Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

This paper develops a representation-basis framework for Hamiltonian lattice QCD and claims the first noiseless quantum simulations of theta-angle effects, hadronic states, string dynamics, and baryon chemical potential in three spatial dim

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:37 UTC pith:B3WAGJ5N

load-bearing objection A careful, honest extension of the representation-basis Hamiltonian framework to fermions and theta in 3D; the machinery is reusable but the simulation results are explicitly exploratory and the theta comparison is not controlled. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26445 v1 pith:B3WAGJ5N submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph hep-lat

Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics for Quantum Simulations

Luis Hidalgo , Patrick Draper This is my paper
classification quant-ph hep-lat
keywords lattice QCDquantum simulationKogut-Susskind Hamiltonianrepresentation basistheta anglestaggered fermionsWilson fermionsTrotterization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish a practical, representation-basis Hamiltonian formalism for simulating lattice QCD with quarks on quantum computers, including a theta term in three spatial dimensions. It derives explicit formulas for the matrix elements of the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian in a gauge-invariant basis built from SU(3) irreps and singlet couplings, so that Trotterized time evolution can be compiled into quantum circuits. Using noiseless simulations on small lattices with up to 32 qubits, it claims to demonstrate theta-angle aperiodicity, hadron propagation, string breaking, and a baryon chemical potential in three spatial dimensions for the first time. The main products are the matrix-element and site-factor formulas, a local qubit encoding, and a proof-of-concept Trotterized circuit toolkit.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian for SU(3) lattice gauge theory with staggered or Wilson fermions, including a topological theta term, can be implemented on a quantum computer using a local irreducible-representation encoding. The load-bearing evidence is a set of site-factor formulas that decompose Hamiltonian transition amplitudes into products of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and phase factors, which then feed into Givens-rotation-based Trotterized circuits. The paper shows that these circuits, in noiseless simulations and with good agreement against exact diagonalization, reproduce qualitative features of real-time QCD: theta-dependent time evolution, meson propagat

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the site factor: a gauge-invariant transition amplitude assembled from SU(Nc) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and phase factors at a single lattice site, with the physical Hilbert space defined by the requirement that the irreps meeting at each site couple to a singlet. The explicit matrix-element formulas decompose the Hamiltonian's action into such site factors, which are then used to build two-level Givens rotations for Trotterized time evolution. The local encoding assigns qubits to irrep labels and singlet-multiplicity indices rather than to group elements, keeping the qubit count logarithmic in the truncated Hilbert-space dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the strongly truncated, strong-coupling dynamics shown in the noiseless simulations are qualitatively faithful to QCD, rather than dominated by truncation cutoffs; the paper itself concedes that the exact-diagonalization baryon result is heavily contaminated by lattice and truncation artifacts.

What would settle it

Fix the lattice geometry and fermion parameters, then lower the coupling g while keeping the same truncation ladder and measure whether the theta-angle dependence of the averaged quadratic Casimir shifts from the strong-coupling aperiodic form toward a 2π-periodic form; if the qualitative phenomena—string breaking, meson propagation, baryon energy cost—vary discontinuously or vanish as truncation cutoffs are relaxed, the claim that these are QCD phenomena rather than truncation artifacts is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • If the site-factor formulas are correct, the same machinery extends to larger lattices and higher truncation cutoffs as quantum hardware improves.
  • The framework gives a concrete quantum-circuit compilation pathway for the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian with a theta term, enabling classical exact-diagonalization checks at small volumes.
  • The strong-coupling simulations predict that the lattice theory is aperiodic in theta, with time-reversal symmetry TH(θ)T = H(-θ), and that the two inequivalent theta implementations produce observably different time evolution.
  • The baryon chemical potential demonstration suggests the Hamiltonian formalism can probe finite-density equilibrium without a fermion sign problem, providing a route to equation-of-state studies.
  • The explicit match between Trotterized circuits and exact diagonalization across the simulated time range indicates that Trotterization error is under control for these small lattices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural editorial extension would be to test the same site-factor toolkit on other gauge groups, such as U(1) or SU(2), where the Clebsch-Gordan machinery is simpler and direct comparisons with existing simulations could validate the approach.
  • One could run the same circuits at weaker coupling and check whether the theta-angle aperiodicity shifts toward the continuum 2π periodicity; this would distinguish genuine theta dependence from strong-coupling truncation artifacts.
  • The two theta implementations provide a controlled diagnostic: computing the same observable both ways at fixed truncation isolates lattice-artifact contamination, which could guide the design of improved or counterterm-corrected Hamiltonians.
  • Adding the explicit baryon chemical potential term to the time-evolution circuits would turn the static energy-cost curve into a dynamical finite-density probe, a step the paper leaves implicit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Hamiltonian formulation of SU(3) lattice gauge theory with staggered and Wilson fermions in two and three spatial dimensions, using a representation basis in which gauge and fermionic degrees of freedom are labeled by SU(3) irreps and gauge invariance is enforced by singlet Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. The authors derive site-factor matrix elements for the plaquette, theta, kinetic, mass, and Wilson terms, describe a local qubit encoding, and construct first-order Trotter circuits. They report noiseless classical statevector simulations on lattices up to 32 qubits, including truncation studies, theta-angle dependence, meson propagation, string dynamics, and an exact-diagonalization study of the baryon chemical potential. The paper explicitly states that the simulations are proof-of-concept and not intended to make serious statements about real-time QCD.

Significance. The primary theoretical product is a substantial set of explicit, convention-explicit matrix-element formulas and circuit constructions for Hamiltonian SU(3) lattice gauge theory with matter, including a theta term. If correct, this is a useful contribution to the growing toolkit for quantum simulation of lattice QCD. The paper is commendably honest about truncation and lattice artifacts, and the ED spot-checks reported in Sec. 5 provide some support for the correctness of the Trotter circuits. However, the advertised physics demonstrations are all performed deep in the strong-coupling regime with aggressive Hilbert-space truncations, and the paper's own appendix shows that the theta-angle results are dominated by lattice artifacts. The empirical claims in the abstract therefore go beyond what the controlled results support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, App. E, Figs. 11 and 21] The theta-angle showcase is not controlled. Fig. 11 and Fig. 21 use two continuum-equivalent implementations of the theta term at identical parameters and produce dramatically different theta-dependence. App. E states that this is due to unsuppressed lattice artifacts at strong coupling and that such artifacts are 'roughly what is driving the form of Fig. 11.' Thus the theta-angle effects highlighted in the abstract have not been separated from cutoff effects. Either add a controlled study that distinguishes physical theta dependence from lattice/truncation artifacts, or reword the abstract and Sec. 4.2 to present these simulations only as truncation/lattice-artifact-dominated demonstrators of the framework.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 8, Sec. 6] All dynamics simulations fix g=2 and a=1, deep in the strong-coupling regime, and use very aggressive cutoffs (e.g., C*_2=2.67, M1/N1). Fig. 8 shows relative truncation-induced differences reaching about 50% for Wilson fermions at later times. There is no evidence that the qualitative phenomena advertised in the abstract—pion propagation, string breaking, baryon chemical potential—persist under less aggressive truncations or closer to the continuum limit. The authors themselves state that none of the results attempt to make serious statements of real-time QCD. The abstract's 'showcasing ... for the first time in three spatial dimensions' therefore overstates the scientific content; please either provide convergence checks or move these claims to a clearly labeled proof-of-principle context.
  3. [Sec. 5, Fig. 14] The baryon chemical potential result is obtained by exact diagonalization and is explicitly described as 'highly contaminated by lattice and truncation artifacts.' Despite this, the abstract lists a baryon chemical potential as one of the showcased phenomena for the first time in three spatial dimensions. As presented, this is a toy ED illustration, not a physics demonstration with controlled systematics. The claim should be reworded or moved to a statement about the framework's potential, with the strong caveats placed alongside the abstract-level claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 10 caption] The lower-right panel is labeled 'N(t)' but the text and Eq. (4.7) define the observable as 'N_q(t)'. Please correct for consistency.
  2. [Eq. (C.72)] The choice Xi = identity for the singlet multiplicity mixing matrix is introduced without discussion. This is presumably a convention, but the paper should state explicitly that different Xi choices correspond to a basis change in the physical Hilbert space, or explain any physical consequences for the site-factor matrix elements.
  3. [Figures 8-13 captions] Several captions contain 'were ran' instead of 'were run'. Please correct throughout.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The truncation families T_n, C*_2, M_{N_q}, N_{N_q} are defined in the text, but the caption-only usages in Figs. 16-18 could be made more reader-friendly by including a short summary table of the truncation labels and their meanings.
  5. [Sec. 1] The dependence on Ref. [16] is heavy and disclosed, but it would help the reader if the introduction explicitly listed which constructions are new to this paper (e.g., the theta-term site factors, the Wilson-fermion kinetic-site factors, the matrix-element counts) and which are carried over from prior work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; underpinning derivations are self-contained and self-citations are disclosed, non-load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper starts from the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian (Sec. 3, Eqs. 3.10-3.13), defines the physical Hilbert space in Eq. 3.30 via Gauss's law and SU(N_c) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (App. C), and computes Hamiltonian matrix elements directly from the operator definitions (App. D, Eqs. D.8, D.12, D.20-D.23). No parameter is fitted to the simulated observables: g, a, m_f, r, and theta are fixed theory inputs, and the displayed quantities (langle Pi^2(t)rangle, langle N_q(t)rangle, pion probabilities, string-breaking probabilities, baryon energy differences) are expectation values computed from the Hamiltonian, not constants recovered from the data. The quantum circuits are checked against exact diagonalization (Sec. 5: 'spot-checks of the noiseless simulation results above and obtained good agreement with ED'). The authors' own prior work [16] is cited for the local encoding and F-order conventions ('Building on previous works [16,24,25]'), but this is a disclosed methodological dependency, not a result derived from the citation; App. C.5 reconstructs the Hilbert-space construction and App. D derives the matrix elements. The strong-coupling and truncation limitations are explicitly acknowledged ('none of the results shown here attempt to make serious statements of the physics of real-time QCD'; App. E: Fig. 11 is driven by 'unsuppressed lattice artifacts at strong coupling'), which are validity caveats rather than circular reasoning. The only reason not to assign 0 is the recurring reliance on the authors' own prior work for encoding conventions; this is minor and not load-bearing, so the score is 2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper pulls standard lattice-QCD domain theory (Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian, fermion discretizations, Gauss's law) and SU(N) representation theory from prior literature; its own contributions are the site-factor matrix elements, the theta-term implementation, and the circuit constructions. The ledger lists the load-bearing inputs the reader did not pay for upstream: hand-chosen truncations (the true adjustable parameters shaping the results), the regime choice g=2, a=1, and the conventions defining the basis. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the singlet-multiplicity index Gamma_s is a standard SU(N) structure, not an invented entity.

free parameters (5)
  • gauge truncation C*_2 (max sum of quadratic Casimir eigenvalues meeting at a site) = 2.67–4 (values 4, 2.67, 1.33 used)
    Chosen by hand (Sec. 4); directly defines the physical Hilbert space; Fig. 8 shows Wilson-fermion observables shift up to ~50% with cutoff.
  • T_1 link truncation = links restricted to {1, 3, 3-bar}
    Used in Figs. 8(a,c) and 14; excludes all higher irreps from the link Hilbert space.
  • fermion truncations (M_1, N_1, M_2, N_3 families) = M_1: at most one particle–antiparticle pair per site; N_1: single particle or antiparticle per site
    Chosen by hand; the M_1/N_1 split causes ~50% relative differences in Wilson-fermion observables (Fig. 8(b,d)), so the demonstrations depend on this choice.
  • bare coupling g and lattice spacing a = g=2, a=1 for all runs
    Deep strong-coupling regime where truncation/lattice artifacts dominate (Sec. 4.2); chosen for convenience of the trivial-initial-state overlap, not for physics reach.
  • first-order Trotter step Delta-t = 0.1
    Numerical discretization; ED spot-checks pass for short runs (Sec. 5) but Trotter error is not systematically characterized.
axioms (7)
  • standard math SU(N) representation theory: Clebsch-Gordan orthogonality, great orthogonality theorem, Clebsch-Gordan series (App. C)
    Basis of the entire representation-basis construction (Eqs. 3.27, 3.30, C.40).
  • domain assumption Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian with staggered or Wilson fermions is the correct lattice discretization of continuum QCD (Sec. 3, Eqs. 3.10–3.13)
    Standard lattice-QCD result [9, 30–32]; the paper's matrix elements implement this Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The two theta-term presentations (H_theta in Eq. 3.10; complex-mass form in App. E) are valid lattice discretizations of the continuum theta term
    Figs. 11 vs 21 show the two presentations disagree strongly at g=2; the paper attributes this to unsuppressed lattice artifacts, but no continuum limit validates either.
  • domain assumption Gauss's-law singlets plus the global site order (L,R,P,A) define a complete physical basis (Sec. 3.3, Eq. 3.30)
    If the site-order convention mis-specifies states, the Hilbert-space basis is wrong; the paper argues the convention is unambiguous but does not prove completeness.
  • domain assumption Zero-point state |0> normal ordering with projectors P+/- yields a valid fermionic Hilbert-space starting point (Sec. 3.2, App. B)
    |0> is 'neither the free fermion vacuum nor ground state' (Sec. 3.2); the claim that it matches the zero-momentum sector motivates the construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Xi = identity for singlet multiplicity mixing (Eq. C.72)
    Any unitary Xi defines a valid set of basis states; identity is a convention acknowledged in App. C.5.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncation ladder (T_n, C*_2, M/N families) keeps the qualitative dynamics intact (Sec. 4)
    This is the load-bearing practical premise; Fig. 8 provides partial counter-evidence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 53211 in / 21581 out tokens · 162910 ms · 2026-08-01T15:37:40.827417+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a framework for quantum simulations of lattice SU($N_c$) gauge theory with quarks. Staggered and Wilson lattice fermions are considered in two and three spatial dimensions and a theta angle is included in three dimensions. The physical, gauge-invariant Hilbert space is formulated in a representation basis, where gauge and fermionic degrees of freedom are encoded by irreducible representations of SU($N_c$) that tensor at each lattice site to contain a singlet. We discuss algorithms for simulating time evolution on quantum computers and carry out noiseless simulations of lattice quantum chromodynamics ($N_c=3$) on small lattices with up to 32 qubits, showcasing theta angle effects, hadronic states, string dynamics, and a baryon chemical potential for the first time in three spatial dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26445 by Luis Hidalgo, Patrick Draper.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The representation basis for SU(3) fermionic states. Single occupied particle (antiparticle) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The degrees of freedom meeting at a site. The state of each degree of freedom can be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Controlled gates used in Trotterization. Each gate can be generalized to a multi-controlled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example quantum circuit for a Givens rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Physical link and plaquette states. These are specified by assignments of irreps to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example quantum circuit for a phased Givens rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 2×2 lattice with PBCs and the OBC cube used for simulations. Thick lines indicate lattice links and spheres correspond to lattice sites. What remains to specify and vary are truncations to the link and fermion Hilbert spaces. It is instructive to see the effects of these truncations on observables. In particular, consider the quadratic Casimir eigenvalue of a link, averaged over the lattice: ⟨Π 2 (t)⟩ … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measurements of ⟨Π2 (t)⟩ and ⟨Nq(t)⟩ on the 2 × 2 PBC lattice with different Hilbert space truncations. Curves are labeled with “gauge truncation, fermion truncation.” For these simulations, 105 shots were ran on Qiskit Aer’s statevector simulator [50] with up to 32 qubits and O(107 ) untranspiled gates. The simulation parameters used were ∆t = 0.1, Nf = 1, and r = mf = 1. (a) and (c) show results for stag… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measurements of ⟨Π2 (t)⟩ and ⟨Nq(t)⟩ on the 2 × 2 PBC lattice with different staggered fermion masses. The gauge truncation used here is C ∗ 2 = 4 and no truncation was made on the fermion Hilbert space. For these simulations, 105 shots were ran on Qiskit Aer’s statevector simulator with 28 qubits and O(105 ) untranspiled gates. The simulation parameters used were ∆t = 0.1 and Nf = 1. Each curve is labeled… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Measurements of ⟨Π2 (t)⟩ and ⟨Nq(t)⟩ on the 2 × 2 lattice with different Wilson param￾eters. The gauge truncation used here is C ∗ 2 = 2.67 and the fermion truncation was M1. For these simulations, 105 shots were ran on Qiskit Aer’s statevector simulator with 28 qubits and up to O(105 ) untranspiled gates. The simulation parameters used were ∆t = 0.1, Nf = 1, and mf = 1. Each curve is labeled by the Wilso… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Measurements of ⟨Π2 (t)⟩ and ⟨Nq(t)⟩ on the cube with varying theta angle. The gauge truncation used here is C ∗ 2 = 2.67 and the fermion truncation was M1. For these simulations, 105 shots were ran on CUDA-Q’s statevector simulator [53] with 32 qubits and up to O(104 ) untranspiled gates. The simulation parameters used were ∆t = 0.1, Nf = 1, and mf = 1. Each curve is labeled by a different time t. Eventu… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Detections of “charged pions” on the 2 × 2 lattice with Nf = 2 Wilson fermions. The gauge truncation used here is C ∗ 2 = 1.33, which allows at most one link at a site to be in the 3 or 3 representations. The fermion truncation used was [N (u) 1 , N(d) 1 ], where there can be only one particle or antiparticle of a given flavor on a site. 105 shots were ran on CUDA-Q’s statevector simulator with 32 qubits … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: String breaking for two kinds of strings on a cube with a staggered fermion. The gauge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Chemical potential at B = 3 − 4 on the single cube, OBC, T1 gauge truncation, Nf = 1 staggered fermion lattice, obtained via exact diagonalization. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cross section of a lattice highlighting where Hamiltonian operators act. The plaquette [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: SU(3) plaquette matrix element and site factor (SF) counts. “#f” refers to the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: SU(3) theta term matrix element and site factor (SF) counts for a pure gauge theory. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: SU(3) kinetic term matrix element and site factor (SF) counts. “#f” refers to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Physical site states. These are specified by assignments of irreps to the degrees of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: SU(3) site factor counts for theta-induced singlet transitions. “#f” refers to the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Measurements of ⟨Π2 (t)⟩ and ⟨Nq(t)⟩ on the cube with varying theta angle. The gauge truncation used here is C ∗ 2 = 2.67 and the fermion truncation is M1. For these simulations, 105 shots were run on CUDA-Q’s statevector simulator with 32 qubits and up to O(104 ) untranspiled gates. The simulation parameters used were ∆t = 0.1, Nf = 1, and mf = 1. Each curve is labeled by a different time t. References [… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling, and B. R. Webber,QCD and Collider Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2011). 64

    2011

  2. [2]

    Campbell, J

    J. Campbell, J. Huston, and F. Krauss,The Black Book of Quantum Chromodynamics: A Primer for the LHC Era(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    DeGrand and C

    T. DeGrand and C. E. Detar,Lattice Methods for Quantum Chromodynamics(World Scientific, 2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration), FLAG review 2024,Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) Collaboration), FLAG review 2024,Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Alibertiet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,Physics Reports1143, 1-158 (2025)

    R. Alibertiet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,Physics Reports1143, 1-158 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational Complexity and Fundamental Limitations to Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations,Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Aarts and D

    G. Aarts and D. Sexty, Lattice field theories with a sign problem, arXiv:2604.24290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Bonanno, C

    C. Bonanno, C. Bonati, and M. D’Elia, Strong CP problem, theta term and QCD topological properties, arXiv:2510.03059

    arXiv

  9. [9]

    Kogut and L

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D11, 395–408 (1975)

    1975

  10. [10]

    Zohar and M

    E. Zohar and M. Burrello, Formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. D91, 054506 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    C. W. Baueret al., Quantum Simulation for High-Energy Physics,PRX Quantum4, 027001 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of funda- mental particles and forces,Nature Reviews Physics5, 420–432 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Di Meglioet al., Quantum Computing for High-Energy Physics: State of the Art and Challenges,PRX Quantum5, 037001 (2024)

    A. Di Meglioet al., Quantum Computing for High-Energy Physics: State of the Art and Challenges,PRX Quantum5, 037001 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    J. C. Halimeh, N. Mueller, J. Knolle, Z. Papi´ c, and Z. Davoudi, Quantum simulation of out-of-equilibrium dynamics in gauge theories, arXiv:2509.03586

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    C. E. P. Robin and M. J. Savage, Quantum Complexity and New Directions in Nuclear Physics and High-Energy Physics Phenomenology, arXiv:2604.26376

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Balaji, C

    P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. Elhaderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, A. Lytle, and E. Rinaldi, Quantum circuits for SU(3) lattice gauge theory,Phys. Rev. D112, 054511 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    N. S. Modi, A. N. Ciavarella, J. C. Halimeh, and C. W. Bauer, LargeN c Truncations for SU(Nc) Lattice Yang-Mills Theory with Fermions, arXiv:2602.02344

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    S. V. Kadam, A. Naskar, I. Raychowdhury, and J. R. Stryker, Loop-string-hadron ap- proach to SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills theory: Hilbert space of a trivalent vertex,Phys. Rev. D111, 074516 (2025). 65

    2025

  19. [19]

    S. V. Kadam, A. Naskar, I. Raychowdhury, and J. R. Stryker, Loop-string-hadron ap- proach to SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills theory, II: Operator representation for the trivalent vertex, arXiv:2512.11796

    arXiv

  20. [20]

    Mariani, S

    A. Mariani, S. Pradhan, and E. Ercolessi, Hamiltonians and gauge-invariant Hilbert space for lattice Yang-Mills-like theories with finite gauge group,Phys. Rev. D107, 114513 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    S. O. Perez, E. M. Murairi, E. J. Gustafson, and H. Lamm, Primitive Quantum Gates for anSU(3) Discrete Subgroup: Σ(72×3), arXiv:2511.17437

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    Froland, D

    H. Froland, D. M. Grabowska, and Z. Li, Simulating Fully Gauge-Fixed SU(2) Hamil- tonian Dynamics on Digital Quantum Computers, arXiv:2512.22782

    arXiv

  23. [23]

    Bergner, M

    G. Bergner, M. Hanada, and E. Mendicelli, A minimal implementation of Yang-Mills theory on a digital quantum computer, arXiv:2604.15132

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Byrnes and Y

    T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A73, 022328 (2006)

    2006

  25. [25]

    Ciavarella, N

    A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Trailhead for quantum simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory in the local multiplet basis,Phys. Rev. D103, 094501 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    P. A. M. Dirac,Lectures on Quantum Mechanics(Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, NY, 1964)

    1964

  27. [27]

    M. Illa, M. J. Savage, and X. Yao, Improved honeycomb and hyperhoneycomb lattice Hamiltonians for quantum simulations of non-Abelian gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D 111, 114520 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    A. H. Z. Kavaki and R. Lewis, False vacuum decay in triamond lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D112, 014502 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Nielsen and M

    H. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, A no-go theorem for regularizing chiral fermions,Physics Letters B105, 219-223 (1981)

    1981

  30. [30]

    T. V. Zache, F. Hebenstreit, F. Jendrzejewski, M. K. Oberthaler, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories using Wilson fermions,Quan- tum Science and Technology3, 034010 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Angelides, L

    T. Angelides, L. Funcke, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, Computing the mass shift of Wilson and staggered fermions in the lattice Schwinger model with matrix product states,Phys. Rev. D108, 014516 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Bharadwaj, E

    S. Bharadwaj, E. Rosanowski, S. Singh, A. di Tucci, C. Peng, K. Jansen, L. Funcke, and D. Luo, Hamiltonian Lattice QED3 with One and Two Flavors of Wilson Fermions: Topological Structure and Response, arXiv:2603.05616. 66

    arXiv

  33. [33]

    K. G. Wilson, Quarks and Strings on a Lattice, inNew Phenomena in Subnuclear Physics: Part A(Springer US, Boston, MA, 1977)

    1977

  34. [34]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks,Phys. Rev. D10, 2445–2459 (1974)

    1974

  35. [35]

    Chiew and S

    M. Chiew and S. Strelchuk, Discovering optimal fermion-qubit mappings through algo- rithmic enumeration,Quantum7, 1145 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The Bravyi-Kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure,The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 224109 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    O’Brien and S

    O. O’Brien and S. Strelchuk, Ultrafast hybrid fermion-to-qubit mapping,Phys. Rev. B 109, 115149 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Pardo, T

    G. Pardo, T. Greenberg, A. Fortinsky, N. Katz, and E. Zohar, Resource-efficient quan- tum simulation of lattice gauge theories in arbitrary dimensions: Solving for Gauss’s law and fermion elimination,Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023077 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Ballarin, G

    M. Ballarin, G. Cataldi, G. Magnifico, D. Jaschke, M. D. Liberto, I. Siloi, S. Montangero, and P. Silvi, Digital quantum simulation of lattice fermion theories with local encoding, Quantum8, 1460 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    A. Alex, M. Kalus, A. Huckleberry, and J. von Delft, A numerical algorithm for the explicit calculation of SU(N) and SL(N,C) Clebsch–Gordan coefficients,Journal of Mathematical Physics52, 023507 (2011)

    2011

  41. [41]

    Balaji, C

    P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. Elhaderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, and A. Lytle, Perturbation theory, irrep truncations, and state preparation methods for quantum simulations ofSU(3) lattice gauge theory,Phys. Rev. D113, 094505 (2026)

    2026

  42. [42]

    Kan and Y

    A. Kan and Y. Nam, Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics and Electrodynamics on a Universal Quantum Computer, arXiv:2107.12769

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    M. L. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, Exponential Improvements in the Sim- ulation of Lattice Gauge Theories Using Near-Optimal Techniques,PRX Quantum5, 040347 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    N. Klco, M. J. Savage, and J. R. Stryker, SU(2) non-Abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers,Phys. Rev. D101, 074512 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    A Rahman, R

    S. A Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Powell, SU(2) lattice gauge theory on a quantum annealer,Phys. Rev. D104, 034501 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    Hariprakash, N

    S. Hariprakash, N. S. Modi, M. Kreshchuk, C. F. Kane, and C. W. Bauer, Strategies for simulating the time evolution of Hamiltonian lattice field theories,Phys. Rev. A111, 022419 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand Unification of Quantum Algorithms,PRX Quantum2, 040203 (2021). 67

    2021

  48. [48]

    Mohseniet al., How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits, arXiv:2411.10406

    M. Mohseniet al., How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits, arXiv:2411.10406

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  50. [50]

    Javadi-Abhariet al., Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810

    A. Javadi-Abhariet al., Quantum computing with Qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    A. Kan, L. Funcke, S. K¨ uhn, L. Dellantonio, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. A. Muschik, and K. Jansen, Investigating a (3+1)D topologicalθ-term in the Hamiltonian formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum and classical simulations,Phys. Rev. D104, 034504 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Lewis, S

    R. Lewis, S. Pourbakhsh, A. Pradhan, and L. Siquioco, SU(2) gauge theory with fermions on a semi-simple cubic lattice, arXiv:2606.21563

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    J.-S. Kim, A. McCaskey, B. Heim, M. Modani, S. Stanwyck, and T. Costa, CUDA Quan- tum: The Platform for Integrated Quantum-Classical Computing, inProceedings of the 60th Annual ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference(IEEE Press, San Francisco, CA, 2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M.-L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Simulating one-dimensional quantum chromodynamics on a quantum com- puter: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks,Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033184 (2023)

    2023

  55. [55]

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Preparations for quantum simulations of quantum chromodynamics in 1 + 1 dimensions. I. Axial gauge,Phys. Rev. D107, 054512 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Schuhmacher, G.-X

    J. Schuhmacher, G.-X. Su, J. J. Osborne, A. Gandon, J. C. Halimeh, and I. Tavernelli, Observation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer, arXiv:2505.20387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Cataldi, S

    G. Cataldi, S. Orlando, and J. C. Halimeh, Real-Time String Dynamics in a 2+1D Non- Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory: String Breaking, Glueball Formation, Baryon Blockade, and Tension Reduction, arXiv:2509.08868

    arXiv

  58. [58]

    Gupta, E

    N. Gupta, E. Mathew, S. V. Kadam, J. R. Stryker, A. Bapat, N. Mueller, Z. Davoudi, and I. Raychowdhury, String-breaking statics and dynamics in a (1+1)D SU(2) lattice gauge theory, arXiv:2603.24698

    arXiv

  59. [59]

    Joshi, Y

    R. Joshi, Y. Tian, K. Hemery, N. S. Srivatsa, J. J. Osborne, H. Dreyer, E. Rinaldi, and J. C. Halimeh, Observation of genuine 2 + 1D string dynamics in a U(1) lat- tice gauge theory with a tunable plaquette term on a trapped-ion quantum computer, arXiv:2604.07436

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Grieninger, M

    S. Grieninger, M. J. Savage, and N. A. Zemlevskiy, The Quantum Complexity of String Breaking in the Schwinger Model, arXiv:2601.08825. 68

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Carena, H

    M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Improved Hamiltonians for Quantum Simulations of Gauge Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 051601 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    Gustafson and R

    E. Gustafson and R. Van de Water, Improved Fermion Hamiltonians for quantum sim- ulation,PoSLATTICE2023, 215 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    A. N. Ciavarella and I. A. Chernyshev, Preparation of the SU(3) lattice Yang-Mills vacuum with variational quantum methods,Phys. Rev. D105, 074504 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    A. N. Ciavarella, Quantum simulation of lattice QCD with improved Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. D108, 094513 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    Schw¨ agerl, K

    T. Schw¨ agerl, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, Fermion discretization effects in the two-flavor lattice Schwinger model: A study with matrix product states,Phys. Rev. D112, 094501 (2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Singh, Ginsparg-Wilson Hamiltonians with Improved Chiral Symmetry, arXiv:2505.20419

    H. Singh, Ginsparg-Wilson Hamiltonians with Improved Chiral Symmetry, arXiv:2505.20419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics127, 103991 (2022)

    K. Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics127, 103991 (2022)

    2022

  68. [68]

    L. B. Ho, Quantum simulation of strong charge-parity violation and the Peccei-Quinn mechanism,Phys. Rev. D113, 074507 (2026)

    2026

  69. [69]

    Rouxinol, T

    G. Rouxinol, T. Magorsch, J. J. Osborne, N. Brambilla, and J. C. Halimeh, Schwinger Model with a Dynamical Axion, arXiv:2603.12194

    arXiv

  70. [70]

    Susskind, Lattice fermions,Phys

    L. Susskind, Lattice fermions,Phys. Rev. D16, 3031–3039 (1977)

    1977

  71. [71]

    Catterall, A

    S. Catterall, A. Pradhan, and A. Samlodia, Symmetries and anomalies of Hamiltonian staggered fermions,Phys. Rev. D113, 014504 (2026)

    2026

  72. [72]

    D’Andrea, C

    I. D’Andrea, C. W. Bauer, D. M. Grabowska, and M. Freytsis, New basis for Hamilto- nian SU(2) simulations,Phys. Rev. D109, 074501 (2024)

    2024

  73. [73]

    Kasper, G

    V. Kasper, G. Juzeli¯ unas, M. Lewenstein, F. Jendrzejewski, and E. Zohar, From the Jaynes–Cummings model to non-abelian gauge theories: a guided tour for the quantum engineer,New Journal of Physics22, 103027 (2020)

    2020

  74. [74]

    Anishetty and T

    R. Anishetty and T. P. Sreeraj, Mass gap in the weak coupling limit of (2 + 1)- dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory,Phys. Rev. D97, 074511 (2018)

    2018

  75. [75]

    Raychowdhury and J

    I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Solving Gauss’s law on digital quantum computers with loop-string-hadron digitization,Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033039 (2020)

    2020

  76. [76]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 2: Modern Applications(Cambridge University Press, 2013). 69

    2013

  77. [77]

    Fujikawa, Path-Integral Measure for Gauge-Invariant Fermion Theories,Phys

    K. Fujikawa, Path-Integral Measure for Gauge-Invariant Fermion Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1195–1198 (1979)

    1979

  78. [78]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Carolan, A. Connelly, Z. Davoudi, E. F. Dumitrescu, and K. Yeter- Aydeniz, Quantum Computation of Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions and Entan- glement Tomography in a Lattice Gauge Theory,PRX Quantum4, 030323 (2023). 70

    2023