borla, R

    U. Borla, R. Verresen, F. Grusdt, and S. Moroz, Confined Phases of One-Dimensional Spinless Fermions Coupled to Z2 Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 120503 (2020), arXiv:1909.07399 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [28]

    Borla, B

    U. Borla, B. Jeevanesan, F. Pollmann, and S. Moroz, Quantum phases of two-dimensionalZ 2 gauge theory coupled to single-component fermion matter, Phys. Rev. B105, 075132 (2022), arXiv:2012.08543 [cond-mat.str- el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [29]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi, General Meth- ods for Digital Quantum Simulation of Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D100, 034518 (2019), arXiv:1903.08807 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [30]

    Mazzola, S

    G. Mazzola, S. V. Mathis, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, Gauge-invariant quantum circuits for U(1) and Yang- Mills lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043209 (2021), arXiv:2105.05870 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [31]

    J. R. Stryker, Shearing approach to gauge-invariant Trotterization, Phys. Rev. D112, 014508 (2025), arXiv:2105.11548 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [32]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Blekos, G. Polykratis, and S. K¨ uhn, Realizing string breaking dynamics in a Z2 lattice gauge theory on quan- tum hardware, Phys. Rev. D112, 114506 (2025), arXiv:2504.13760 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [33]

    Sekiyama and L

    M. Sekiyama and L. Nagano, Ground state preparation in (2 + 1)-dimensional pureZ 2 lattice gauge theory via deterministic quantum imaginary time evolution, (2026), arXiv:2604.17874 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [34]

    Zohar and B

    E. Zohar and B. Reznik, Confinement and lattice QED electric flux-tubes simulated with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 275301 (2011), arXiv:1108.1562 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [35]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi, Suppressing Coherent Gauge Drift in Quantum Simulations, (2020), arXiv:2005.12688 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [36]

    M. C. Tran, Y. Su, D. Carney, and J. M. Taylor, Faster Digital Quantum Simulation by Symmetry Protec- tion, PRX Quantum2, 010323 (2021), arXiv:2006.16248 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [37]

    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

  31. [38]

    Davoudi, N

    Z. Davoudi, N. Mueller, and C. Powers, Towards Quan- tum Computing Phase Diagrams of Gauge Theories with Thermal Pure Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 081901 (2023), arXiv:2208.13112 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [39]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [40]

    Ballini, J

    E. Ballini, J. Mildenberger, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, Symmetry verification for noisy quantum sim- ulations of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, Quantum 9, 1802 (2025), arXiv:2412.07844 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [41]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien, Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verifica- tion, Phys. Rev. A98, 062339 (2018), arXiv:1807.10050 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [42]

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

    1995

  36. [43]

    Steane, Multiple particle interference and quantum er- ror correction, Proc

    A. Steane, Multiple particle interference and quantum er- ror correction, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A452, 2551 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9601029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  37. [44]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error correcting codes exist, Phys. Rev. A54, 1098 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9512032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  38. [45]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, A Theory of quantum er- ror correcting codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2525 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/9604034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  39. [46]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  40. [47]

    Gottesman, An introduction to quantum error cor- rection and fault-tolerant quantum computation (2009), arXiv:0904.2557 [quant-ph]

    D. Gottesman, An introduction to quantum error cor- rection and fault-tolerant quantum computation (2009), arXiv:0904.2557 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [48]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [49]

    Acharyaet al.(Google Quantum AI and Collabora- tors), Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025), arXiv:2408.13687 [quant-ph]

    R. Acharyaet al.(Google Quantum AI and Collabora- tors), Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025), arXiv:2408.13687 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [50]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  44. [51]

    Spagnoli, A

    L. Spagnoli, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Fault-tolerant simulation of Lattice Gauge Theories with gauge covari- ant codes, Quantum10, 1968 (2026), arXiv:2405.19293 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 1968

  45. [52]

    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

  46. [53]

    Spagnoli, A

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

    arXiv 2026

  47. [54]

    Turco, L

    M. Turco, L. Spagnoli, and A. Roggero, Binary Gauss Stabilizers for Abelian Lattice Gauge Theories, (2026), arXiv:2607.14861 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [55]

    Yao, Quantum error correction codes for truncated SU(2) lattice gauge theories, Phys

    X. Yao, Quantum error correction codes for truncated SU(2) lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D113, 114512 (2026), arXiv:2511.13721 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [56]

    Faist, S

    P. Faist, S. Nezami, V. V. Albert, G. Salton, F. Pastawski, P. Hayden, and J. Preskill, Continu- ous symmetries and approximate quantum error correc- tion, Phys. Rev. X10, 041018 (2020), arXiv:1902.07714 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [57]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Hierarchical qubit maps 28 and hierarchically implemented quantum error correc- tion, Phys. Rev. A104, 062425 (2021), arXiv:2109.01953

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [58]

    Kong and Z.-W

    L. Kong and Z.-W. Liu, Near-Optimal Covariant Quan- tum Error-Correcting Codes from Random Unitaries with Symmetries, PRX Quantum3, 020314 (2022), arXiv:2112.01498

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [59]

    del Pino and O

    J. del Pino and O. Zilberberg, Dynamical Gauge Fields with Bosonic Codes, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 171901 (2023), arXiv:2211.12119 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [60]

    Y.-A. Chen, A. V. Gorshkov, and Y. Xu, Error-correcting codes for fermionic quantum simulation, SciPost Phys. 16, 033 (2024), arXiv:2210.08411 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [61]

    E. J. Gustafson and H. Lamm, Robustness of Gauge Dig- itization to Quantum Noise, (2023), arXiv:2301.10207 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [62]

    M. M. Wauters, E. Ballini, A. Biella, and P. Hauke, Symmetry-protection Zeno phase transition in monitored lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. B111, 094315 (2025), arXiv:2405.18504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [63]

    Carrozza, A

    S. Carrozza, A. Chatwin-Davies, P. A. Hoehn, and F. M. Mele, A correspondence between quantum error cor- recting codes and quantum reference frames, (2024), arXiv:2412.15317 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  57. [64]

    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

  58. [65]

    Rothlin, C

    E. Rothlin, C. Ferradini, and L.-Q. Chen, Error cor- rection in lattice quantum electrodynamics with quan- tum reference frames, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06149 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [66]

    Carena, H

    M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant digitizations of lat- tice field theories, Phys. Rev. D110, 054516 (2024), arXiv:2402.16780 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [67]

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, Good quantum error- correcting codes exist, Phys. Rev. A54, 1098 (1996)

    1996

  61. [68]

    A. M. Steane, Error correcting codes in quantum theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  62. [69]

    Preskill, Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum in- formation and computation (1998)

    J. Preskill, Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum in- formation and computation (1998)

    1998

  63. [70]

    Preskill, Quantum error correction (chapter 7), https://www.preskill.caltech.edu/ph229/notes/ chap7.pdf, lecture notes, Caltech PH229

    J. Preskill, Quantum error correction (chapter 7), https://www.preskill.caltech.edu/ph229/notes/ chap7.pdf, lecture notes, Caltech PH229. Accessed: 2026-01-30

    2026

  64. [71]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Concatenated quantum codes, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9608012 (1996)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  65. [72]

    Horn and S

    D. Horn and S. Yankielowicz, Gauge and matter screen- ing in aZ(2) theory, Physics Letters B85, 347 (1979), hamiltonian Z2 gauge theory with site Ising matter in two spatial dimensions

    1979

  66. [73]

    D. Horn, Phase structure of theZ(2) gauge and mat- ter theory, Physics Reports67, 103 (1980), hamiltonian formulation with link Pauli gauge fields and site Pauli matter; discusses two and three spatial dimensions

    1980

  67. [74]

    Horn and E

    D. Horn and E. Katznelson, Variational approach to the Z(2) gauge theory, Physics Letters B91, 397 (1980), hamiltonian Z2 lattice gauge theory with matter fields

    1980

  68. [75]

    J. L. Banks and D. K. Sinclair, Hamiltonian calculations for theZ 2 lattice gauge theory with matter fields, Phys. Rev. D23, 2962 (1981)

    1981

  69. [76]

    Susskind, Lattice fermions, Phys

    L. Susskind, Lattice fermions, Phys. Rev. D16, 3031 (1977)

    1977

  70. [77]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. P. Wigner, About the Pauli exclusion principle, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  71. [78]

    Mildenberger, W

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Confinement in a Z2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer, Nature Physics21, 312–317 (2025)

    2025

  72. [79]

    Rains, Quantum shadow enumerators, IEEE Trans

    E. Rains, Quantum shadow enumerators, IEEE Trans. Info. Theor.45, 2361 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9611001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  73. [80]

    Laflamme, C

    R. Laflamme, C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, Perfect quantum error correcting code, Physical Review Letters77, 198 (1996)

    1996

  74. [81]

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction via codes over GF(4), IEEE Trans. Info. Theor.44, 1369 (1998), arXiv:quant- ph/9608006

    arXiv 1998

  75. [82]

    Dutta and P

    S. Dutta and P. P. Kurur, Quantum cyclic code (2010), arXiv:1007.1697 [cs.IT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  76. [83]

    Dutta and P

    S. Dutta and P. P. Kurur, Quantum cyclic code of length dividing p t+ 1, in2011 IEEE International Sympo- sium on Information Theory Proceedings(IEEE, 2011) pp. 648–652

    2011

  77. [84]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Topo- logical quantum memory, J. Math. Phys.43, 4452 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0110143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  78. [85]

    Poulin, Optimal and efficient decoding of concate- nated quantum block codes, Phys

    D. Poulin, Optimal and efficient decoding of concate- nated quantum block codes, Phys. Rev. A74, 052333 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0606126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  79. [86]

    P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation (1996) arXiv:quant-ph/9605011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  80. [87]

    D. P. DiVincenzo and P. W. Shor, Fault tolerant error correction with efficient quantum codes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3260 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9605031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

Showing first 80 references.