Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Digital Quantum Simulation of Nonequilibrium Dynamics in the Schwinger Model under a Strong External Electric Field

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read VQE plus second-order Trotter evolution reproduces the main nonequilibrium responses of the finite open-boundary Schwinger model under a strong external field.

desk verdict Solid ED-validated VQE+Trotter pipeline on open-boundary Schwinger; new finite-size critical-field numbers and charge diagnostics, but the usefulness claim for strong-field LGT is overstated for N≤12 noiseless runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02894 v1 pith:7DN7AB6K submitted 2026-07-03 hep-lat hep-phquant-ph

Haobin Chen , Lin Cheng , Xingyu Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-phquant-ph
keywords SchwingermodellatticegaugetheorydigitalquantumsimulationVQETrotter-Suzukinonequilibriumdynamicsexternalelectricfieldopenboundaryconditions
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

The paper shows that a standard digital quantum protocol—preparing the zero-field vacuum of the lattice Schwinger model with a variational eigensolver, then evolving it after an electric-field quench with second-order Trotter–Suzuki circuits—captures the principal static and dynamical signatures of strong-field vacuum response on small open lattices. Static scans recover the field-driven flips of the vacuum and the associated critical field strengths that match theory once finite-size effects are taken into account. Dynamically, the same circuits reproduce exact-diagonalization benchmarks for boundary charge separation, the early decay of vacuum fidelity, and the quasiperiodic exchange of energy between the electric-field term and the fermionic sector, while conserving total charge and energy. A sympathetic reader cares because these are precisely the real-time, sign-problem-prone observables that classical Monte Carlo cannot easily access; demonstrating that a simple VQE-plus-Trotter pipeline already tracks them on N=8 and N=12 lattices supplies a concrete, verifiable route toward larger strong-field lattice-gauge simulations.

What carries the argument

The open-boundary Gauss-law reduction that eliminates the gauge links, yielding a purely fermionic (Jordan–Wigner) Pauli Hamiltonian whose electric-field term is a long-range interaction set by the cumulative charge and the external field ε; this Hamiltonian is then evolved with a second-order Trotter–Suzuki product formula after VQE state preparation.

What would settle it

Repeat the same VQE-plus-second-order-Trotter protocol on a larger lattice (or with a finer time step) and check whether the boundary charge oscillations, early-time fidelity decay rate, and electric-field energy oscillations continue to match independent exact or tensor-network benchmarks; any systematic deviation that grows with system size or total time would falsify the claim of usefulness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On finite open lattices of the (1+1)-dimensional Schwinger model, a VQE-prepared zero-field vacuum evolved under a constant external electric field by second-order Trotter–Suzuki decomposition reproduces, in quantitative agreement with exact diagonalization, the field-induced boundary charge separation, the decay of vacuum-state fidelity, and the quasiperiodic redistribution of energy between the electric-field and fermionic sectors.

Load-bearing premise

That noiseless classical emulation of the Trotter circuits on lattices of at most twelve sites, with a fixed time step of 0.1, is already enough to call the protocol useful for strong-field lattice-gauge dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VQE ground states of zero-field open-boundary Schwinger Hamiltonians can be used as reliable initial conditions for subsequent digital real-time evolution under external fields.
  • Static external-field scans performed with VQE and VQD recover the finite-size critical fields at which the vacuum flips and the chiral condensate jumps.
  • Second-order Trotter evolution with Δt = 0.1 already conserves total charge and total energy while tracking the main nonequilibrium observables up to t/a ≈ 12 on N ≤ 12 lattices.
  • The same pipeline can be extended, without change of principle, to larger lattices, improved ansätze, noisy hardware, and time-dependent external fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the electric-field energy becomes a long-range all-to-all interaction after Gauss-law reduction, circuit depth will grow faster than nearest-neighbour spin models once N exceeds a few tens of sites, making error-mitigation or gauge-preserving encodings essential for hardware runs.
  • The smoother dependence of dynamical periods on ε compared with the step-like chiral condensate suggests that quench dynamics probe a broader band of excited states than the static ground-state reconstruction.
  • The faster fidelity decay observed on N = 12 relative to N = 8 is consistent with a denser low-energy spectrum participating in the quench, offering a concrete scaling diagnostic for future size extrapolations.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs the open-boundary lattice Schwinger Hamiltonian with a constant external electric field, eliminates the gauge links via Gauss’s law, and maps the resulting long-range fermionic model to qubits via Jordan–Wigner. It prepares the zero-field vacuum with a hardware-efficient VQE (RealAmplitudes + SLSQP), scans the external field to locate vacuum flips via the chiral condensate and the E0–E1 gap (with VQD for the first excited state), and then evolves the zero-field vacuum under a sudden field quench with second-order Trotter–Suzuki circuits. All dynamical observables—total charge, energy conservation, spatial-point and site-resolved charge separation, vacuum fidelity, and electric-field energy—are compared quantitatively with exact diagonalization for N=8 and N=12. The authors conclude that the VQE-plus-digital-Trotter protocol reproduces the main nonequilibrium features and is therefore a useful approach for strong-field lattice gauge theories.

Significance. If the reported agreement with ED holds, the work supplies a clean, fully documented benchmark of a complete digital-quantum-simulation pipeline (state preparation + real-time evolution) for the open-boundary Schwinger model under a strong external field. Strengths include explicit conservation-law checks, a transparent finite-size extrapolation of the first critical field, and site-resolved charge dynamics that clarify the boundary-dominated pair production. These results sit usefully alongside existing tensor-network and variational-quantum studies of the same model and can serve as a reference for future hardware implementations. The contribution is incremental rather than transformative: the systems remain classically tractable, and the protocol’s claimed utility for regimes beyond ED is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §V] Abstract and §V: the claim that VQE + second-order Trotter “provides a useful approach for studying nonequilibrium dynamics in strong-field lattice gauge theories” is supported solely by noiseless classical emulation that matches ED on N≤12 (Figs. 3–11, Table I, Appendix A). At these sizes the long-range HE interactions remain classically cheap; the agreement therefore verifies circuit correctness but does not establish accuracy or practicality once Trotter depth, non-local gate cost, or device noise become non-negligible. A quantitative discussion of these limitations (or a modest Trotter-error scaling study) is needed before the usefulness statement can stand.
  2. [§III.C] §III.C: the second-order Trotter step is fixed at Δt=0.1 with no reported variation of Δt or comparison of global error against ED for the same total time. Because the central dynamical claims rest on the fidelity of this approximation up to t/a=12, at least a brief convergence check (or an explicit bound) should be supplied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.A, Fig. 2] Fig. 2 and surrounding text: the linear extrapolation yields εc(∞)≈0.469 versus the continuum value 1/2; the attribution to a negative boundary contribution under open BC is plausible but would be strengthened by an explicit estimate of that term.
  2. [Table I] Table I reports a single VQE fidelity for N=8; a short statement of the ansatz depth and number of random restarts used for the field scan would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Figures] Several figure panels (e.g., Figs. 1, 4, 8–10) contain residual Unicode artifacts in the axis labels when rendered from the source; these should be cleaned for the final version.
  4. [§I and §V] The introduction and outlook cite a broad set of related Schwinger-model quantum-simulation papers; a one-sentence clarification of what is new relative to the closest quench studies (Refs. [32,57,58]) would help the reader place the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: VQE+Trotter dynamics and critical-field scans are independently benchmarked against exact diagonalization on the same finite systems.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard lattice construction (Kogut-Susskind + Gauss-law reduction under OBC + Jordan-Wigner) followed by numerical algorithms (VQE/VQD ground/excited states, second-order Trotter evolution) whose outputs are validated by direct comparison to exact diagonalization of the identical Hamiltonian. Observables such as total charge conservation, spatial-point charge Qi(t), vacuum fidelity Pvac(t), electric-field energy HE(t), and the finite-size critical field εc(N) (linearly extrapolated to ≈0.469) are computed from the simulated state and checked against ED; none is obtained by fitting a free parameter that is then re-labeled a prediction. The effective decay rate γ eff is a post-hoc characterization of the early-time fidelity data already generated by the evolution, not an input used to force a later result. Self-citations (e.g., related Schwinger-model works) are background and not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The usefulness statement in the abstract and §V is an interpretive conclusion from the ED agreement, not a circular derivation. The protocol is therefore self-contained against an independent classical benchmark.

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

The work rests on the standard Kogut-Susskind lattice Schwinger Hamiltonian, Gauss-law reduction under open boundaries, and the Jordan-Wigner map—all textbook domain assumptions. Free parameters are the usual lattice inputs plus a few algorithmic choices (Δt, ansatz depth, optimizer restarts). No new physical entities are postulated; the only invented objects are the concrete circuit realizations used for the numerical demonstration.

free parameters (3)
  • Trotter time step Δt = 0.1
    Fixed by hand at 0.1 (lattice units) for all dynamical runs; controls the global Trotter error that is never systematically extrapolated.
  • VQE ansatz (RealAmplitudes depth and initial parameters)
    Hardware-efficient circuit form and multiple random restarts are chosen by the authors; fidelity to ED is reported but the circuit depth itself is not derived from first principles.
  • Lattice size N and spacing a=m=g=1 = N=8 (main), N=12 (appendix)
    Working values chosen for classical simulability; continuum and infinite-volume limits are only partially addressed by a linear 1/N fit of the first critical field.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Kogut-Susskind staggered-fermion discretization of the continuum Schwinger model yields the lattice Hamiltonian of Eq. (3).
    Invoked throughout §II; standard but unproved within the paper.
  • domain assumption Open-boundary Gauss law completely eliminates the gauge degrees of freedom, leaving a purely fermionic long-range Hamiltonian (Eq. 6).
    Central modeling step of §II.B; validity for the dynamical observables is assumed rather than re-derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Second-order Trotter-Suzuki formula with Δt=0.1 approximates the exact unitary evolution to sufficient accuracy for the reported observables up to t/a=12.
    Stated in §III.C; justified only by post-hoc agreement with ED, not by an a-priori error bound.
  • ad hoc to paper The hardware-efficient RealAmplitudes ansatz plus SLSQP can reach the true ground state of the zero-field Hamiltonian to fidelity >99.99 % for N=8.
    Table I; multiple random restarts are used but no guarantee of global optimality is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Digital Quantum Simulation of Nonequilibrium Dynamics in the Schwinger Model under a Strong External Electric Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DN7AB6K

@misc{pith2026260702894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Digital Quantum Simulation of Nonequilibrium Dynamics in the Schwinger Model under a Strong External Electric Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DN7AB6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02894}
}
read the original abstract

We use the (1+1)-dimensional Schwinger model to investigate the nonequilibrium dynamics of a finite lattice system under a constant external electric field. The lattice Hamiltonian is constructed under open boundary conditions. The vacuum state is prepared using the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE). Scans over the external field strength show the flip of the vacuum state at several field strengths. The critical field strengths agree with theoretical predictions. We further investigate the real-time evolution of the zero-field vacuum under an external electric field using a second-order Trotter-Suzuki decomposition. By comparison with exact diagonalization (ED), we verify that the quantum-simulation protocol reproduces the main features of field-induced boundary charge separation, decay of the vacuum-state fidelity, and quasiperiodic energy redistribution between the electric-field energy term and the fermionic sector. Our results indicate that combining VQE-based state preparation with digital real-time evolution provides a useful approach for studying nonequilibrium dynamics in strong-field lattice gauge theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Static observables as functions of the external-field strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Critical field strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time evolution of (left) the total charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution of the spatial charge distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time evolution of the total electric field energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time evolution of the vacuum-state fidelity under different external field strengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effective decay rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time evolution of the site-resolved charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Time evolution of the site-resolved charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Time evolution of the spatial-point charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Time evolution of the vacuum-state fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Sauter, Über das Verhalten eines Elektrons im ho- mogenen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Z

    F. Sauter, Über das Verhalten eines Elektrons im ho- mogenen elektrischen Feld nach der relativistischen Theorie Diracs, Z. Phys. 69, 742 (1931)

    1931

  2. [2]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Folgerungen aus der Diracschen Theorie des Positrons, Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  3. [3]

    Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum po- larization, Phys

    J. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum po- larization, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  4. [4]

    Brezin and C

    E. Brezin and C. Itzykson, Pair production in vac- uum by an alternating field, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1191 (1970)

    1970

  5. [5]

    V. S. Popov, Pair production in a variable exter- nal field (quasiclassical approximation), Sov. Phys. JETP 34, 709 (1972)

    1972

  6. [6]

    Ringwald, Pair production from vacuum at the focus of an X-ray free electron laser, Phys

    A. Ringwald, Pair production from vacuum at the focus of an X-ray free electron laser, Phys. Lett. B 510, 107 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Alkofer, M

    R. Alkofer, M. B. Hecht, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and D. V. Vinnik, Pair creation and an X-ray free electron laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 193902 (2001)

    2001

  8. [8]

    G. V. Dunne, New strong-field QED effects at ex- treme light infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 327 (2009)

    2009

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    Kogut and L

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

    1975

  3. [11]

    J. B. Kogut, An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  4. [12]

    Creutz, Quarks, Gluons and Lattices (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983)

    M. Creutz, Quarks, Gluons and Lattices (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983)

    1983

  5. [13]

    Montvay and G

    I. Montvay and G. Münster, Quantum Fields on a Lattice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994)

    1994

  6. [14]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational com- plexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, PoS LAT2009, 010 (2009)

    P. de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, PoS LAT2009, 010 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Aarts, Complex Langevin dynamics and other approaches at finite chemical potential, PoS LAT- TICE2012, 017 (2012)

    G. Aarts, Complex Langevin dynamics and other approaches at finite chemical potential, PoS LAT- TICE2012, 017 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

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

    1982

  10. [18]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  11. [19]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science 336, 1130 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Schwinger, Gauge invariance and mass

    J. Schwinger, Gauge invariance and mass. II, Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962)

    1962

  14. [22]

    J. H. Lowenstein and J. A. Swieca, Quantum elec- trodynamics in two dimensions, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 68, 172 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    Coleman, R

    S. Coleman, R. Jackiw, and L. Susskind, Charge shielding and quark confinement in the massive Schwinger model, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 93, 267 (1975)

    1975

  16. [24]

    Coleman, More about the massive Schwinger model, Ann

    S. Coleman, More about the massive Schwinger model, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 101, 239 (1976)

    1976

  17. [25]

    Casher, J

    A. Casher, J. Kogut, and L. Susskind, Vacuum po- larization and the absence of free quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10, 732 (1974)

    1974

  18. [26]

    Banks, L

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

    1976

  19. [27]

    C. J. Hamer, Z. Weihong, and J. Oitmaa, Series ex- pansions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamil- tonian lattice theory, Phys. Rev. D 56, 55 (1997)

    1997

  20. [28]

    Byrnes, P

    T. Byrnes, P. Sriganesh, R. J. Bursill, and C. J. Hamer, Density matrix renormalization group ap- proach to the massive Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 66, 013002 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    M. C. Bañuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, and K. Jansen, The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with matrix product states, JHEP 11, 158 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Buyens, J

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states for gauge field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 091601 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Buyens, F

    B. Buyens, F. Verstraete, and K. Van Acoleyen, Hamiltonian simulation of the Schwinger model at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. D 94, 085018 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Buyens, J

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, F. Hebenstreit, F. Ver- straete, and K. Van Acoleyen, Real-time simulation of the Schwinger effect with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. D 96, 114501 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Funcke, K

    L. Funcke, K. Jansen, and S. Kühn, Topological vac- uum structure of the Schwinger model with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054507 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    T. V. Zache, N. Mueller, J. T. Schneider, F. Jendrze- jewski, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, Dynamical topolog- ical transitions in the massive Schwinger model with aθterm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 050403 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das Paulische Äquiv- alenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  28. [36]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Compu- tation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    Ortiz, J

    G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Quantum algorithms for fermionic simu- lations, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022319 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, 13 Ann

    U.-J. Wiese, Ultracold quantum gases and lattice sys- tems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories, 13 Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 525, 777 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Quantum sim- ulations of lattice gauge theories using ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 014401 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    M. C. Bañuls et al., Simulating lattice gauge theories within quantum technologies, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 165 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

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

    2023

  35. [43]

    Banerjee, M

    D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. Müller, E. Rico, P. Stebler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, Atomic quan- tum simulation of dynamical gauge fields coupled to fermionic matter: from string breaking to evolution after a quench, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 175302 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Zohar, J

    E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Simulating compact quantum electrodynamics with ultracold atoms: probing confinement and nonperturbative effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 125302 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Banerjee et al., Atomic quantum simulation of U(N) and SU(N) non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, Phys

    D. Banerjee et al., Atomic quantum simulation of U(N) and SU(N) non-Abelian lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 125303 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Zohar, A

    E. Zohar, A. Farace, B. Reznik, and J. I. Cirac, Dig- ital lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023604 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    E. A. Martinez et al., Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Nature 534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougov- ski, and M. J. Savage, Quantum-classical computa- tion of Schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Kokail et al., Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models, Nature 569, 355 (2019)

    C. Kokail et al., Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models, Nature 569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    F. M. Surace et al., Lattice gauge theories and string dynamics in Rydberg atom quantum simu- lators, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021041 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    J. R. Stryker, Oracles for Gauss’s law on digital quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042301 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    N. H. Nguyen et al., Digital quantum simulation of the Schwinger model and symmetry protection with trapped ions, PRX Quantum 3, 020324 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    W. A. de Jong et al., Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054508 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    X.-D. Xie, X. Guo, H. Xing, Z.-Y. Xue, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu, Variational thermal quantum simu- lation of the lattice Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054509 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Honda, E

    M. Honda, E. Itou, Y. Kikuchi, L. Nagano, and T. Okuda, Classically emulated digital quantum simula- tion for screening and confinement in the Schwinger model with a topological term, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014504 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Chakraborty, M

    B. Chakraborty, M. Honda, T. Izubuchi, Y. Kikuchi, and A. Tomiya, Classically emulated digital quantum simulation of the Schwinger model with topological term via adiabatic state preparation, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094503 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, Quantum algorithms for simulating the lat- tice Schwinger model, Quantum 4, 306 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Nagano, A

    L. Nagano, A. Bapat, and C. W. Bauer, Quench dy- namics of the Schwinger model via variational quan- tum algorithms, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034501 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Angelides, P

    T. Angelides, P. Naredi, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, I. Tavernelli, and D. S. Wang, First-order phase transition of the Schwinger model with a quan- tum computer, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 6 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Kaikov, T

    O. Kaikov, T. Saporiti, V. Sazonov, and M. Tamaa- zousti, Phase diagram of the Schwinger model by adiabatic preparation of states on a quantum simu- lator, arXiv:2407.09224 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhang, X

    G. Zhang, X. Guo, E. Wang, and H. Xing, Quantum computing of chirality imbalance in SU(2) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 111, 056031 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Peruzzo et al., A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat

    A. Peruzzo et al., A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Kandala et al., Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quan- tum magnets, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    A. Kandala et al., Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quan- tum magnets, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Cerezo et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat

    M. Cerezo et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Higgott, D

    O. Higgott, D. Wang, and S. Brierley, Variational quantum computation of excited states, Quantum 3, 156 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of operators, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  61. [69]

    Suzuki, Generalized Trotter’s formula and sys- tematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems, Commun

    M. Suzuki, Generalized Trotter’s formula and sys- tematic approximants of exponential operators and inner derivations with applications to many-body problems, Commun. Math. Phys. 51, 183 (1976)

    1976

  62. [70]

    Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys

    M. Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Lett. A 146, 319 (1990)

    1990

  63. [71]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Javadi-Abhari et al., Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    A. Javadi-Abhari et al., Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Abraham et al., Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.2562111 (2019)

    H. Abraham et al., Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.2562111 (2019)

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    Virtanen et al., SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat

    P. Virtanen et al., SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods 17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    C. R. Harris et al., Array programming with NumPy, 14 Nature 585, 357 (2020). [77] J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environ- ment, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90 (2007)

    2020

Pith tools

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