Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

A fractional quantum Hall factory on quantum processors: constant-depth preparation of clustered non-Abelian states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that clustered non-Abelian fractional quantum Hall states—the exotic ones—prepare at constant circuit depth while the common Abelian Laughlin state needs linear depth, demonstrated on up to 156 qubits.

desk verdict A real, large hardware-plus-theory paper whose constant-depth clustered-state construction holds up, but the advertised Laughlin linear-depth 'requirement' is not proven and the abstract overstates it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05140 v1 pith:VYZDQU5F submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Cheng Xu , Ching Hua Lee , Hong-Hao Tu , Yang Zhang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph PACS 73.43.-f73.43.Cd
keywords fractionalquantumHallstatesnon-AbeliananyonsRead–Rezayiconstant-depthcircuitspatternofzerosparentHamiltoniansthin-toruslimitsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the more exotic fractional quantum Hall states—the clustered non-Abelian ones—are fundamentally cheaper to prepare on a programmable quantum processor than the everyday Abelian Laughlin state. It shows this through a clustering dichotomy: clustered roots admit parallel circuits whose two-qubit depth stays constant as the system grows, while the Laughlin root forces a sequential chain whose depth grows linearly. The demonstration spans an 18-family catalog on up to 156 qubits, including a Read–Rezayi Z3 state at algorithmic depth 3 from 8 to 118 qubits and a full root sample of a 104-electron Read–Rezayi Z4 state at 154 qubits. If the claim holds, the usual intuition that exotic topological matter is harder to reach is inverted, and non-Abelian physics becomes accessible to scalable preparation and interferometric probing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pseudopotential parent Hamiltonian $H=\sum_M B_M^\dagger B_M$, built from each family's pattern-of-zeros polynomial $P_\lambda$, whose kernel is the target trial wavefunction and whose conserved $(N,K)$ quantum numbers provide error-heralding postselection. The certification is the kernel-counting identity: the number of $(k,r)$-admissible occupation strings (at most $k$ particles in any $r$ consecutive orbitals) must match the pattern-of-zeros count, verified at more than 70 flux and size points. The circuits are built from thin-torus root patterns plus local squeezing operators with closed-form amplitudes, e.g. $\tau_\ell=(-1)^\ell\binom{q}{\ell}e^{-\kappa^2\ell(q-\ell)}$ for the Laughlin series, so every preparation angle is analytic. The dichotomy enters through circuit structure: clustered roots factor into disjoint junction blocks that can be rotated in a single layer of flag gates and expanded in parallel, while the Laughlin roots share electrons between adjacent squeezes and compile to a chained recursion.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to compute the exact overlap between the constant-depth circuit output and the zero mode of $H=\sum_M B_M^\dagger B_M$ at circumferences beyond the verification window ($L_y \gtrsim 8$): if the overlap collapses while the root pattern is still recovered, the circuit is preparing only the root state, not the FQH representative. For the non-unitary families, exact diagonalization at larger sizes that finds a gap closing or extra zero modes in the Gaffnian or Haffnian parent would break the claimed adiabatic connection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes the clustering dichotomy as a structural principle of fractional quantum Hall trial-state preparation. Near the thin-torus limit, each state is generated from a root configuration by local squeezing operations; when the root clusters into disjoint blocks of k≥2 particles, the junction squeezes act on disjoint electrons and execute in parallel at constant depth, whereas the k=1 Laughlin root squeezes at every pair, so the flag rotations form a blocking chain and the depth grows with cell count. Concretely, the Read–Rezayi Z3 parafermion state is prepared at algorithmic two-qubit depth three from 8 to 118 qubits, full root sampling reaches a 154-qubit, 104-electron Read–Rezayi Z4 state, and the entire 18-family catalog fits on all 156 qubits of a superconducting processor. For the clustered states the e/4 and e/5 quasihole charges are exact in every symmetry-selected shot, and interferometric measurements of Moore–Read e/4 quasiholes recover flux slope 0.2500(17)/0.2503(12) against the exact 1/4 with fusion splitting near the Ising monodromy π.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the states prepared on hardware are the actual thin-torus representatives of their fractional quantum Hall phases: the parent Hamiltonian built from pattern-of-zeros data must have the target wavefunction as a unique zero mode, and the zero-mode manifold at the hardware circumferences must connect adiabatically to the isotropic fractional quantum Hall state; if that connection fails, especially for the non-unitary Gaffnian and Haffnian, the constant-depth circuits produce charge-density-wave-like root states instead of fractional quantum Hall states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The depth of a static preparation circuit is fixed by the factorization of the thin-torus root, not by the anyon statistics: the non-Abelian $\nu=1/4$ Pfaffian compiles to the same sequential chain as the Laughlin series because its parent includes a two-body channel that reintroduces squeezing at every pair.
  • Constant-depth preparation persists across the catalog to chip scale, including non-unitary boundary states such as the Gaffnian and Haffnian and multicomponent Abelian states, so a broad family of trial wavefunctions is now preparable at low logical depth.
  • For clustered states, fractional quasihole charge is a per-shot counting observable: every symmetry-selected shot returns exactly $e/4$ or $e/5$, bounding manifold-breaking weight below $1.5\times10^{-4}$ at 95% confidence.
  • The fixed thin-torus circuits outperform the variational route at the isotropic crossover on current hardware because representative bias is smaller than the noise penalty of deep circuits; adding one bond qubit at a time carries the construction toward the isotropic limit at cost linear in particle number.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable screening rule follows: any FQH trial state whose pattern-of-zeros root factorizes into disjoint cell-local junction blocks should admit a constant-depth static circuit, so the dichotomy could rank candidate states for preparability before a parent Hamiltonian is built.
  • If the adiabatic connection to the isotropic phase fails for the non-unitary Gaffnian and Haffnian, the depth result would still stand as a claim about thin-torus root states but would no longer be a claim about fractional quantum Hall phases; a numerical check of that connection at larger circumferences would settle which reading is right.
  • The per-shot exactness suggests symmetry-selected sampling can act as an error-heralding primitive for topological observables: shots that pass the zero-mode sector filters carry quantized observables exactly, turning estimators into counters.
  • On future lower-noise processors, the scaling bottleneck for clustered-state experiments is likely to shift from gate depth to readout retention, since retention rather than depth limits the largest registers in this work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a parent-Hamiltonian-to-circuit pipeline for preparing thin-torus representatives of fractional quantum Hall (FQH) trial states on IBM Heron quantum processors. The central claim is a 'clustering dichotomy': clustered states (Moore–Read, Read–Rezayi, Gaffnian, Haffnian, Halperin, and multicomponent families) admit parallel preparation circuits whose two-qubit depth is independent of system size, while Laughlin states are claimed to require sequential circuits with linearly growing depth. Hardware results include an 18-family catalog up to 156 qubits, exact-overlap checks in a diagonalization window, transfer-matrix fidelity estimates at larger sizes, fractional charge measurements at -e/3, -e/4, and -e/5, spectral flow, momentum polarization, and interferometric braiding data. The paper also reports closed-form squeezing amplitudes, a symmetry-selected postselection procedure, and a bond-dimension route toward the isotropic limit.

Significance. The constant-depth construction for clustered root patterns is a genuinely useful structural observation, and the paper supports it with exact overlaps, transfer-matrix contractions, closed-form amplitudes, and an unusually complete data-availability statement. If the thin-torus representatives are adiabatically connected to the corresponding isotropic FQH liquids, this is an important scaling result for quantum simulation of FQH physics. However, the advertised dichotomy overreaches as stated: the paper explicitly concedes that constant-depth preparation of the Laughlin thin-torus state is not excluded, so the abstract's 'requires a sequential circuit chain' is stronger than what is proven. In addition, the parent-Hamiltonian certification is an internal consistency check against the same pattern-of-zeros data, not an independent validation, and all hardware runs lie in the thin-torus regime; the FQH interpretation therefore rests on a stated but untested adiabatic-continuity assumption, especially for the non-unitary Gaffnian and Haffnian. These issues are correctable and do not undermine the core circuit-scaling construction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §I (Clustering criterion; §VI)] The statement that constructing the Laughlin state 'requires a sequential circuit chain with linear depth' is not established by the paper. The linear-depth demonstration applies only to the static thin-torus sequential recursion of Sec. II C, and the Introduction explicitly concedes: 'Constant depth is not excluded for the chained states in principle, since their thin-torus circuits are exact low-bond-dimension sequential matrix-product states, and measurement-assisted protocols for such states are a separate question beyond the scope of this work.' The no-go theorems cited in Sec. V (Refs. 75-76) constrain circuits local in the two-dimensional geometry in the thermodynamic limit, not quasi-1D thin-torus circuits, so they do not supply the missing lower bound. Because the 'clustering dichotomy' and the abstract's first sentence rest on this claimed linear-depth requirement, the wording should be revised to something like: 'within the static thin-torus unitary circuit family considered here, Laughlin preparation has linearly growing depth, while clustered states are prepared at constant depth; whether constant-depth alternatives exist for the Laughlin thin-torus state is open.'
  2. [§II A and Fig. 3] The parent Hamiltonians are constructed from each family's pattern-of-zeros data and then 'certified' by checking that the kernel dimension matches the (k,r)-admissibility count computed from the same pattern-of-zeros rule. This is a consistency check, not an independent certification of the state's FQH status. Since the paper states that all hardware implementations lie in the thin-torus regime (§V: 'All implementations reported here lie in the thin-torus regime') and the adiabatic connection from thin-torus representatives to isotropic FQH liquids is assumed rather than demonstrated, the 'certified' language in Fig. 3 and the workflow should be qualified. In particular, for the non-unitary Gaffnian and Haffnian the adiabatic continuity to a gapped isotropic phase is not guaranteed by the present data, so the manuscript should either provide independent small-size evidence for the FQH interpretation or explicitly state this as an assumption.
  3. [§III C and Table II] The per-shot exactness of the -e/4 and -e/5 charges is presented as a counting statement, but it is established only on symmetry-selected shots after (N,K) postselection. The paper correctly notes that the (N,K) sector contains configurations with many different charge drops, so the absence of non-quantized drops is evidence that the retained shots lie in the zero-mode manifold. However, the bound on manifold-breaking weight is inferred from the circuit's ideal exactness and the noise model rather than measured independently. The manuscript should state more explicitly that the per-shot exactness is conditional on the symmetry-filtered sample being representative of the ideal zero-mode ensemble, and should indicate what would falsify this interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(a) and §II E] The Haffnian is grouped with the constant-depth ladders although its plotted depth rises to 16 at larger sizes; the caption should clarify that the algorithmic depth is size-independent while the transpiled/routed depth reflects circuit anatomy and heavy-hex routing.
  2. [§II E] The phrase 'root recovered at every electron' is used repeatedly without a formal definition; please specify whether this means every root peak is present in the ensemble-averaged density or that the exact root pattern appears in individual postselected shots.
  3. [Table I] The chained families have no F(MPS) entry; a short note explaining why the transfer-matrix contraction is not reported for those rows would improve the table's self-containedness.
  4. [Abstract and §III D] The abstract says 'all 156 qubits of an IBM Heron processor,' while Table I shows that only Halperin 331 reaches 156 qubits; the body's phrasing 'catalog circuits reach all 156 qubits' is more precise and should be used consistently.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Parent Hamiltonians are built from pattern-of-zeros data and then certified against the same data, and the closed-form squeeze amplitudes are fitted to the kernel they are later verified against; the constant-depth dichotomy itself is structural and survives, so circularity is partial.

  1. self definitional [Fig. 3 (workflow) and Sec. II A (Parent Hamiltonians on the cylinder)]
    "Each family’s pattern-of-zeros data enters at the top box. We construct its parent Hamiltonian from that data and certify it back against the same data (kernel count against the (k, r)-admissibility count, thin-torus limit against the root pattern), and only the certified zero-mode kernel then supplies the circuit amplitudes, the acceptance certificates, the postselection quantum numbers, and the response protocols."

    The acceptance tests use the same data that defined the construction. The channel polynomials P_λ are 'literature input' from the pattern of zeros, and the kernel-count test is 'the number of (k, r)-admissible occupation strings ... computed from the (k, r) clustering rule alone,' i.e., from the same clustering rule that defines the family; the zero mode must also collapse onto the family's root pattern. The certification therefore checks that the implementation reproduces its own input rather than independently establishing that the kernel is an FQH state. Since the prepared state, circuit amplitudes, and postselection quantum numbers are all derived from this kernel, the paper's identification of the prepared state with a given FQH trial state inherits the same-data assumption.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II B (The operational role of the parent Hamiltonian)]
    "Every closed-form squeezing amplitude reported in this paper (for example the Laughlin τℓ of Eq. (2) and the 16-channel NASS junction multiplet) was obtained by fitting the few circuit parameters to this kernel and recognizing the analytic form. After recognition, the analytic amplitudes are substituted back into the parent-Hamiltonian constraints and verified to annihilate the state at all tested sizes."

    The target state that the circuit must prepare is the zero-mode kernel of H. The few circuit parameters are fitted to reproduce that kernel, and the 'verification' then checks annihilation under the same parent-Hamiltonian constraints that defined the kernel. This is a consistency check of a fit against its own fit target, not an independent derivation; presenting the recognized forms as 'closed-form squeezing amplitudes' and 'structural results' describes a fitted parameterization as a derivation. The circularity is partial because the constant-depth property depends only on which junction squeezes exist and whether they share electrons — a combinatorial property of the root pattern — not on the fitted amplitude values.

full rationale

This paper is unusually transparent about its own validation loop: Figure 3 states in so many words that the parent Hamiltonian is constructed from each family's pattern-of-zeros data and then certified against the same data (kernel count vs. the (k,r)-admissibility count, thin-torus limit vs. the root pattern). Since both the construction input (channel polynomials P_λ) and the acceptance criteria derive from the same pattern-of-zeros and root data, the 'certification' verifies that the implementation reproduces its own input; it does not independently establish that the kernel is an FQH state. The same loop also supplies the circuit amplitudes, so the closed-form squeeze angles are recognized from fits to the kernel and then re-checked against the constraints that defined the kernel — a consistency check, not an independent derivation. These two loops are acknowledged in the text and are the basis for the partial circularity finding. They are not, however, the source of the paper's central scaling claim: the constant-vs-linear depth dichotomy follows from whether junction squeeze blocks share electrons (a combinatorial property of the root pattern, argued in Sec. I and Fig. 2), independent of the fitted amplitude values, and the hardware runs (root recovery, retention ladders, charge counts) are real empirical evidence. The per-shot exact e/3, e/4, and e/5 charge claims are also informative rather than tautological, because the (N,K) sectors admit many charge-drop values and only a small fraction of sector configurations carry the target value, so per-shot exactness certifies kernel membership. Self-citations in the bibliography (Refs. 8, 12, 19, 23, 25-27, 33, 57, 59, 70 include co-author work) are not load-bearing: the dichotomy rests on literature root-pattern and squeezing results (Refs. 44-47, 61-62), and the no-go theorems cited for the isotropic limit are external (Refs. 75-76, 79). One non-circular overclaim should be noted: the abstract's statement that the Laughlin state 'requires a sequential circuit chain with linear depth' goes beyond what is shown, since Sec. VI concedes 'Constant depth is not excluded for the chained states in principle'; the demonstrated result is linear depth for this paper's static-unitary circuit family only. That is a scope overclaim and a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling result rests on standard pseudopotential and thin-torus assumptions; the amplitude values are fitted to the exact kernel, and the circuit-depth dichotomy is a structural consequence of root clustering.

free parameters (3)
  • Junction squeezing amplitudes per family = Closed forms, e.g. Eq. (2): tau_l = (-1)^l C(q,l) exp(-kappa^2 l(q-l)); tau_MR = -2 exp(-2 kappa^2)
    Sec. II C reports these were obtained by fitting the few circuit parameters to the exact kernel and recognizing the analytic form, so the values are fit-derived rather than independently derived.
  • Pseudopotential admixture and Gaussian-width conventions = Not tabulated; fixed per family
    Sec. II A mentions residual convention choices (Gaussian width of channel weights at given L_y, pseudopotential admixture coefficients) fixed through zero-energy benchmarks; these affect the prepared kernel states.
  • Hamiltonian variational circuit parameters = Five parameters
    Sec. V uses a five-parameter Hamiltonian variational circuit for the isotropic Laughlin route; not central to the constant-depth claim but part of the route to the isotropic point.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pseudopotential parent Hamiltonian of the form H = sum_M B_M^dagger B_M, with pattern-of-zeros polynomials P_lambda, has the target FQH state as an exact zero mode.
    Sec. II A constructs H from literature pattern-of-zeros data; this is standard pseudopotential theory and is the foundation for the entire catalog.
  • domain assumption In the thin-torus limit the zero mode collapses to a root pattern and is generated from it by local squeezing operations.
    Sec. II C and the cited thin-torus literature; this root/squeezing picture underlies the circuit construction and the clustering dichotomy.
  • domain assumption The kernel-counting identity: the dimension of the zero-mode space of the constructed parent equals the number of (k,r)-admissible occupation strings from pattern-of-zeros data.
    Sec. II A uses this as the most discriminating acceptance test; it is taken from the counting rules of FQH trial states and is not independently derived in this work.
  • domain assumption Heavy-hex lattice routing and the CX/R_y gate set can implement the flag-rotation and CX-expansion circuit without changing its algorithmic depth up to known routing overhead.
    Sec. II E; the constant-depth claims refer to algorithmic depth after transpilation, with heavy-hex routing limiting chip-scale depth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A fractional quantum Hall factory on quantum processors: constant-depth preparation of clustered non-Abelian states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VYZDQU5F

@misc{pith2026260805140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A fractional quantum Hall factory on quantum processors: constant-depth preparation of clustered non-Abelian states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VYZDQU5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05140}
}
abstract

Non-Abelian anyons arise as exotic excitations in fractional quantum Hall (FQH) matter and have proved very elusive to realize in conventional platforms. In this work, we show that on a programmable quantum hardware platform, the more exotic FQH excitations are the less costly ones to prepare: clustered non-Abelian FQH states admit parallel quantum preparation circuits whose two-qubit depth is independent of system size, while constructing the more common Abelian Laughlin state requires a sequential circuit chain with linear depth. The centerpiece of this work is our new systematic framework for cataloging possible FQH states and preparing them on quantum circuits at unprecedented scale and variety. Our prepared parafermionic Read--Rezayi $\mathbb{Z}_3$ state holds depth 3 from 8 to 118 qubits, and full root sampling extends to a 154-qubit, 104-electron Read--Rezayi $\mathbb{Z}_4$ state. In all, our demonstrated 18-family catalog of prepared FQH states extends to all 156 qubits of an IBM Heron processor, limited only by existing hardware scale. Measurements on the prepared states recover the expected fractional quasihole charges, with the charge estimator exact in every symmetry-selected shot for the clustered states, and braiding data of the non-Abelian $e/4$ quasihole measured via interferometric extensions. Our work establishes a scalable route to studying FQH physics on quantum processors and opens new avenues for preparing and probing non-Abelian topological matter far beyond the reach of conventional platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05140 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The clustering dichotomy (linear vs. constant circuit depth) for state preparation across our FQH catalog. (a) Routed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. How the 2-qubit gate depth scales depends cru [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Workflow of our FQH state construction and mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Transpiled two-qubit cost against qubit count across the catalog. Filled markers are the exact-verification window, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the fixed-depth Ly sweep of the ν = 1/3 state in the thin-torus limit, exactly prepared by our 6 8 10 Ly 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Ostr (nn block avg) (a) exact GS (ED) circuit target (TT) ibm_fez, (N,K) PS 6 8 10 Ly −0.10 −0.08 −0.06 −0.04 −0.02 min d C(d) (b) 0 5 10 15 o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measured Moore–Read domain walls on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The six catalog-extension FQH ladders flown and realized on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Catalog verification of the spinful-boson FQH families on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Measured topological responses of the prepared states. (a) Charge-pump spectral flow of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Chiral momentum polarization, re-analyzed from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. St¨ ormer, and A. C. Gossard, Two- dimensional magnetotransport in the extreme quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1559 (1982)

    1982

  2. [2]

    R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous quantum Hall effect: An in- compressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged ex- citations, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  3. [3]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Fractional quantization of the Hall ef- fect: A hierarchy of incompressible quantum fluid states, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 605 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    S. A. Trugman and S. Kivelson, Exact results for the fractional quantum Hall effect with general interactions, Phys. Rev. B31, 5280 (1985)

    1985

  5. [5]

    S. M. Girvin and A. H. MacDonald, Off-diagonal long- range order, oblique confinement, and the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1252 (1987)

    work page 1987

  6. [6]

    J. E. Avron, R. Seiler, and P. G. Zograf, Viscosity of quantum Hall fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 697 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Read, Non-Abelian adiabatic statistics and Hall vis- cosity in quantum Hall states andp x +ip y paired super- fluids, Phys

    N. Read, Non-Abelian adiabatic statistics and Hall vis- cosity in quantum Hall states andp x +ip y paired super- fluids, Phys. Rev. B79, 045308 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Yang, Z.-X

    B. Yang, Z.-X. Hu, C. H. Lee, and Z. Papi´ c, Generalized pseudopotentials for the anisotropic fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 146403 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Read, Nonabelions in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Nucl. Phys. B360, 362 (1991)

    1991

  2. [10]

    Wen, Non-Abelian statistics in the fractional quan- tum Hall states, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Non-Abelian statistics in the fractional quan- tum Hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 802 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

    Read and E

    N. Read and E. Rezayi, Beyond paired quantum Hall states: Parafermions and incompressible states in the first excited Landau level, Phys. Rev. B59, 8084 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, T. Tai, J. M. Koh, P. Ghaemi, and C. H. Lee, Simulating condensed matter physics on quan- tum hardware, arXiv:2606.02721 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Smith, M

    A. Smith, M. S. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Simu- lating quantum many-body dynamics on a current digital quantum computer, npj Quantum Inf.5, 106 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    W. Gou, T. Chen, D. Xie, T. Xiao, T.-S. Deng, B. Gad- way, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Tunable nonreciprocal quantum transport through a dissipative Aharonov-Bohm ring in 18 ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 070402 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    J. M. Koh, T. Tai, and C. H. Lee, Simulation of interaction-induced chiral topological dynamics on a dig- ital quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 140502 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    S5 of the Appendix [55])

    The 122-qubit register completes clean on a screened ibm aachenrelayout, all 42 electrons recovered on 2 685 postselected shots at roughly 19-fold higher retention, the same broken-readout cure (Sec. S5 of the Appendix [55]). Transpiling every register from scratch makes each ...

  9. [17]

    Frey and S

    P. Frey and S. Rachel, Realization of a discrete time crys- tal on 57 qubits of a quantum computer, Sci. Adv.8, eabm7652 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Chertkov, Z

    E. Chertkov, Z. Cheng, A. C. Potter, S. Gopalakrishnan, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, M. Matheny, T. Mengle, D. Hayes, B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, and M. Foss-Feig, Character- izing a non-equilibrium phase transition on a quantum computer...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Kirmani, K

    A. Kirmani, K. Bull, C.-Y. Hou, V. Saravanan, S. M. Saeed, Z. Papi´ c, A. Rahmani, and P. Ghaemi, Probing geometric excitations of fractional quantum Hall states on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 056801 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Y.-J. Liu, K. Shtengel, and F. Pollmann, Simulating two-dimensional topological quantum phase transitions on a digital quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Research6, 043256 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Y. Yang, A. Christianen, S. Coll-Vinent, V. Smelyanskiy, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, T. E. O’Brien, D. S. Wild, and J. I. Cirac, Simulating prethermalization using near-term quantum computers, PRX Quantum4, 030320 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    T. Chen, R. Shen, C. H. Lee, and B. Yang, High-fidelity realization of the AKLT state on a NISQ-era quantum processor, SciPost Phys.15, 170 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, B. Yang, and C. H. Lee, Observation of the non-Hermitian skin effect and Fermi skin on a digital quantum computer, Nat. Commun.16, 1340 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Every root peak is re- covered at every size, with a root-family weight of 0.95 at 142 qubits

    at retention 0.873 to 0.0148. Every root peak is re- covered at every size, with a root-family weight of 0.95 at 142 qubits. A 154-qubit register at routed depth 13 recovers all 52 peaks on 276 postselected shots pooled across two preparations. 13 ↑ ↑ , ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ , ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ , ↑ ↓...

  17. [25]

    Iqbalet al., Non-Abelian topological order and anyons on a trapped-ion processor, Nature626, 505 (2024)

    M. Iqbalet al., Non-Abelian topological order and anyons on a trapped-ion processor, Nature626, 505 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    J. M. Koh, W.-T. Xue, T. Tai, D. E. Koh, and C. H. Lee, Interacting non-Hermitian edge and cluster bursts on a digital quantum processor, arXiv:2503.14595 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Koukoutsis, P

    E. Koukoutsis, P. Papagiannis, K. Hizanidis, A. K. Ram, G. Vahala, O. Amaro, L. I. I. Gamiz, and D. Vallis, Quantum implementation of non-unitary operations with biorthogonal representations, Quantum Inf. Comput.25, 141 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    J. M. Koh, T. Tai, and C. H. Lee, Realization of higher- order topological lattices on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun.15, 5807 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Shen and C

    R. Shen and C. H. Lee, Observation of feedback-directed quantum dynamics in large-scale quantum processors, arXiv:2604.11900 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, B. Yang, Y. Zhong, and C. H. Lee, Robust simulations of many-body symmetry-protected topological phase transitions on a quantum processor, npj Quantum Inf.11, 179 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Carrasquilla, and Y. B. Kim, Observation of a non-Hermitian supersonic mode on a trapped-ion quantum computer, Nat. Commun.16, 3286 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    von Klitzing, T

    K. von Klitzing, T. Chakraborty, P. Kim, V. Madhavan, X. Dai, J. McIver, Y. Tokura, L. Savary, D. Smirnova, A. M. Rey, C. Felser, J. Gooth, and X. Qi, 40 years of the quantum Hall effect, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 397 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    T. Chen, R. Shen, C. H. Lee, B. Yang, and R. W. Bo- mantara, A robust large-period discrete time crystal and its signature in a digital quantum computer, Quantum Sci. Technol.11, 025030 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    Jiang, J

    T. Jiang, J. Cai, J. Huang, N. Zhou, Y. Zhang, J. Bei, G. Cai, S. Cao, F. Chen, J. Chen,et al., One- and two- dimensional cluster states for topological phase simula- tion and measurement-based quantum computation, Nat. Phys.22, 430 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    L´ eonard, S

    J. L´ eonard, 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, Nature619, 495 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    C. H. Lee, W. W. Ho, B. Yang, J. Gong, and Z. Papi´ c, Floquet mechanism for non-Abelian fractional quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 237401 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Y. Kim, A. C. Balram, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. K. Jain, and J. H. Smet, Even denominator fractional quan- tum Hall states in higher Landau levels of graphene, Nat. Phys.15, 154 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    C. Xu, N. Mao, T. Zeng, and Y. Zhang, Multiple Chern bands in twisted MoTe2 and possible non-Abelian states, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 066601 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Wang, F.-M

    C. Wang, F.-M. Liu, M.-C. Chen, H. Chen, X.-H. Zhao, C. Ying, Z.-X. Shang, J.-W. Wang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Realization of fractional quantum Hall state with interacting photons, Science384, 579 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Hu, Y.-C

    Y. Hu, Y.-C. Tsui, M. He, U. Kamber, T. Wang, A. S. Mohammadi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Papi´ c, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, High-resolution tunnelling spec- troscopy of fractional quantum Hall states, Nat. Phys. 21, 716 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Chen, W.-W

    F. Chen, W.-W. Luo, W. Zhu, and D. N. Sheng, Robust non-Abelian even-denominator fractional Chern insula- tor in twisted bilayer MoTe 2, Nat. Commun.16, 2115 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    C.-E. Ahn, W. Lee, K. Yananose, Y. Kim, and G. Y. Cho, Non-Abelian fractional quantum anomalous Hall states and first Landau level physics of the second moir´ e band of twisted bilayer MoTe 2, Phys. Rev. B110, L161109 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    A. P. Reddy, N. Paul, A. Abouelkomsan, and L. Fu, Non- Abelian fractionalization in topological minibands, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 166503 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Seidel, H

    A. Seidel, H. Fu, D.-H. Lee, J. M. Leinaas, and J. Moore, Incompressible quantum liquids and new conservation laws, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 266405 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Wang, X.-W

    C. Wang, X.-W. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Wang, T. Cao, and D. Xiao, Higher Landau-level analogs and signatures of non-Abelian states in twisted bilayer MoTe 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 076503 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Lee and J

    D.-H. Lee and J. M. Leinaas, Mott insulators without symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 096401 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Rahmani, K

    A. Rahmani, K. J. Sung, H. Putterman, P. Roushan, P. Ghaemi, and Z. Jiang, Creating and manipulating a Laughlin-typeν= 1/3 fractional quantum Hall state on a quantum computer with linear depth circuits, PRX Quantum1, 020309 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    E. J. Bergholtz and A. Karlhede, Quantum Hall system in Tao-Thouless limit, Phys. Rev. B77, 155308 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    C. H. Lee, Z. Papi´ c, and R. Thomale, Geometric con- struction of quantum Hall clustering Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. X5, 041003 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    L. Shen, M. Lin, C. Y.-Y. Lin, D. Xiao, and T. Cao, Realization of fermionic Laughlin state on a quantum processor, Nat. Commun.17, 4919 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Kirmani, D

    A. Kirmani, D. S. Wang, P. Ghaemi, and A. Rahmani, Braiding fractional quantum Hall quasiholes on a su- perconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. B108, 064303 (2023). 19

    2023

  44. [52]

    Kirmani, A

    A. Kirmani, A. A. Allocca, J.-X. Zhu, A. Rahmani, S. Ganeshan, and P. Ghaemi, Measuring the Hall viscos- ity of the Laughlin state on noisy quantum computers, arXiv:2512.09982 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Xuet al., Non-Abelian braiding of Fibonacci anyons with a superconducting processor, Nat

    S. Xuet al., Non-Abelian braiding of Fibonacci anyons with a superconducting processor, Nat. Phys.20, 1469 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Wu, L.-Y.-N

    H. Wu, L.-Y.-N. Liu, Z.-X. Pei, Y.-X. Zhai, Z.-X. Luo, Z. Liu, and J. Cui, Preparation of fractional quantum Hall states on quantum computers, arXiv:2606.16548 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    T. I. Andersenet al., Non-Abelian braiding of graph ver- tices in a superconducting processor, Nature618, 264 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    S. H. Simon, E. H. Rezayi, and N. R. Cooper, Pseudopo- tentials for multiparticle interactions in the quantum Hall regime, Phys. Rev. B75, 195306 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    C. F. B. Lo, A. Lyons, D. Gresh, M. Mills, P. E. Siegfried, M. D. Urmey, N. Tantivasadakarn, H. Dreyer, A. Vish- wanath, R. Verresen, and M. Iqbal, Universal gates from braiding and fusing anyons on quantum hardware, Na- ture655, 591 (2026)

    2026

  50. [58]

    See the Appendix for the thin-torus conventions, the parent-Hamiltonian acceptance tests, the squeezing- amplitude closed forms and clustering dichotomy, the cir- cuit construction and per-family costs, the decoding and error-budget methodology, the response protocols, and the...

  51. [59]

    C. H. Lee and X.-L. Qi, Lattice construction of pseu- dopotential Hamiltonians for fractional Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B90, 085103 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    C. H. Lee, R. Thomale, and X.-L. Qi, Pseudopotential formalism for fractional Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B 88, 035101 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    S. C. Davenport and S. H. Simon, Multiparticle pseu- dopotentials for multicomponent quantum Hall systems, Phys. Rev. B85, 075430 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Ardonne, E

    E. Ardonne, E. J. Bergholtz, J. Kailasvuori, and E. Wik- berg, Degeneracy of non-Abelian quantum Hall states on the torus: domain walls and conformal field theory, J. Stat. Mech. , P04016 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Seiringer and J

    R. Seiringer and J. Yngvason, Emergence of Haldane pseudo-potentials in systems with short-range interac- tions, J. Stat. Phys.181, 448 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. Kailasvuori, E. Wikberg, T. H. Hans- son, and A. Karlhede, Pfaffian quantum Hall state made simple: Multiple vacua and domain walls on a thin torus, Phys. Rev. B74, 081308 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    S. H. Simon, E. H. Rezayi, N. R. Cooper, and I. Berd- nikov, Construction of a paired wave function for spinless electrons at filling fractionν= 2/5, Phys. Rev. B75, 075317 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    Tao and D

    R. Tao and D. J. Thouless, Fractional quantization of Hall conductance, Phys. Rev. B28, 1142 (1983)

    1983

  59. [67]

    Greiter, X

    M. Greiter, X. G. Wen, and F. Wilczek, Paired Hall states, Nucl. Phys. B374, 567 (1992)

    1992

  60. [68]

    Ardonne and K

    E. Ardonne and K. Schoutens, New class of non-Abelian spin-singlet quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 5096 (1999)

    1999

  61. [69]

    B. I. Halperin, Theory of the quantized Hall conductance, Helv. Phys. Acta56, 75 (1983)

    1983

  62. [70]

    Seidel and K

    A. Seidel and K. Yang, Halperin (m, m′, n) bilayer quan- tum Hall states on thin cylinders, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 036804 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    B. A. Bernevig and F. D. M. Haldane, Model fractional quantum Hall states and Jack polynomials, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 246802 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    Wen and Z

    X.-G. Wen and Z. Wang, Classification of symmetric polynomials of infinite variables: Construction of Abelian and non-Abelian quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. B77, 235108 (2008)

    2008

  65. [73]

    Zhang, E

    Y. Zhang, E. H. Rezayi, and K. Yang, Existence of strong-pairing quantum Hall phase in bilayer cold atom systems with dipolar interactions, Phys. Rev. B90, 165102 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, and F. Pollmann, Topolog- ical characterization of fractional quantum Hall ground states from microscopic Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 236801 (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    E. H. Rezayi and F. D. M. Haldane, Laughlin state on stretched and squeezed cylinders and edge excitations in the quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B50, 17199 (1994)

    1994

  68. [76]

    H.-H. Tu, Y. Zhang, and X.-L. Qi, Momentum polariza- tion: An entanglement measure of topological spin and chiral central charge, Phys. Rev. B88, 195412 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    T. B. Wahl, H.-H. Tu, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Pro- jected entangled-pair states can describe chiral topologi- cal states, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 236805 (2013)

    2013

  70. [78]

    Li, T.-C

    X. Li, T.-C. Lin, J. McGreevy, and B. Shi, Strict area law entanglement versus chirality, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 180402 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    R. Fan, Y. Wu, Y. Bao, and Z. Dai, No-go theorems for sequential preparation of two-dimensional chiral states via channel-state correspondence, arXiv:2511.19612 (2025)

    2025

  72. [80]

    Stern and B

    A. Stern and B. I. Halperin, Proposed experiments to probe the non-Abelianν= 5/2 quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 016802 (2006)

    2006

  73. [81]

    Dubail and N

    J. Dubail and N. Read, Tensor network trial states for chiral topological phases in two dimensions and a no- go theorem in any dimension, Phys. Rev. B92, 205307 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    M. P. Zaletel and R. S. K. Mong, Exact matrix product states for quantum Hall wave functions, Phys. Rev. B86, 245305 (2012)

    2012

  75. [84]

    Bonderson, A

    P. Bonderson, A. Kitaev, and K. Shtengel, Detecting non- Abelian statistics in theν= 5/2 fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 016803 (2006)

    2006

  76. [480]

    The bosonic ladder runs from 9 to 141 qubits (N= 1 to 12) at a flat depth of 52 to 68 while the CZ count grows from 71 to 971

    It stays clean to the full chip: every per-color root peak is recovered at every size, the root-family weight falling only from 1.00 to 0.87 at 141 qubits and retention from 0.596 to 0.0023. The bosonic ladder runs from 9 to 141 qubits (N= 1 to 12) at a flat depth of 52 to 68 ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.