Quantum Frontiers in High Energy Physics

Bin Xu; Chen Zhou; Christina Gao; Hongxi Xing; Jing Shu; Lailin Xu; Yaquan Fang; Ying-Ying Li; Yusheng Wu

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 8 cited by

Quantum Frontiers in High Energy Physics

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum tech takes on dark matter, strong force, and collider data

desk verdict This is a solid, honest review of quantum technology applications across HEP, with the main soft spot being an overstated polynomial-time simulation claim; it deserves referee time as a review article. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11294 v2 pith:3K7UWU4T submitted 2024-11-18 hep-ph hep-exhep-latquant-ph

Yaquan Fang , Christina Gao , Ying-Ying Li , Jing Shu , Yusheng Wu , Hongxi Xing , Bin Xu , Lailin Xu

show 1 more author

Chen Zhou

This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-latquant-ph

keywords quantumsensingdarkmatterdetectionlatticegaugetheorysimulationmachinelearningentanglementBellinequalitytopquarkpairs

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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 review argues that quantum information science is becoming a working partner for high-energy physics in four distinct ways: quantum sensors can reach the faint signals predicted for ultralight dark matter and high-frequency gravitational waves; quantum computers promise first-principles simulation of real-time non-perturbative dynamics with resources that grow polynomially rather than exponentially; quantum machine learning is beginning to match or beat classical methods on collider reconstruction and anomaly detection; and quantum entanglement and Bell-inequality tests at colliders offer new observables for probing the Standard Model and searching for new physics. The most concrete anchor for the last claim is the recent observation of spin entanglement in top-quark pairs produced near threshold, with the marker $D=-0.547\pm0.002\text{(stat)}\pm0.021\text{(syst)}$ clearly below the entanglement limit $D<-1/3$. If these directions mature, the payoff is a new set of tools for the field's open problems: dark matter, the strong-coupling behaviour of QCD, the early universe, and the quantum structure of particle production.

What carries the argument

The review's four arms share the quantum information toolkit. For sensing, the machinery includes resonant cavities, superconducting qubits, squeezed and entangled states that push past the standard quantum limit; the key scaling identity is that $M$ entangled sensors in a distributed quantum sensing network give a scan-rate enhancement of order $M^2$ for haloscope dark-matter searches. For simulation, the machinery is Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory in the standard lattice Hamiltonian form, with digitized field degrees of freedom mapped to qubits and evolved by quantum algorithms whose cost is polynomial in system size. For machine learning, the machinery includes variational quantum circuits, quantum kernels, and quantum autoencoders applied to high-energy physics data. For collider physics, the central object is the two-qubit spin density matrix of $t\bar t$ production, whose concurrence $C[\rho]=\max[-1-3D,0]/2$ is extracted from the lepton angular distribution; the observable $D$ carries the entanglement test through the criterion $D<-1/3$, with Bell-inequality operators as the next step toward non-locality.

What would settle it

The quantum-simulation claim would be falsified by a concrete demonstration that extrapolation to the continuum limit fails: for instance, if a 1+1D lattice gauge theory simulation prepared by the scalable variational algorithm disagreed with classical matrix-product-state results for a low-energy observable such as the chiral condensate beyond assigned errors as the lattice size is increased toward the infinite-volume limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that quantum technology, developed largely outside particle physics, can be redirected into a coherent programme for high-energy physics' central open questions. It asserts that quantum sensors can detect beyond-Standard-Model signals such as wave-like dark matter and high-frequency gravitational waves; that quantum computing offers a polynomial-time path to first-principles real-time non-perturbative dynamics, bypassing the sign problem that blocks classical lattice methods; that quantum machine learning can improve data analysis in reconstruction and anomaly detection; and that collider experiments can use quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violations as new observables. The load-bearing result is the experimental observation of top-quark spin entanglement in $t\bar t$ production, reported as $D=-0.547\pm0.002\text{(stat)}\pm0.021\text{(syst)}$, below the $D<-1/3$ entanglement witness, establishing quantum mechanics at the hundred-GeV scale.

Load-bearing premise

The transformative computing claims rest entirely on the arrival of scalable fault-tolerant quantum computers with error rates below fault-tolerance thresholds, plus the unproven extension of current digitization and state-preparation methods to the continuum and infinite-volume limits; without that, the promised polynomial-time first-principles simulations do not materialize, though the sensing and collider-test parts stand independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Dark matter searches: haloscope scan rates can scale quadratically with the number of entangled cavity sensors, and single-photon detectors can push sensitivity below the standard quantum limit.
Quantum simulation: first-principles real-time evolution of gauge theories, including scattering, thermalization, and hadron structure, becomes possible in polynomial time on fault-tolerant hardware, where classical methods suffer the sign problem.
Quantum machine learning: quantum-assisted jet clustering, track reconstruction, and anomaly detection can reach performance comparable to or better than classical machine learning, with the strong claim that entanglement is the source of some observed advantages.
Collider quantum tests: entanglement and Bell-inequality observables measured from final-state spins can serve as new search dimensions for beyond-Standard-Model physics, with expected five-sigma sensitivities for several processes at existing and future colliders.
Quantum mechanics at high energy: the observation of top-quark entanglement establishes that quantum correlations persist at the hundred-GeV scale, opening a new experimental window on the quantum nature of fundamental interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next test, not developed in the review, would be to apply the same kinematic tomography approach to tau-lepton pairs and diboson final states in existing collider data, where the expected Bell-inequality sensitivity is high; success would extend non-locality claims beyond top quarks.
The quantum-simulation promise depends on the unproven assumption that digitization and finite-volume errors can be controlled in the continuum limit; a rigorous error analysis for non-Abelian gauge theories beyond 1+1D would determine whether the polynomial-time claim survives.
If quantum machine learning advantages do arise from entanglement, then classical surrogates that mimic the circuit structure without entanglement should fail to reproduce the observed anomaly-detection gains; that comparison is a cheap falsifiable prediction.
The same $D$ observable could be promoted into a beyond-Standard-Model search variable: anomalous top-quark pair production near threshold would shift $D$ away from its Standard Model value, so precision entanglement measurements double as new-physics probes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Bottom line: this is a review paper, and a competent one. Don't expect new results; that's not what it's for. What it does well is organize a huge literature across four frontiers — sensing, simulation, QML, and collider tests of quantum correlations — and it does so with unusually honest coverage of limitations. The entanglement and Bell formalism in Sec. V is standard and clearly presented, and the reporting of the ATLAS and CMS top-quark entanglement measurements, including the numeric value D = -0.547 +/- 0.002 +/- 0.021, is faithful to the primary sources. The discussion of digitization methods in Sec. III explicitly concedes that we cannot yet compare them, and it notes the underdeveloped status of continuum extrapolations. That is a real credit.

The main soft spot is real but localized. The sentence in Sec. III that quantum computing "offers advantages for performing first-principles calculations of these dynamics in polynomial time" is load-bearing for the review's transformative narrative, and it is stronger than the cited literature supports. Lloyd's theorem applies to local Hamiltonians with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces; extending to continuum non-Abelian gauge theories requires controlling digitization error, state preparation, and extrapolation all at once. Notably, the paper itself later acknowledges exactly these obstacles — exponential scaling for non-Abelian gauge-invariant digitizations, no polynomial lower bound for state preparation. So this is an overstatement within a generally careful review; the authors should hedge that sentence or cite an end-to-end resource estimate. It's not a fatal flaw, but it is precisely the kind of sentence a reader will quote.

Other soft spots are minor. The QML sections report several small-scale NISQ demonstrations where "quantum advantage" is claimed based on limited qubits and simulators; the review does note that these are early and that clear advantage remains unproven, but it could press this point harder. The phenomenological sensitivity table in Sec. V compiles many projections of varying rigor without much critical weighting. Neither undermines the review's value.

This paper is for readers who want a quick, well-referenced map of the field, including graduate students and researchers entering HEP-QIS. It is not a research contribution but it deserves serious referee time; the main fix is one sentence of hedging in Sec. III and maybe a tightened summary of QML claims. I'd send it to review and accept after a light revision.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of the interfaces between quantum information science and high-energy physics. After a short introduction, it surveys four areas: quantum sensing applied to dark matter searches, spacetime-symmetry tests, and gravitational wave detection (Sec. II); quantum simulation of non-perturbative real-time dynamics, covering digitization of lattice gauge theories, state preparation, and NISQ-era benchmarks (Sec. III); quantum machine learning for collider data analysis, including object reconstruction, generative models, classification, and anomaly detection (Sec. IV); and the use of quantum entanglement and Bell inequalities as collider observables, including the full qubit/qutrit formalism, a table of phenomenological projections, and the recent ATLAS and CMS top-quark entanglement measurements (Sec. V). The concluding section lists open problems and future directions. The review's central assertion is that quantum sensors, quantum computers, quantum machine learning, and quantum-correlation observables each have a substantial role to play in meeting major HEP challenges, and it supports this assertion mostly by attribution to the primary literature and to published experimental results.

Significance. The paper is a competent and broad survey that is likely to be a useful entry point for researchers entering this interdisciplinary area. Its strengths are concrete: the entanglement and Bell-inequality formalism in Sec. V is standard and internally consistent, and I checked that the qubit and qutrit concurrence-bound formulas (Eqs. (4), (11), and (14)) agree with the Mintert-Buchleitner construction given in Eq. (4); experimental anchors such as the ATLAS measurement D = −0.547 ± 0.002 (stat) ± 0.021 (syst) and the CMS 5.1 (4.7) σ observation are reported with uncertainties and correctly attributed; hardware demonstrations (the Quafu/Baiwang SU(2) one-link gate with ~40% fidelity, the 112-qubit Schwinger-model hadron-dynamics simulation, the ibm_brisbane chiral-condensate check) ground the discussion in reproducible studies; and the authors explicitly flag open problems in Sec. III (comparison of digitization methods, continuum extrapolation, non-Abelian error scaling). The review is appropriately cautious in the sensing, QML, and collider sections, where forward-looking statements are presented as potential rather than established.

major comments (1)

[Sec. III, opening paragraph (and parallel phrasing in Sec. I)] The sentence 'By efficiently exploring vast Hilbert spaces and simulating local Hamiltonians [153], quantum computing offers advantages for performing first-principles calculations of these dynamics in polynomial time' is stronger than the cited support. Lloyd's theorem [153] guarantees polynomial resources for local Hamiltonians with a fixed finite-dimensional Hilbert space per site; it does not, by itself, cover the continuum, infinite-volume, gauge-invariant QFT dynamics that the review's first paragraph names as the target. The gap is conceded within the manuscript itself: the Digitization subsection states that 'the persistence of exponential scaling remains a challenge for non-Abelian gauge theories' and that 'we have yet to reach a stage where it becomes feasible to comprehensively compare various digitization methods'; the Continuous limits subsection states that efforts in 'extrapolating to the continuous spacetime limit and understanding the systematic uncertainties from finite volume in real-time dynamics remain underdeveloped'; and the State Preparation subsection notes that adiabatic preparation 'strains the resources of present-day quantum hardware' and relies on a spectral gap for which no polynomial lower bound is known in QCD. As written, the polynomial-time claim is a conjecture for the non-Abelian theories of primary HEP interest rather than an established result. I recommend qualifying the sentence (for example, by stating polynomial scaling for a fixed finite-dimensional lattice truncation, with continuum and infinite-volume extrapolation still open) at the point of the claim, and either citing the end-to-end resource estimates already discussed ([183, 242, 243, 244]) or JLP's continuum-limit analysis [164] in support; the parallel statement in Sec. I ('solving complex problems in polynomial time') should be softened to match.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. IV, first paragraph] The phrase 'see a live reviewed in [312]' should read 'see a live review in [312]' (or 'a living review'); the cited reference is titled 'A Living Review of Machine Learning for Particle Physics'.
[Table III, tau-lepton row] 'Expected to observe both QE and BI violation at 5 σ with exiting Belle II data' should be 'with existing Belle II data'.
[Sec. II, gravitational wave paragraph] The phrase 'the SQL limit' is redundant, since SQL stands for Standard Quantum Limit; 'below the SQL' would suffice. The same redundancy appears later in the same subsection ('beyond the SQL... surpass this limit').
[Sec. IV, closing paragraph of QML overview] 'to reduce the effects of quantum noises' should be 'quantum noise'; also in Sec. III, 'the noise in quantum operations caused by the limited qubit coherence time and gate fidelities' is slightly awkward and could be rephrased.
[Sec. III, benchmark studies] In the sentence describing the inverse group-element gate, 'U−1 requiring four swap gates, is transpiled' needs a comma after 'U−1' for readability.
[Sec. II, section heading] The heading 'T ests of spacetime symmetries' contains a stray space (if present in the compiled manuscript) and should be 'Tests of spacetime symmetries'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the review's central claims rest on external theorems and experimental results, not on self-referential inputs.

full rationale

This is a review article rather than a derivation paper. The load-bearing claims are supported by independent, externally checkable sources: the polynomial-time simulation statement in Sec. III cites Lloyd's theorem [153], the continuum-limit analysis cites Jordan-Lee-Preskill [164], and the top-quark entanglement result cites the ATLAS measurement [402]. None of these is defined in terms of the paper's own conclusions, and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The paper repeatedly and explicitly flags open problems, e.g., 'we have yet to reach a stage where it becomes feasible to comprehensively compare various digitization methods' (Sec. III, Digitization) and 'Efforts in extrapolating to the continuous spacetime limit and understanding the systematic uncertainties from finite volume in real-time dynamics remain underdeveloped' (Sec. III, Continuous limits). Those admissions weaken the strength of the simulation claims but do not make them circular. The manuscript does contain a noticeable number of self-citations, such as [36,37,39,42,177,181,182,200,225,243,278,287,295,319,344], and some illustrative figures are taken from author-involved papers. However, these citations point to previously published, externally accessible results used as examples or supporting references; they are not invoked as premises that definitionally entail the review's conclusions. The sensing, QML, and collider sections are likewise summaries of independent experimental and phenomenological literature, with the ATLAS D = -0.547 +/- 0.002 +/- 0.021 result providing an external anchor. No equation or derivation in the paper reduces by construction to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is used to force a choice. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with a modest score reflecting the presence of self-citations that are not load-bearing.

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

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced by the review. The axioms listed are the standard background assumptions needed for the survey's arguments, including the existence of dark matter candidates and the viability of lattice gauge theory formulations for quantum simulation.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Standard Model is the correct low-energy effective theory and its open questions (dark matter, strong CP, matter asymmetry) are genuine motivations for new physics.
Sec I uses these puzzles to frame the review; the paper does not argue for them independently.
domain assumption Ultra-light bosonic dark matter can be modeled as a coherent classical field with high occupation number.
Sec II's wavelike dark matter searches rely on this standard treatment of axions, ALPs, and hidden photons.
domain assumption Kogut-Susskind lattice gauge theory with finite digitization can be extrapolated to the continuum limit of the original gauge theory.
Sec III bases all quantum-simulation discussion on lattice Hamiltonian formulations and JLP algorithms; the paper explicitly says continuum extrapolation methods remain underdeveloped.
standard math A universal quantum computer can simulate local Hamiltonians efficiently in polynomial time.
Sec III invokes the standard Lloyd and JLP simulation arguments as background, citing Ref [153].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Frontiers in High Energy Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3K7UWU4T

@misc{pith2026241111294,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Frontiers in High Energy Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3K7UWU4T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11294}
}

read the original abstract

Numerous challenges persist in High Energy Physics (HEP), the addressing of which requires advancements in detection technology, computational methods, data analysis frameworks, and phenomenological designs. We provide a concise yet comprehensive overview of recent progress across these areas, in line with advances in quantum technology. We will discuss the potential of quantum devices in detecting subtle effects indicative of new physics beyond the Standard Model, the transformative role of quantum algorithms and large-scale quantum computers in studying real-time non-perturbative dynamics in the early universe and at colliders, as well as in analyzing complex HEP data. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of integrating quantum properties into HEP experiments to test quantum mechanics at unprecedented high-energy scales and search for hints of new physics. Looking ahead, the continued integration of resources to fully harness these evolving technologies will enhance our efforts to deepen our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11294 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. DQS setup: A single-mode squeezed vacuum is dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Scaling of the scan-rate with the number of sensors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fidelity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Figure taken from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Figure taken from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The observed values of the entanglement marker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

Suppressed Quantum Effects of Weakly Coupled Waves
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Nonclassical (quantum) signatures of weakly coupled waves are suppressed by an extra power of the tiny conversion efficiency η (~10^-21 for axions, ~10^-33 for gravitons), so experiments cannot establish the quantizat...
Hardware-efficient quantum simulation of intense-field QED
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Hybrid trapped-ion circuits simulate nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in intense-field QED with polynomial gate scaling; zero-noise extrapolation recovers photon-survival and pair signals under experimental noise.
Quantum simulation of real-time current correlators and DIS-inspired observables in the Schwinger model
hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The hadronic tensor and longitudinal structure function of the massive Schwinger model are computed from real-time current–current correlators using tensor networks and quantum circuits, benchmarked against exact diag...
Measuring Quantum Discord at the LHC
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors derive closed-form formulas for quantum discord in the ttbar system and predict it can be measured at the LHC with sub-percent precision using the kinematic method.
Real-Time Simulation of Asymmetry Generation in Fermion-Bubble Collisions
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Real-time tensor-network scattering of fermions off a complex-mass bubble wall in 1+1D yields a nonzero C asymmetry, captured by new magnitude and phase observables.
Parton spin correlations and $\mathcal{CP}$ properties in Higgs boson decay at future lepton colliders
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In H→gg at a 240 GeV e+e− collider, the four-point energy-energy correlator with energy weight n=4 gives the strongest sensitivity to gluon spin correlations and, assuming perfect splitting-mode identification in the ...
Quantum computing of chirality imbalance in SU(2) gauge theory
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A variational quantum algorithm with Monte Carlo sampling reproduces the exact thermal chiral condensate in 1+1D SU(2) gauge theory on 8 to 12 qubits and on IBM hardware.
Forecast Constraints on Bouncing Cosmology from High Frequency Gravitational Waves Using Superconducting LC Circuits and Resonant Cavities
astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper forecasts that resonant-cavity and superconducting-circuit gravitational wave detectors could constrain the bounce energy scale of a generic bouncing cosmology far more tightly than astrophysical observatori...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

299 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

[153]

Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

1996
[164]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories, Science 336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2012
[1]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012
[2]

Chatrchyan et al

S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012
[3]

Report of the 2023 particle physics project priori- tization panel, https://www.usparticlephysics.org/ 2023-p5-report/

2023
[4]

Chou et al., Quantum Sensors for High Energy Physics (2023) arXiv:2311.01930 [hep-ex]

A. Chou et al., Quantum Sensors for High Energy Physics (2023) arXiv:2311.01930 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2023
[5]

S. D. Bass and M. Doser, Quantum sensing for particle physics, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 329 (2024)

2024
[6]

Ye and P

J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024)

2024

Show all 299 references

[7]

Alexeev et al

Y. Alexeev et al. , Quantum computer systems for scien- tific discovery, PRX Quantum 2, 017001 (2021)

2021
[8]

V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr., Rota- tional properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ to UGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/, Astrophys. J. 238, 471 (1980)

1980
[9]

Arias, D

P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Re- dondo, and A. Ringwald, WISPy Cold Dark Matter, JCAP 06, 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[10]

D. F. J. Kimball and K. van Bibber, eds., The Search for Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter (Springer, 2023)

2023
[11]

Preskill, M

J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

1983
[12]

L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

1983
[13]

Dine and W

M. Dine and W. Fischler, The Not So Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

1983
[14]

P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Cosmo- logical Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 221801 (2015), arXiv:1504.07551 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[15]

R. T. Co, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, Predictions for Axion Couplings from ALP Cogenesis, JHEP 01, 172, arXiv:2006.04809 [hep-ph]

2006 arXiv
[16]

Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys

B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

1986
[17]

A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Dark Light, Dark Matter and the Misalignment Mechanism, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103501 (2011), arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[18]

P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Vector Dark Matter from Inflationary Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[19]

Berlin et al

A. Berlin et al. , Axion Dark Matter Detection by Super- conducting Resonant Frequency Conversion, JHEP 07 (07), 088, arXiv:1912.11048 [hep-ph]

1912 arXiv
[20]

Cervantes et al

R. Cervantes et al. , Deepest sensitivity to wavelike dark photon dark matter with superconducting radio fre- quency cavities, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043022 (2024)

2024
[21]

Tang et al

Z. Tang et al. (SHANHE), First Scan Search for Dark Photon Dark Matter with a Tunable Superconducting Radio-Frequency Cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021005 (2024), arXiv:2305.09711 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[22]

Chen et al

S. Chen et al. , Detecting Hidden Photon Dark Matter Using the Direct Excitation of Transmon Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 211001 (2023), arXiv:2212.03884 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Fan et al

X. Fan et al. , One-Electron Quantum Cyclotron as a Milli-eV Dark-Photon Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 261801 (2022), arXiv:2208.06519 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[24]

X. Fan, G. Gabrielse, P. W. Graham, H. Ramani, S. S. Y. Wong, and Y. Xiao, Highly excited electron cy- clotron for qcd axion and dark-photon detection (2024), arXiv:2410.05549 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Engelhardt, A

G. Engelhardt, A. Bhoonah, and W. V. Liu, Detecting axion dark matter with Rydberg atoms via induced electric dipole transitions, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023017 (2024), arXiv:2304.05863 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Chigusa, M

S. Chigusa, M. Hazumi, E. D. Herbschleb, N. Mizuochi, and K. Nakayama, Light Dark Matter Search with Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Diamonds (2023), arXiv:2302.12756 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[27]

K. M. Backes et al. (HAYSTAC), A quantum-enhanced search for dark matter axions, Nature 590, 238 (2021), arXiv:2008.01853 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[28]

D. I. Schuster et al. , Resolving photon number states in a superconducting circuit, Nature 445, 515 (2007)

2007
[29]

B. R. Johnson et al. , Quantum non-demolition detection of single microwave photons in a circuit, Nature Phys. 6, 663 (2010)

2010
[30]

C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. P. Drever, V. D. Sandberg, and M. Zimmermann, On the measurement of a weak classical force coupled to a quantum-mechanical oscillator. i. issues of principle, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 341 (1980)

1980
[31]

V. B. Braginsky and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum nondemoli- tion measurements: the route from toys to tools, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1 (1996)

1996
[32]

A. V. Dixit, S. Chakram, K. He, A. Agrawal, R. K. Naik, D. I. Schuster, and A. Chou, Searching for Dark Matter with a Superconducting Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141302 (2021), arXiv:2008.12231 [hep-ex]

2021 arXiv
[33]

Zhuang, Z

Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, Distributed quantum sensing using continuous-variable multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032329 (2018)

2018
[34]

Zhang and Q

Z. Zhang and Q. Zhuang, Distributed quantum sensing, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2010.14744 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[35]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Quantum- enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306, 1330 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0412078 17 [quant-ph]

2004 arXiv
[36]

Y. Chen, M. Jiang, Y. Ma, J. Shu, and Y. Yang, Axion haloscope array with PT symmetry, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023015 (2022), arXiv:2103.12085 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[37]

A. J. Brady, C. Gao, R. Harnik, Z. Liu, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, Entangled Sensor-Networks for Dark- Matter Searches, PRX Quantum 3, 030333 (2022), arXiv:2203.05375 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[38]

A. J. Brady et al., Entanglement-enhanced optomechani- cal sensor array with application to dark matter searches, Commun. Phys. 6, 237 (2023), arXiv:2210.07291 [quant- ph]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Y. Chen, C. Li, Y. Liu, J. Shu, Y. Yang, and Y. Zeng, Simultaneous Resonant and Broadband Detection of Ul- tralight Dark Matter and High-Frequency Gravitational Waves via Cavities and Circuits (2023), arXiv:2309.12387 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[40]

S. Chen, H. Fukuda, T. Inada, T. Moroi, T. Nitta, and T. Sichanugrist, Quantum Enhancement in Dark Matter Detection with Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021801 (2024), arXiv:2311.10413 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[41]

A. Ito, R. Kitano, W. Nakano, and R. Takai, Quantum entanglement of ions for light dark matter detection, JHEP 02, 124, arXiv:2311.11632 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[42]

J. Shu, B. Xu, and Y. Xu, Eliminating Incoherent Noise: A Coherent Quantum Approach in Multi-Sensor Dark Matter Detection (2024), arXiv:2410.22413 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[43]

Agrawal et al., Stimulated Emission of Signal Photons from Dark Matter Waves, Phys

A. Agrawal et al., Stimulated Emission of Signal Photons from Dark Matter Waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 140801 (2024), arXiv:2305.03700 [quant-ph]

2024
[44]

S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Limits on a Lorentz and Parity Violating Modification of Electrody- namics, Phys. Rev. D41, 1231 (1990)

1990
[45]

Harari and P

D. Harari and P. Sikivie, Effects of a Nambu-Goldstone boson on the polarization of radio galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, Phys. Lett. B 289, 67 (1992)

1992
[46]

Y. Chen, J. Shu, X. Xue, Q. Yuan, and Y. Zhao, Prob- ing Axions with Event Horizon Telescope Polarimetric Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 061102 (2020), arXiv:1905.02213 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[47]

P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, New Observables for Direct Detection of Axion Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D88, 035023 (2013), arXiv:1306.6088 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[48]

Budker, P

D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajendran, and A. Sushkov, Proposal for a Cosmic Axion Spin Pre- cession Experiment (CASPEr), Phys. Rev. X4, 021030 (2014), arXiv:1306.6089 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[49]

Jiang, H

M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Search for axion-like dark matter with spin-based am- plifiers, Nature Phys. 17, 1402 (2021), arXiv:2102.01448 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[50]

C. J. Kennedy et al. , Precision Metrology Meets Cos- mology: Improved Constraints on Ultralight Dark Matter from Atom-Cavity Frequency Comparisons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201302 (2020), arXiv:2008.08773 [physics.atom-ph]

2020 arXiv
[51]

Banerjee, D

A. Banerjee, D. Budker, M. Filzinger, N. Huntemann, G. Paz, G. Perez, S. Porsev, and M. Safronova, Oscil- lating nuclear charge radii as sensors for ultralight dark matter (2023), arXiv:2301.10784 [hep-ph]

2023
[52]

Kim and G

H. Kim and G. Perez, Oscillations of atomic energy levels induced by QCD axion dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015005 (2024), arXiv:2205.12988 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[53]

Aalbers et al

J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[54]

J. D. Vergados and H. Ejiri, The role of ionization elec- trons in direct neutralino detection, Phys. Lett. B 606, 313 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0401151

2005 arXiv
[55]

C. C. Moustakidis, J. D. Vergados, and H. Ejiri, Direct dark matter detection by observing electrons produced in neutralino-nucleus collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 727, 406 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0507123

2005 arXiv
[56]

Bernabei et al

R. Bernabei et al. , On electromagnetic contributions in WIMP quests, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 22, 3155 (2007), arXiv:0706.1421 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[57]

M. Ibe, W. Nakano, Y. Shoji, and K. Suzuki, Migdal Effect in Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments, JHEP 03, 194, arXiv:1707.07258 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[58]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Search for Light Dark Mat- ter Interactions Enhanced by the Migdal Effect or Bremsstrahlung in XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 241803 (2019), arXiv:1907.12771 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[59]

Tiffenberg, M

J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo-Haro, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Essig, Y. Guardincerri, S. Holland, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu (SENSEI), Single-electron and single-photon sensitivity with a silicon Skipper CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131802 (2017), arXiv:1706.00028 [physics.ins-det]

2017 arXiv
[60]

Barak et al

L. Barak et al. (SENSEI), SENSEI: Direct-Detection Re- sults on sub-GeV Dark Matter from a New Skipper-CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802 (2020), arXiv:2004.11378 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[61]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Light Dark Matter Search with Ionization Signals in XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 251801 (2019), arXiv:1907.11485 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[62]

Hochberg, Y

Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, Superconduct- ing Detectors for Superlight Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 011301 (2016), arXiv:1504.07237 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[63]

Hochberg, M

Y. Hochberg, M. Pyle, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, De- tecting Superlight Dark Matter with Fermi-Degenerate Materials, JHEP 08, 057, arXiv:1512.04533 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[64]

Hochberg et al

Y. Hochberg et al. , Determining Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering Rates from the Dielectric Function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151802 (2021), arXiv:2101.08263 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[65]

Hochberg, E

Y. Hochberg, E. D. Kramer, N. Kurinsky, and B. V. Lehmann, Directional detection of light dark matter in superconductors, Phys. Rev. D 107, 076015 (2023), arXiv:2109.04473 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[66]

Hochberg, I

Y. Hochberg, I. Charaev, S.-W. Nam, V. Verma, M. Colangelo, and K. K. Berggren, Detecting Sub-GeV Dark Matter with Superconducting Nanowires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151802 (2019), arXiv:1903.05101 [hep- ph]

2019 arXiv
[67]

Chiles et al

J. Chiles et al. , New Constraints on Dark Photon Dark Matter with Superconducting Nanowire Detectors in an Optical Haloscope, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 231802 (2022), arXiv:2110.01582 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[68]

Schutz and K

K. Schutz and K. M. Zurek, Detectability of Light Dark Matter with Superfluid Helium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 121302 (2016), arXiv:1604.08206 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[69]

Knapen, T

S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Light Dark Matter in Superfluid Helium: Detection with Multi- excitation Production, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056019 (2017), arXiv:1611.06228 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[70]

Caputo, A

A. Caputo, A. Esposito, and A. D. Polosa, Sub-MeV Dark Matter and the Goldstone Modes of Superfluid Helium, Phys. Rev. D 100, 116007 (2019), arXiv:1907.10635 [hep- ph]. 18

2019 arXiv
[71]

Griffin, S

S. Griffin, S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Direc- tional Detection of Light Dark Matter with Polar Mate- rials, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115034 (2018), arXiv:1807.10291 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[72]

Knapen, T

S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle, and K. M. Zurek, Detection of Light Dark Matter With Optical Phonons in Polar Ma- terials, Phys. Lett. B 785, 386 (2018), arXiv:1712.06598 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[73]

P. Cox, T. Melia, and S. Rajendran, Dark matter phonon coupling, Phys. Rev. D 100, 055011 (2019), arXiv:1905.05575 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[74]

S´ anchez-Mart´ ınezet al

M.-A. S´ anchez-Mart´ ınezet al. , Spectral and optical properties of Ag 3Au(Se2,Te2) and dark matter detec- tion, Materials 3, 014001 (2019), arXiv:1905.04805 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

2019 arXiv
[75]

Hochberg et al

Y. Hochberg et al. , Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter with Three-Dimensional Dirac Materials, Phys. Rev. D 97, 015004 (2018), arXiv:1708.08929 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[76]

R. M. Geilhufe, B. Olsthoorn, A. Ferella, T. Koski, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Conrad, and A. V. Balatsky, Materials Informatics for Dark Matter Detection, Phys. Status Solidi RRL 12, 1800293 (2018), arXiv:1806.06040 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

2018 arXiv
[77]

R. M. Geilhufe, F. Kahlhoefer, and M. W. Winkler, Dirac Materials for Sub-MeV Dark Matter Detection: New Targets and Improved Formalism, Phys. Rev. D 101, 055005 (2020), arXiv:1910.02091 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[78]

Coskuner, A

A. Coskuner, A. Mitridate, A. Olivares, and K. M. Zurek, Directional Dark Matter Detection in Anisotropic Dirac Materials, Phys. Rev. D 103, 016006 (2021), arXiv:1909.09170 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[79]

Rist` e, C

D. Rist` e, C. C. Bultink, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Millisecond charge-parity fluctuations and induced decoherence in a superconduct- ing transmon qubit, Nature Commun. 4, 1913 (2013)

2013
[80]

McEwen et al

M. McEwen et al. , Resolving catastrophic error bursts from cosmic rays in large arrays of superconducting qubits, Nature Phys. 18, 107 (2022), arXiv:2104.05219 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[81]

Bratrud et al

G. Bratrud et al. , First Measurement of Correlated Charge Noise in Superconducting Qubits at an Under- ground Facility (2024), arXiv:2405.04642 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[82]

Li et al

X.-G. Li et al. , Direct evidence for cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting qubit array (2024), arXiv:2402.04245 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[83]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973)

1973
[84]

R. L. Workman and Others (Particle Data Group), Re- view of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

2022
[85]

D. J. McCarron, M. H. Steinecker, Y. Zhu, and D. De- Mille, Magnetic trapping of an ultracold gas of polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 013202 (2018)

2018
[86]

Caldwell, J

L. Caldwell, J. A. Devlin, H. J. Williams, N. J. Fitch, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Deep laser cooling and efficient magnetic compression of molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 033202 (2019)

2019
[87]

Anderegg, L

L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, An opti- cal tweezer array of ultracold molecules, Science 365, 1156–1158 (2019)

2019
[88]

Ding et al

S. Ding et al. , Sub-doppler cooling and compressed trap- ping of yo molecules at µK temperatures, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021049 (2020)

2020
[89]

Fitch and M

N. Fitch and M. Tarbutt, Chapter three - laser-cooled molecules (Academic Press, 2021) pp. 157–262

2021
[90]

A. C. Vutha, M. Horbatsch, and E. A. Hessels, Oriented polar molecules in a solid inert-gas matrix: A proposed method for measuring the electric dipole moment of the electron, Atoms 6, 10.3390/atoms6010003 (2018)

2018 doi
[91]

A. C. Vutha, M. Horbatsch, and E. A. Hessels, Orientation-dependent hyperfine structure of polar molecules in a rare-gas matrix: A scheme for measuring the electron electric dipole moment, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032513 (2018)

2018
[92]

J. T. Singh, A new concept for searching for time-reversal symmetry violation using pa-229 ions trapped in optical crystals, Hyperfine Interactions 240, 29 (2019)

2019
[93]

Upadhyay, U

S. Upadhyay, U. Dargyte, D. Patterson, and J. D. Wein- stein, Ultralong spin-coherence times for rubidium atoms in solid parahydrogen via dynamical decoupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 043601 (2020)

2020
[94]

Arrington et al

J. Arrington et al. , Opportunities for Nuclear Physics & Quantum Information Science, in Intersections between Nuclear Physics and Quantum Information , edited by I. C. Clo¨ et and M. R. Dietrich (2019) arXiv:1903.05453 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[95]

Hosten, N

O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

2016
[96]

Aoki et al

T. Aoki et al. , Quantum sensing of the electron elec- tric dipole moment using ultracold entangled fr atoms, Quantum Science and Technology 6, 044008 (2021)

2021
[97]

Alarcon et al

R. Alarcon et al. , Electric dipole moments and the search for new physics, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08103 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[98]

T. S. Roussy et al., An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment, Science 381, adg4084 (2023), arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]

2023 arXiv
[99]

Andreev et al

V. Andreev et al. , Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron, Nature 562, 355 (2018)

2018
[100]

Abel et al

C. Abel et al. , Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[101]

Graner, Y

B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl, and B. R. Heckel, Reduced limit on the permanent electric dipole moment of 199Hg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161601 (2016)

2016
[102]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics, Annals Phys. 318, 119 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504231

2005 arXiv
[103]

Seng, Reexamination of the standard model nu- cleon electric dipole moment, Phys

C.-Y. Seng, Reexamination of the standard model nu- cleon electric dipole moment, Phys. Rev. C 91, 025502 (2015)

2015
[104]

Chupp, P

T. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. Singh, Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015001 (2019), arXiv:1710.02504 [physics.atom-ph]

2019 arXiv
[105]

O. W. Greenberg, cpt violation implies violation of lorentz invariance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 231602 (2002)

2002
[106]

Ahmadi et al

M. Ahmadi et al. , Characterization of the 1s–2s transi- tion in antihydrogen, Nature 557, 71 (2018)

2018
[107]

Angelopoulos et al

A. Angelopoulos et al. (CPLEAR), K0 anti-K0 mass and decay width differences: CPLEAR evaluation, Phys. Lett. B 471, 332 (1999)

1999
[108]

M. J. Borchert et al. , A 16-parts-per-trillion measure- ment of the antiproton-to-proton charge–mass ratio, Na- ture 601, 53 (2022). 19

2022
[109]

M. A. Hohensee, N. Leefer, D. Budker, C. Harabati, V. A. Dzuba, and V. V. Flambaum, Limits on violations of lorentz symmetry and the einstein equivalence principle using radio-frequency spectroscopy of atomic dysprosium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 050401 (2013)

2013
[110]

Megidish, J

E. Megidish, J. Broz, N. Greene, and H. H¨ affner, Im- proved test of local lorentz invariance from a determin- istic preparation of entangled states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 123605 (2019)

2019
[111]

Sanner, N

C. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, C. Tamm, E. Peik, M. S. Safronova, and S. G. Porsev, Optical clock com- parison for lorentz symmetry testing, Nature 567, 204 (2019)

2019
[112]

Pruttivarasin, M

T. Pruttivarasin, M. Ramm, S. G. Porsev, I. I. Tupit- syn, M. S. Safronova, M. A. Hohensee, and H. H¨ affner, Michelson–morley analogue for electrons using trapped ions to test lorentz symmetry, Nature 517, 592 (2015)

2015
[113]

M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Crespo L´ opez- Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Highly charged ions: Optical clocks and applications in fundamental physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045005 (2018)

2018
[114]

Shaniv, R

R. Shaniv, R. Ozeri, M. S. Safronova, S. G. Porsev, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and H. H¨ affner, New methods for testing lorentz invariance with atomic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 103202 (2018)

2018
[115]

Nitzschke et al

D. Nitzschke et al. , Elementary Laser-Less Quan- tum Logic Operations with (Anti-)Protons in Pen- ning Traps, Adv. Quantum Technol. 3, 1900133 (2020), arXiv:1912.02046 [physics.atom-ph]

2020 arXiv
[116]

Adelberger et al

E. Adelberger et al. , Snowmass White Paper: Preci- sion Studies of Spacetime Symmetries and Gravitational Physics, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.09691 [hep-ex]

2022 arXiv
[117]

Wolf et al

P. Wolf et al. (STE-QUEST), STE-QUEST: Space Time Explorer and QUantum Equivalence principle Space Test (2022), arXiv:2211.15412 [physics.space-ph]

2022 arXiv
[118]

Sanner et al

C. Sanner et al. , Optical clock comparison for lorentz symmetry testing, Nature 567, 204–208 (2019)

2019
[119]

Barontini et al

G. Barontini et al. , Measuring the stability of funda- mental constants with a network of clocks, EPJ Quant. Technol. 9, 12 (2022), arXiv:2112.10618 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[120]

Schkolnik et al., Optical atomic clock aboard an Earth- orbiting space station (OACESS): enhancing searches for physics beyond the standard model in space, Quan- tum Sci

V. Schkolnik et al., Optical atomic clock aboard an Earth- orbiting space station (OACESS): enhancing searches for physics beyond the standard model in space, Quan- tum Sci. Technol. 8, 014003 (2023), arXiv:2204.09611 [physics.atom-ph]

2023 arXiv
[121]

Kraemer et al

S. Kraemer et al. , Observation of the radiative decay of the 229Th nuclear clock isomer, Nature 617, 706 (2023), arXiv:2209.10276 [nucl-ex]

2023 arXiv
[122]

Touboul et al

P. Touboul et al. (MICROSCOPE Collaboration), microscope mission: Final results of the test of the equiv- alence principle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 121102 (2022)

2022
[123]

T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 184002 (2012)

2012
[124]

Lange et al

R. Lange et al. , Improved limits for violations of local position invariance from atomic clock comparisons, Phys- ical Review Letters 126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.011102 (2021)

2021 doi
[126]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), A gravitational- wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant, Nature 551, 85 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[127]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[128]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[129]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[130]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼ 3.4M⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[131]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Observation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron Star–Black Hole Coalescences, Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[132]

Miller, L

J. Miller, L. Barsotti, S. Vitale, P. Fritschel, M. Evans, and D. Sigg, Prospects for doubling the range of Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. D 91, 062005 (2015), arXiv:1410.5882 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[133]

Yu et al

H. Yu et al. (LIGO Scientific), Quantum correlations between light and the kilogram-mass mirrors of LIGO, Nature 583, 43 (2020), arXiv:2002.01519 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[134]

Amaro-Seoane et al

P. Amaro-Seoane et al. , Laser interferometer space an- tenna (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[135]

Hu and Y.-L

W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, The taiji program in space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity, National Science Review 4, 685 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/4/5/685/31566708/nwx116.pdf

2017
[136]

Luo et al

J. Luo et al. , Tianqin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 035010 (2016)

2016
[137]

Abe et al

M. Abe et al. (MAGIS-100), Matter-wave Atomic Gra- diometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100), Quan- tum Sci. Technol. 6, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2104.02835 [physics.atom-ph]

2021 arXiv
[138]

Canuel et al

B. Canuel et al. , Exploring gravity with the miga large scale atom interferometer, Scientific Reports 8, 10.1038/s41598-018-32165-z (2018)

2018 doi
[139]

Zhan et al

M.-S. Zhan et al. , Zaiga: Zhaoshan long-baseline atom interferometer gravitation antenna, International Journal of Modern Physics D 29, 1940005 (2019)

2019
[140]

Y. A. El-Neaj et al. (AEDGE), AEDGE: Atomic Experi- ment for Dark Matter and Gravity Exploration in Space, EPJ Quant. Technol. 7, 6 (2020), arXiv:1908.00802 [gr- qc]

2020 arXiv
[141]

Canuel et al

B. Canuel et al. , ELGAR—a European Laboratory for Gravitation and Atom-interferometric Research, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 225017 (2020), arXiv:1911.03701 [physics.atom-ph]

2020 arXiv
[142]

Badurina et al

L. Badurina et al. , AION: An Atom Interferometer Ob- 20 servatory and Network, JCAP 05, 011, arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

1911 arXiv
[143]

S. W. Ballmer et al. , Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: Future gravitational-wave detector facilities (2022), arXiv:2203.08228 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[144]

G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thomp- son, Entanglement-enhanced matter-wave interferom- etry in a high-finesse cavity, Nature 610, 472 (2022), arXiv:2110.14027 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[145]

Arvanitaki and A

A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci, Detecting high- frequency gravitational waves with optically levitated sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 071105 (2013)

2013
[146]

Aggarwal et al

N. Aggarwal et al. , Searching for new physics with a levitated-sensor-based gravitational-wave detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 111101 (2022)

2022
[147]

Berlin, D

A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavi- ties, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116011 (2022), arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[148]

Boccaletti, V

D. Boccaletti, V. De Sabbata, P. Fortini, and C. Gualdi, Conversion of photons into gravitons and vice versa in a static electromagnetic field, Nuovo Cim. B 70, 129 (1970)

1970
[149]

Shao et al

H.-J. Shao et al. , Antiferromagnetic phase transition in a 3d fermionic hubbard model, Nature 10.1038/s41586- 024-07689-2 (2024)

2024 doi
[150]

Proctor, K

T. Proctor, K. Young, A. D. Baczewski, and R. Blume- Kohout, Benchmarking quantum computers (2024), arXiv:2407.08828 [quant-ph]

2024
[151]

Bravyi, A

S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, High-threshold and low- overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory, Nature 627, 778 (2024)

2024
[152]

P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9605011 [quant-ph]

1997 arXiv
[154]

Catterall et al

S. Catterall et al. , Report of the Snowmass 2021 Theory Frontier Topical Group on Quantum Information Science, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2209.14839 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[155]

Beck et al

D. Beck et al. , Quantum Information Science and Tech- nology for Nuclear Physics. Input into U.S. Long-Range Planning, 2023 (2023) arXiv:2303.00113 [nucl-ex]

2023 arXiv
[156]

C. W. Bauer et al. , Quantum simulation for high-energy physics, PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023)

2023
[157]

C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 420 (2023)

2023
[158]

Di Meglio et al

A. Di Meglio et al. , Quantum computing for high-energy physics: State of the art and challenges, PRX Quantum 5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.037001 (2024)

2024 doi
[159]

Ram´ ırez-Uribe, A

S. Ram´ ırez-Uribe, A. E. Renter´ ıa-Olivo, G. Rodrigo, G. F. R. Sborlini, and L. Vale Silva, Quantum al- gorithm for Feynman loop integrals, JHEP 05, 100, arXiv:2105.08703 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[160]

Clemente, A

G. Clemente, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. Ram´ ırez-Uribe, A. E. Renter´ ıa-Olivo, G. Rodrigo, G. F. R. Sborlini, and L. V. Silva, Variational quantum eigensolver for causal loop feynman diagrams and directed acyclic graphs (2023), arXiv:2210.13240 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[161]

J. J. M. de Lejarza, D. F. Renter´ ıa-Estrada, M. Grossi, and G. Rodrigo, Quantum integration of decay rates at second order in perturbation theory (2024), arXiv:2409.12236 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[162]

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982)

1982
[163]

Byrnes and Y

T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022328 (2006)

2006
[165]

Kreshchuk et al

M. Kreshchuk et al. , Light-front field theory on current quantum computers, Entropy 23, 10.3390/e23050597 (2021)

2021 doi
[166]

Kreshchuk et al

M. Kreshchuk et al. , Simulating hadronic physics on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices using basis light-front quantization, Phys. Rev. A 103, 062601 (2021)

2021
[167]

Kreshchuk, W

M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beau- chemin, and P. J. Love, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032418 (2022)

2022
[168]

A. J. Buser, H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda, and J. Liu, Quantum simulation of gauge theory via orbifold lattice, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 10.1007/jhep09(2021)034 (2021)

2021 doi
[169]

Kogut and L

J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975)

1975
[170]

Banks, L

T. Banks, L. Susskind, and J. Kogut, Strong-coupling cal- culations of lattice gauge theories: (1 + 1)-dimensional exercises, Phys. Rev. D 13, 1043 (1976)

1976
[171]

Carlsson and B

J. Carlsson and B. H. J. McKellar, Direct improvement of hamiltonian lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 64, 094503 (2001)

2001
[172]

Luo, S.-H

X.-Q. Luo, S.-H. Guo, H. Kr¨ oger, and D. Sch¨ utte, Im- proved lattice gauge field hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. D 59, 034503 (1999)

1999
[173]

Laga¨ e and D

J.-F. Laga¨ e and D. K. Sinclair, Improved staggered quark actions with reduced flavor symmetry violations for lat- tice qcd, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014511 (1998)

1998
[174]

G. P. Lepage, Flavor-symmetry restoration and symanzik improvement for staggered quarks, Phys. Rev. D 59, 074502 (1999)

1999
[175]

Follana et al

E. Follana et al. , Highly improved staggered quarks on the lattice with applications to charm physics, Phys. Rev. D 75, 054502 (2007)

2007
[176]

Lepage, Perturbative improvement for lattice qcd: An update, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 60, 267 (1998)

P. Lepage, Perturbative improvement for lattice qcd: An update, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 60, 267 (1998)

1998
[177]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Im- proved Hamiltonians for Quantum Simulations (2022), arXiv:2203.02823 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[178]

A. N. Ciavarella, Quantum simulation of lattice qcd with improved hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094513 (2023)

2023
[179]

Gustafson and R

E. Gustafson and R. Van de Water, Improved Fermion Hamiltonians for Quantum Simulation, PoS LA T- TICE2023, 215 (2024), arXiv:2402.04317 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[180]

Y. Ji, H. Lamm, and S. Zhu, Gluon field digitization via group space decimation for quantum computers, Physical Review D 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.114513 (2020)

2020 doi
[181]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Lat- tice Renormalization of Quantum Simulations (2021), arXiv:2107.01166 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[182]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Improved 21 hamiltonians for quantum simulations of gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 051601 (2022)

2022
[183]

E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, and F. Lovelace, Primitive Quantum Gates for anSU (2) Discrete Subgroup: Binary Octahedral (2023), arXiv:2312.10285 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[184]

Y. Ji, H. Lamm, and S. Zhu, Gluon digitization via character expansion for quantum computers, Physical Review D 107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.114503 (2023)

2023 doi
[185]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Cold-Atom Quantum Simulator for SU(2) Yang-Mills Lattice Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 125304 (2013), arXiv:1211.2241 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[186]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Simulating Compact Quantum Electrodynamics with ultracold atoms: Prob- ing confinement and nonperturbative effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 125302 (2012), arXiv:1204.6574 [quant-ph]

2012 arXiv
[187]

Zohar and M

E. Zohar and M. Burrello, Formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D91, 054506 (2015), arXiv:1409.3085 [quant-ph]

2015 arXiv
[188]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum Simula- tions of Lattice Gauge Theories using Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 014401 (2016), arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph]

2016 arXiv
[189]

Singh and S

H. Singh and S. Chandrasekharan, Qubit regularization of the O(3) sigma model, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054505 (2019), arXiv:1905.13204 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[190]

Singh, Qubit O(N) nonlinear sigma models (2019), arXiv:1911.12353 [hep-lat]

H. Singh, Qubit O(N) nonlinear sigma models (2019), arXiv:1911.12353 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[191]

A. J. Buser, T. Bhattacharya, L. Cincio, and R. Gupta, Quantum simulation of the qubit-regularized O(3)-sigma model (2020), arXiv:2006.15746 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[192]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, A. Carosso, M. J. Cervia, and A. Sheng, Qubitization strategies for bosonic field theories, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034503 (2023), arXiv:2209.00098 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[193]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, A. Carosso, M. J. Cervia, E. M. Murairi, and A. Sheng, Fuzzy Gauge Theory for Quantum Computers (2023), arXiv:2308.05253 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[194]

U.-J. Wiese, Towards Quantum Simulating QCD, Proceedings, 24th International Conference on Ultra- Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (Quark Matter 2014): Darmstadt, Germany, May 19-24, 2014 , Nucl. Phys. A931, 246 (2014), arXiv:1409.7414 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[195]

D. Luo, J. Shen, M. Highman, B. K. Clark, B. DeMarco, A. X. El-Khadra, and B. Gadway, A Framework for Simulating Gauge Theories with Dipolar Spin Systems (2019), arXiv:1912.11488 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[196]

R. C. Brower, D. Berenstein, and H. Kawai, Lattice Gauge Theory for a Quantum Computer, PoS LA T- TICE2019, 112 (2019), arXiv:2002.10028 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[197]

S. V. Mathis, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, Toward scalable simulations of Lattice Gauge Theories on quan- tum computers, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094501 (2020), arXiv:2005.10271 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[198]

J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Cold-atom quantum simulators of gauge theories (2023), arXiv:2310.12201 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2023 arXiv
[199]

J. C. Halimeh, L. Homeier, A. Bohrdt, and F. Grusdt, Spin exchange-enabled quantum simulator for large- scale non-abelian gauge theories, PRX Quantum 5, 10.1103/prxquantum.5.030358 (2024)

2024 doi
[200]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant digitizations of lattice field theories, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054516 (2024), arXiv:2402.16780 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[201]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum simula- tions of gauge theories with ultracold atoms: local gauge invariance from angular momentum conservation, Phys. Rev. A 88, 023617 (2013), arXiv:1303.5040 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[202]

D. B. Kaplan and J. R. Stryker, Gauss’s law, duality, and the hamiltonian formulation of u(1) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094515 (2020)

2020
[203]

Bender and E

J. Bender and E. Zohar, Gauge redundancy-free formula- tion of compact qed with dynamical matter for quantum and classical computations, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114517 (2020)

2020
[204]

Yamamoto, Real-time simulation of (2+1)- dimensional lattice gauge theory on qubits, PTEP 2021, 013B06 (2021), arXiv:2008.11395 [hep-lat]

A. Yamamoto, Real-time simulation of (2+1)- dimensional lattice gauge theory on qubits, PTEP 2021, 013B06 (2021), arXiv:2008.11395 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[205]

C. W. Bauer and D. M. Grabowska, Efficient Repre- sentation for Simulating U(1) Gauge Theories on Digi- tal Quantum Computers at All Values of the Coupling (2021), arXiv:2111.08015 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[206]

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

2022 arXiv
[207]

C. Kane, D. M. Grabowska, B. Nachman, and C. W. Bauer, Efficient quantum implementation of 2+1 U(1) lattice gauge theories with Gauss law constraints (2022), arXiv:2211.10497 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[208]

Paulson et al

D. Paulson et al. , Simulating 2d effects in lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, PRX Quantum 2, 030334 (2021)

2021
[209]

A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Quantum Simulation of SU(3) Lattice Yang Mills Theory at Leading Order in Large N (2024), arXiv:2402.10265 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[210]

C. W. Bauer, I. D’Andrea, M. Freytsis, and D. M. Grabowska, A new basis for Hamiltonian SU(2) sim- ulations (2023), arXiv:2307.11829 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[211]

Anishetty, M

R. Anishetty, M. Mathur, and I. Raychowdhury, Irre- ducible su(3) schwinger bosons, Journal of Mathematical Physics 50, 10.1063/1.3122666 (2009)

2009 doi
[212]

Anishetty and I

R. Anishetty and I. Raychowdhury, Su(2) lattice gauge theory: Local dynamics on nonintersecting electric flux loops, Phys. Rev. D 90, 114503 (2014)

2014
[213]

Raychowdhury and J

I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Loop, string, and hadron dynamics in su(2) hamiltonian lattice gauge the- ories, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114502 (2020)

2020
[214]

Barata, X

J. Barata, X. Du, M. Li, W. Qian, and C. A. Salgado, Medium induced jet broadening in a quantum computer, Physical Review D 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.074013 (2022)

2022 doi
[215]

Barata, X

J. Barata, X. Du, M. Li, W. Qian, and C. A. Salgado, Quantum simulation of in-medium qcd jets: Momen- tum broadening, gluon production, and entropy growth, Physical Review D 108, 10.1103/physrevd.108.056023 (2023)

2023 doi
[216]

Kreshchuk, S

M. Kreshchuk, S. Jia, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, J. P. Vary, and P. J. Love, Light-Front Field Theory on Current Quantum Computers (2020), arXiv:2009.07885 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[217]

Kreshchuk, W

M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beau- chemin, and P. J. Love, Quantum Simulation of Quan- tum Field Theory in the Light-Front Formulation (2020), arXiv:2002.04016 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[218]

S. Wu, W. Du, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Efficient and 22 precise quantum simulation of ultrarelativistic quark- nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056044 (2024)

2024
[219]

W. Qian, M. Li, C. A. Salgado, and M. Kreshchuk, Efficient quantum simulation of qcd jets on the light front (2024), arXiv:2411.09762 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[220]

N. Klco, J. R. Stryker, and M. J. Savage, SU(2) non- Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[221]

Ciavarella, N

A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, A Trail- head for Quantum Simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills Lat- tice Gauge Theory in the Local Multiplet Basis (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[222]

J. F. Haase et al. , A resource efficient approach for quantum and classical simulations of gauge theories in particle physics, Quantum 5, 393 (2021)

2021
[223]

T. V. Zache, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum and classical spin network algorithms forq-deformed Kogut-Susskind gauge theories (2023), arXiv:2304.02527 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[224]

Hayata and Y

T. Hayata and Y. Hidaka, Breaking new ground for quantum and classical simulations of SU(3) Yang-Mills theory (2023), arXiv:2306.12324 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[225]

T. Li, H. Xing, and D.-B. Zhang, Simulating Par- ton Fragmentation on Quantum Computers (2024), arXiv:2406.05683 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[226]

Fontana, M

P. Fontana, M. M. Riaza, and A. Celi, An efficient finite- resource formulation of non-abelian lattice gauge theories beyond one dimension (2024), arXiv:2409.04441 [quant- ph]

2024
[227]

C. F. Kane, D. M. Grabowska, B. Nachman, and C. W. Bauer, Overcoming exponential volume scaling in quan- tum simulations of lattice gauge theories, PoS LA T- TICE2022, 016 (2023), arXiv:2212.04619 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[228]

Stannigel et al

K. Stannigel et al. , Constrained dynamics via the Zeno effect in quantum simulation: Implementing non-Abelian lattice gauge theories with cold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120406 (2014)

2014
[229]

J. C. Halimeh and P. Hauke, Reliability of lattice gauge theories, Physical Review Letters 125, 10.1103/phys- revlett.125.030503 (2020)

2020 doi
[230]

S. Lieu, R. Belyansky, J. T. Young, R. Lundgren, V. V. Albert, and A. V. Gorshkov, Symmetry breaking and error correction in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240405 (2020)

2020
[231]

J. C. Halimeh, H. Lang, J. Mildenberger, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Gauge-symmetry protection using single-body terms, PRX Quantum 2, 10.1103/prxquantum.2.040311 (2021)

2021 doi
[232]

Bonati, A

C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Breaking of Gauge Symmetry in Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 091601 (2021)

2021
[233]

Bonati, A

C. Bonati, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Lattice gauge the- ories in the presence of a linear gauge-symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. E 104, 014140 (2021)

2021
[234]

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

2023 arXiv
[235]

M. C. Tran, Y. Su, D. Carney, and J. M. Taylor, Faster digital quantum simulation by symmetry protection, PRX Quantum 2, 010323 (2021)

2021
[236]

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

2020 arXiv
[237]

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

2019 arXiv
[238]

Rajput, A

A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries, npj Quantum Infor- mation 9, 41 (2023)

2023
[239]

Mathew and I

E. Mathew and I. Raychowdhury, Protecting local and global symmetries in simulating (1+1)D non-Abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054510 (2022), arXiv:2206.07444 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[240]

Van Damme, J

M. Van Damme, J. Mildenberger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and J. C. Halimeh, Suppressing nonperturbative gauge errors in the thermodynamic limit using local pseudo- generators (2021), arXiv:2110.08041 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[241]

J. C. Halimeh and P. Hauke, Stabilizing Gauge The- ories in Quantum Simulators: A Brief Review (2022) arXiv:2204.13709 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2022 arXiv
[242]

E. J. Gustafson, Y. Ji, H. Lamm, E. M. Murairi, S. O. Perez, and S. Zhu, Primitive quantum gates for an SU(3) discrete subgroup: Σ(36×3), Phys. Rev. D 110, 034515 (2024), arXiv:2405.05973 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[243]

Lamm, Y.-Y

H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, Block encodings of discrete subgroups on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054505 (2024), arXiv:2405.12890 [hep- lat]

2024 arXiv
[244]

Davoudi, A

Z. Davoudi, A. F. Shaw, and J. R. Stryker, General quantum algorithms for hamiltonian simulation with applications to a non-abelian lattice gauge theory, Quan- tum 7, 1213 (2023)

2023
[245]

S. V. Mathis, G. Mazzola, and I. Tavernelli, Toward scalable simulations of lattice gauge theories on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094501 (2020)

2020
[246]

A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, Quantum Algorithms for Simulating the Lattice Schwinger Model, Quantum 4, 306 (2020), arXiv:2002.11146 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[247]

Rhodes, M

M. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, Exponential improvements in the simulation of lattice gauge theories using near-optimal techniques (2024), arXiv:2405.10416 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[248]

Gustafson, Prospects for Simulating a Qudit Based Model of (1+1)d Scalar QED, Phys

E. Gustafson, Prospects for Simulating a Qudit Based Model of (1+1)d Scalar QED, Phys. Rev. D 103, 114505 (2021), arXiv:2104.10136 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[249]

E. Gustafson et al., Large scale multi-node simulations of Z2 gauge theory quantum circuits using google cloud plat- form, in 2021 IEEE/ACM Second International Work- shop on Quantum Computing Software (QCS) (2021) pp. 72–79

2021
[250]

Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T

D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, T. V. Zache, J. Carrasco, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hardware efficient quantum simulation of non-abelian gauge theories with qudits on rydberg platforms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 160501 (2022)

2022
[251]

D. M. Kurkcuoglu, M. S. Alam, J. A. Job, A. C. Y. Li, A. Macridin, G. N. Perdue, and S. Providence, Quan- tum simulation of ϕ4 theories in qudit systems (2022), arXiv:2108.13357 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[252]

T. V. Zache, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Fermion- qudit quantum processors for simulating lattice gauge theories with matter, Quantum 7, 1140 (2023)

2023
[253]

P. P. Popov, M. Meth, M. Lewestein, P. Hauke, M. Ring- bauer, E. Zohar, and V. Kasper, Variational quantum simulation of u(1) lattice gauge theories with qudit sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013202 (2024)

2024
[254]

Calaj` o, G

G. Calaj` o, G. Magnifico, C. Edmunds, M. Ringbauer, 23 S. Montangero, and P. Silvi, Digital Quantum Simulation of a (1+1)D SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory with Ion Qu- dits, PRX Quantum 5, 040309 (2024), arXiv:2402.07987 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[255]

M. Illa, C. E. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Qu8its for quan- tum simulations of lattice quantum chromodynamics, Physical Review D 110, 10.1103/physrevd.110.014507 (2024)

2024 doi
[256]

E. M. Murairi, M. S. Alam, H. Lamm, S. Hadfield, and E. Gustafson, Highly-efficient quantum fourier transformations for some nonabelian groups (2024), arXiv:2408.00075 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[257]

D. M. K¨ urk¸ c¨ uoglu, H. Lamm, and A. Maestri, Qudit gate decomposition dependence for lattice gauge theories (2024), arXiv:2410.16414 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[258]

Davoudi, N

Z. Davoudi, N. M. Linke, and G. Pagano, Toward simu- lating quantum field theories with controlled phonon-ion dynamics: A hybrid analog-digital approach, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043072 (2021), arXiv:2104.09346 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[259]

Marshall, R

K. Marshall, R. Pooser, G. Siopsis, and C. Weedbrook, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory using con- tinuous variables, Phys. Rev. A 92, 063825 (2015), arXiv:1503.08121 [quant-ph]

2015 arXiv
[260]

S. Abel, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, Simulat- ing quantum field theories on continuous-variable quan- tum computers, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012607 (2024), arXiv:2403.10619 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[261]

E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, F. Lovelace, and D. Musk, Primitive quantum gates for an SU(2) discrete subgroup: Binary tetrahedral, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114501 (2022), arXiv:2208.12309 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[262]

Quafu quantum computing cloud platform (2024)

2024
[263]

Jordan and E

P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

1928
[264]

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

2002
[265]

Gonz´ alez-Cuadra et al

D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra et al. , Fermionic quan- tum processing with programmable neutral atom arrays, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2304294120 (2023), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2304294120

2023 doi
[266]

T. V. Zache, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Fermion-qudit quantum processors for simulating lattice gauge theories with matter, Quantum 7, 1140 (2023), arXiv:2303.08683 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[267]

J. D. Whitfield, V. Havl´ ıˇ cek, and M. Troyer, Local spin operators for fermion simulations, Physical Review A 94, 10.1103/physreva.94.030301 (2016)

2016 doi
[268]

Wecker, M

D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 92, 042303 (2015)

2015
[269]

Kassal, S

I. Kassal, S. P. Jordan, P. J. Love, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Polynomial-time quantum algorithm for the simulation of chemical dynamics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 18681 (2008), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0808245105

2008 doi
[270]

A. J. Landahl and B. C. A. Morrison, Logical fermions for fault-tolerant quantum simulation (2023), arXiv:2110.10280 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[271]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, S. Harmalkar, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and N. C. Warrington (NuQS Collabora- tion), Gluon field digitization for quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114501 (2019)

2019
[272]

Carena, E

M. Carena, E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Gauge theory couplings on anisotropic lattices, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114504 (2022)

2022
[273]

R. A. Brice˜ no, J. V. Guerrero, M. T. Hansen, and A. M. Sturzu, Role of boundary conditions in quantum com- putations of scattering observables, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014506 (2021)

2021
[274]

Davoudi, C.-C

Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Scattering wave packets of hadrons in gauge theories: Preparation on a quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2402.00840 [quant- ph]

2024 arXiv
[275]

Turco, G

M. Turco, G. M. Quinta, J. a. Seixas, and Y. Omar, Quantum Simulation of Bound State Scattering, PRX Quantum 5, 020311 (2024), arXiv:2305.07692 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[276]

Z. Li, D. M. Grabowska, and M. J. Savage, Sequency Hi- erarchy Truncation (SeqHT) for Adiabatic State Prepa- ration and Time Evolution in Quantum Simulations (2024), arXiv:2407.13835 [quant-ph]

2024
[277]

Ciavarella, Algorithm for quantum computation of particle decays, Phys

A. Ciavarella, Algorithm for quantum computation of particle decays, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094505 (2020), arXiv:2007.04447 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[278]

T. Li, W. K. Lai, E. Wang, and H. Xing (QuNu), Scattering amplitude from quantum computing with reduction formula, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036025 (2024), arXiv:2301.04179 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[279]

Lamm and S

H. Lamm and S. Lawrence, Simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 170501 (2018)

2018
[280]

E. J. Gustafson and H. Lamm, Toward quantum sim- ulations of z2 gauge theory without state preparation, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054507 (2021)

2021
[281]

Harmalkar, H

S. Harmalkar, H. Lamm, and S. Lawrence (NuQS), Quan- tum Simulation of Field Theories Without State Prepa- ration (2020), arXiv:2001.11490 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[282]

C. F. Kane, N. Gomes, and M. Kreshchuk, Nearly op- timal state preparation for quantum simulations of lat- tice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012455 (2024), arXiv:2310.13757 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[283]

A. o. Peruzzo, A variational eigenvalue solver on a pho- tonic quantum processor, Nature Commun. 5, 4213 (2014), arXiv:1304.3061 [quant-ph]

2014 arXiv
[284]

Bharti et al

K. Bharti et al. , Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022), arXiv:2101.08448 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[285]

Cerezo et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Rev

M. Cerezo et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021), arXiv:2012.09265 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[286]

Tilly et al

J. Tilly et al. , The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rept. 986, 1 (2022), arXiv:2111.05176 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[287]

Li et al

T. Li et al. (QuNu), Partonic collinear structure by quantum computing, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111502 (2022), arXiv:2106.03865 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[288]

Y. Y. Atas, J. Zhang, R. Lewis, A. Jahanpour, J. F. Haase, and C. A. Muschik, SU(2) hadrons on a quantum computer via a variational approach, Nature Commun. 12, 6499 (2021), arXiv:2102.08920 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[289]

Gallimore and J

D. Gallimore and J. Liao, Quantum computing for heavy quarkonium spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074012 (2023), arXiv:2202.03333 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[290]

N. M. de Arenaza, J. J. G´ alvez-Viruet, and F. J. Llanes- Estrada, Triply-heavy/strange baryons with Cornell po- tential on a quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2407.07232 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[291]

Motta et al

M. Motta et al. , Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary 24 time evolution, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020)

2020
[292]

X. Wang, Y. Chai, M. Demidik, X. Feng, K. Jansen, and C. T¨ uys¨ uz, Symmetry enhanced variational quan- tum imaginary time evolution (2023), arXiv:2307.13598 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[293]

Zhang, S

H.-K. Zhang, S. Liu, and S.-X. Zhang, Absence of barren plateaus in finite local-depth circuits with long-range entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150603 (2024)

2024
[294]

Wang et al

X. Wang et al. , Imaginary Hamiltonian variational ansatz for combinatorial optimization problems (2024), arXiv:2408.09083 [quant-ph]

2024
[295]

Y.-Y. Li, M. O. Sajid, and J. Unmuth-Yockey, Lattice holography on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034507 (2024), arXiv:2312.10544 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[296]

O. R. Meitei et al. , Gate-free state preparation for fast variational quantum eigensolver simulations, npj Quan- tum Inf. 7, 155 (2021)

2021
[297]

J. Y. Araz et al., State preparation of lattice field theories using quantum optimal control (2024), arXiv:2407.17556 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[298]

R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Scalable Circuits for Preparing Ground States on Digital Quantum Computers: The Schwinger Model Vac- uum on 100 Qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024), arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[299]

Gustafson et al

E. Gustafson et al. , Surrogate constructed scalable circuits adapt-vqe in the schwinger model (2024), arXiv:2408.12641 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[300]

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

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [153]

Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

1996

[2] [164]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories, Science 336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2012

[3] [1]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012

[4] [2]

Chatrchyan et al

S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012

[5] [3]

Report of the 2023 particle physics project priori- tization panel, https://www.usparticlephysics.org/ 2023-p5-report/

2023

[6] [4]

Chou et al., Quantum Sensors for High Energy Physics (2023) arXiv:2311.01930 [hep-ex]

A. Chou et al., Quantum Sensors for High Energy Physics (2023) arXiv:2311.01930 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2023

[7] [5]

S. D. Bass and M. Doser, Quantum sensing for particle physics, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 329 (2024)

2024

[8] [6]

Ye and P

J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024)

2024