pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.10932 · v2 · pith:EP2NGUSPnew · submitted 2026-03-11 · 🪐 quant-ph · hep-lat

Gauge-invariant QMETTS with mutually unbiased physical bases for Z₂ lattice gauge theories at finite temperature and density

Reita Maeno This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 11:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph hep-lat
keywords Z2 lattice gauge theoryQMETTSfinite temperaturefinite densitymutually unbiased basesstabilizer formalismgauge invariancequantum simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Z2 lattice gauge theories permit efficient construction of gauge-invariant mutually unbiased bases for QMETTS at finite temperature and density using the stabilizer formalism.

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

This paper shows how to run the Quantum Minimally Entangled Typical Thermal States algorithm on Z2 gauge theories while keeping every sampled state strictly gauge-invariant. The key step is the introduction of measurement bases that are mutually unbiased only inside the physical subspace, so that sampling remains efficient without ever projecting out gauge degrees of freedom. These bases are obtained directly from the known correspondence between Z2 lattice gauge theories and stabilizer codes, and the construction works for any spatial dimension and any choice of boundary conditions. The authors also fold shot noise into the error analysis and conclude that, for fixed total circuit runs, it is better to draw many noisy single-shot estimates than to spend extra shots on each individual pure state. The approach is demonstrated numerically on a (1+1)-dimensional Z2 theory coupled to staggered fermions.

Core claim

Exploiting the correspondence between Z2 lattice gauge theories and the stabilizer formalism allows construction of measurement bases that remain gauge-invariant and mutually unbiased strictly inside the physical subspace for arbitrary dimensions and boundary conditions; these bases enable QMETTS sampling of finite-temperature and finite-density observables without eliminating gauge degrees of freedom.

What carries the argument

Gauge-invariant mutually unbiased physical bases obtained from the stabilizer-formalism correspondence for Z2 LGTs, which perform the unbiased sampling inside the physical subspace.

If this is right

  • Finite-temperature and finite-density expectation values become accessible on quantum hardware while preserving Gauss's law at every step.
  • The same construction applies unchanged to periodic, open, or mixed boundary conditions in any dimension.
  • Under a fixed budget of circuit executions, generating more QMETTS samples with single-shot measurements minimizes variance better than multi-shot estimates per state.
  • The numerical validation in (1+1)D with staggered fermions confirms that the method reproduces known thermal observables without gauge fixing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar stabilizer-based constructions might be possible for other discrete gauge groups once an analogous code correspondence is identified.
  • The approach could reduce the overhead of penalty terms or post-selection in existing quantum simulations of gauge theories.
  • The single-shot optimality result may generalize to other Monte-Carlo-style quantum algorithms that sample from constrained subspaces.

Load-bearing premise

The stabilizer correspondence for Z2 lattice gauge theories produces bases that stay mutually unbiased inside the gauge-invariant physical subspace for every dimension and boundary condition.

What would settle it

An explicit counter-example in two or more spatial dimensions in which the constructed bases lose mutual unbiasedness or gauge invariance when restricted to the physical subspace would disprove the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.10932 by Reita Maeno.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic setup for (1 + 1)-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In this case, the total number of circuit ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison between conventional (Top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Quantum circuit for the first measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Deviations of the sampling distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Sampling distributions of collpase states obtained by the projective measurements during the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Temperature dependence of the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Dependence of chiral condensate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Phase diagrams in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Integrated auto-correlation times in the Markov chain for energy density, chiral condensate, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Quantum circuit for the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Quantum circuit for the second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In quantum computations of gauge theories at finite temperature and finite density, enforcing Gauss's law for all states contributing to the thermal ensemble is a nontrivial challenge. In this work, we adopt the Quantum Minimally Entangled Typical Thermal States (QMETTS) algorithm for $Z_2$ gauge-constrained systems and propose a method for computing finite-temperature and finite-density expectation values without eliminating gauge degrees of freedom. To preserve gauge invariance while maintaining efficient sampling, we introduce measurement bases that are gauge invariant and mutually unbiased within the physical subspace. We show that such measurement bases can be constructed efficiently for $Z_2$ lattice gauge theories in general dimensions and arbitrary boundary conditions by exploiting the correspondence between $Z_2$ lattice gauge theories and the stabilizer formalism. Furthermore, since expectation-value estimation on quantum hardware is inherently affected by shot noise, we explicitly incorporate shot noise into the analysis. We find that the single-shot strategy is near optimal under a fixed total number of circuit executions in terms of the variance. This result indicates that it is generally more efficient to generate more QMETTS samples than to accurately estimate the expectation value for each individual pure state. We validate the proposed method numerically in a $(1+1)$-dimensional $Z_2$ lattice gauge theory coupled to staggered fermions. Our results provide a gauge-invariant framework for finite-temperature and finite-density calculations on quantum devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a gauge-invariant extension of the QMETTS algorithm for Z_2 lattice gauge theories at finite temperature and density. It constructs measurement bases that are mutually unbiased within the physical (gauge-invariant) subspace by mapping the Z_2 LGT to the stabilizer formalism, claims this construction is efficient for general dimensions and arbitrary boundary conditions, incorporates explicit shot-noise modeling, demonstrates that a single-shot strategy is near-optimal for fixed circuit executions, and validates the approach numerically in a (1+1)D Z_2 LGT with staggered fermions.

Significance. If the stabilizer-based construction of gauge-invariant MUBs holds without hidden violations or extra overhead in higher dimensions and general boundary conditions, the work would enable direct quantum sampling of thermal ensembles in gauge theories while preserving Gauss-law constraints. The shot-noise analysis and optimality result for preferring more samples over deeper per-state estimation are practically useful for near-term hardware implementations.

major comments (2)
  1. [General construction] § on general construction (stabilizer mapping): the claim that the Z_2-stabilizer correspondence produces bases that remain mutually unbiased (equal overlap 1/d) strictly inside the physical subspace for arbitrary dimensions and boundary conditions is load-bearing for the central efficiency claim, yet the manuscript provides explicit verification and error bounds only for the (1+1)D staggered-fermion case; in d>1 the plaquette operators enlarge the stabilizer group and can modify effective overlaps after projection onto the common +1 eigenspace.
  2. [Numerical validation] Numerical validation section: the reported (1+1)D results with explicit shot-noise modeling support the method locally, but do not test whether the MUB property survives when open boundary conditions alter the stabilizer group or when 2D plaquette constraints couple link variables differently; a counter-example or analytic bound for at least one higher-dimensional case is needed to underwrite the general claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the physical projector and the definition of mutual unbiasedness inside the gauge-invariant subspace should be introduced with an explicit equation early in the text rather than only in the methods.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states the single-shot strategy is 'near optimal'; a brief comparison table of variance versus number of samples for the (1+1)D benchmark would make this quantitative claim easier to assess.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation of the general construction and its validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [General construction] § on general construction (stabilizer mapping): the claim that the Z_2-stabilizer correspondence produces bases that remain mutually unbiased (equal overlap 1/d) strictly inside the physical subspace for arbitrary dimensions and boundary conditions is load-bearing for the central efficiency claim, yet the manuscript provides explicit verification and error bounds only for the (1+1)D staggered-fermion case; in d>1 the plaquette operators enlarge the stabilizer group and can modify effective overlaps after projection onto the common +1 eigenspace.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The construction maps the Z_2 LGT to the stabilizer formalism, with the physical subspace defined as the common +1 eigenspace of the complete stabilizer set (Gauss-law operators together with plaquette operators in d>1). The mutually unbiased bases are chosen within this code space so that the normalized overlaps remain exactly 1/d after projection; the enlargement of the stabilizer group by plaquettes is already incorporated in the definition of the subspace and does not alter the uniform overlap property. We will add an explicit analytic demonstration of this fact, together with general error bounds that hold for arbitrary dimension and boundary conditions, in a revised section on the general construction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical validation] Numerical validation section: the reported (1+1)D results with explicit shot-noise modeling support the method locally, but do not test whether the MUB property survives when open boundary conditions alter the stabilizer group or when 2D plaquette constraints couple link variables differently; a counter-example or analytic bound for at least one higher-dimensional case is needed to underwrite the general claim.

    Authors: We agree that extending the validation strengthens the manuscript. While the (1+1)D numerics with shot noise serve as a detailed proof-of-principle, we will add an analytic bound in the revised manuscript showing that the MUB property is preserved under modified stabilizer groups arising from open boundaries or 2D plaquette constraints. A full numerical demonstration in 2D lies beyond the present scope but is consistent with the general stabilizer argument we now make explicit. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation is self-contained with no reduction to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's core construction of gauge-invariant mutually unbiased bases for Z2 LGT exploits the standard correspondence to the stabilizer formalism, which is an independent external fact (not defined within this work or reduced to a fitted parameter from the same data). No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the derivation; the (1+1)D numerical validation and shot-noise analysis are separate and do not force the general claim. The method remains falsifiable against external benchmarks outside any internal fit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method depends on the Z2-stabilizer correspondence as the key enabler for efficient basis construction; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The correspondence between Z2 lattice gauge theories and the stabilizer formalism allows construction of gauge-invariant mutually unbiased bases in the physical subspace for general dimensions and boundary conditions.
    Directly invoked to guarantee efficient construction without eliminating gauge degrees of freedom.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5780 in / 1273 out tokens · 30835 ms · 2026-05-21T11:52:05.043540+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Ground state preparation in $(2+1)$-dimensional pure $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory via deterministic quantum imaginary time evolution

    hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Deterministic QITE made gauge-invariant via commuting Pauli operators achieves relative error below 0.1 percent for ground-state preparation in 2+1D Z2 LGT on systems up to twelve plaquettes, as shown by tensor-networ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Choose one state|i (1)⟩from an measurement basis{|n (1)⟩}

    work page

  2. [2]

    Generate the METTS by the ITE,|ϕ (1) i ⟩= e−β(H−µN)/2 |i(1)⟩/ p ⟨i(1)|e −β(H−µN) |i(1)⟩

    work page

  3. [3]

    Compute the observable estimate ofOunder the METTS|ϕ (1) i ⟩;⟨ϕ (1) i | O |ϕ(1) i ⟩

    work page

  4. [4]

    Measure the|ϕ (1) i ⟩with another measurement basis{|m (2)⟩}satisfying the condition of the MUB with{|n (1)⟩}, leading to a collapse into a basis state|j (2)⟩ ∈ {|m (2)⟩}with probability | ⟨j(2)|ϕ(1) i ⟩ |2

    work page

  5. [5]

    Repeat the same step from 2 to 4 switching the role of{|n (1)⟩}and{|m (2)⟩}withN chain times

    work page

  6. [6]

    !⟩Observable estimate 𝑂!with𝑁

    Average the samples⟨ϕ (a) i | O |ϕ(a) i ⟩(a= 1,2). In the next subsection, we explain the quantum version of this algorithm, called the QMETTS algo- rithm. In addition to this, by modifying the scheme to estimate observables, we show the improvement of the sampling efficiency. B. QMETTS algorithm and Sampling Improvements In this section, we discuss the Q...

    work page

  7. [7]

    All states of measurement bases{|n (1)⟩}and {|m(2)⟩}are eigenstates of all Gauss’s law op- erators : Gn |i(a)⟩=g n |i(a)⟩, g n ∈ {±1}, a= 1,2.(23)

    work page

  8. [8]

    Any two physical states|i (1)⟩,|j (2)⟩ ∈ H phys satisfy the relation of the MUB within physical subspaceH phys: | ⟨i(1)|j(2)⟩ |2 = 1 dphys ,(24) whered phys denotes the dimension of the phys- ical subspaceH phys. If we start with a physical state and employing the MUPB for projective measurements to obtain collapse states, the Markov chain is guaranteed t...

    work page

  9. [9]

    unphysical states

    Temperature dependence We first investigate the temperature dependence of the theory in the zero-density regime using our algorithm. Figures 6(a)–6(c) show the sampling dis- tribution of the collapse states of the physicalZ- basis states obtained via the QMETTS algorithm with the MUPB at three representative inverse tem- peratures:βg= 0.40,1.00,and 14.0. ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    We investigate the sampling distribution of the col- lapse states varying fromµ= 0.0 toµ= 2.5,5.0, shown in Fig

    Density dependence Next, we study the dependence on the chemi- cal potentialµatβ= 0.40,1.00,and 14.0. We investigate the sampling distribution of the col- lapse states varying fromµ= 0.0 toµ= 2.5,5.0, shown in Fig. 6(a) - Fig. 6(i). At high temperature (β= 0.4), increasingµsuppresses thermal fluctua- tions; see Fig. 6(a), (d), and (e). At low tempera- tur...

    work page

  11. [11]

    If a subsetH⊆Gcan generate all elements ofGthrough the multiplication of its elements, we refer toHas a generating set ofGand denote the group asG=⟨H⟩

    Stabilizer formalism LetGbe group. If a subsetH⊆Gcan generate all elements ofGthrough the multiplication of its elements, we refer toHas a generating set ofGand denote the group asG=⟨H⟩. The elements ofH are called the generators ofG. TheN-qubit Pauli group is defined as,P:={±1,±i} ⊗ {I, X, Y, Z} ⊗N. Stabilizer groups, operators, and states are defined us...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Stabilizer formalism Z2 LGTs Stabilizer operators Gauss’s law operators Code space Physical space TABLE I: Correspondence between the stabilizer formalism andZ 2 LGTs

    If there exists an operatorP∈ P N such that P∈ S ψ and−P∈ S ϕ, the states are orthogo- nal:| ⟨ϕ|ψ⟩ |= 0. Stabilizer formalism Z2 LGTs Stabilizer operators Gauss’s law operators Code space Physical space TABLE I: Correspondence between the stabilizer formalism andZ 2 LGTs

    work page

  13. [13]

    Then, the inner prod- uct is given by| ⟨ϕ|ψ⟩ |= 2 −S/2

    Otherwise, letSbe the number of independent generators inS ϕ that do not commute with at least one element inS ψ. Then, the inner prod- uct is given by| ⟨ϕ|ψ⟩ |= 2 −S/2. Note that the number of different generators can- not be uniquely determined and we must minimize the number of the same generators in step 2. Proof.First, we prove the first step. If the...

    work page

  14. [14]

    MUPB Proof We now apply the stabilizer formalism to rigor- ously prove that the proposed bases satisfy the con- dition of the MUPB. First, we remark the mathe- matical equivalence between the stabilizer formalism andZ 2 LGT.Z 2 LGT can be viewed as a stabilizer formalism where the Gauss’s law operators serve as the generators of the stabilizer groups. In ...

    work page

  15. [15]

    Due to the nature ofF 2, CNOT gates play a role in adding and swapping column vectors inXspace, therefore we can perform Gaussian elimination inX space by using CNOT gates

    Since generators are independent, we can make the matrix inXspace has rankSby usingHgates. Due to the nature ofF 2, CNOT gates play a role in adding and swapping column vectors inXspace, therefore we can perform Gaussian elimination inX space by using CNOT gates. In addition, commu- tativity for each generator constraints the space. If the space is repres...

    work page

  16. [16]

    Use Hadamard gates to makeAhave rankS

    work page

  17. [17]

    Use CNOTs to perform Gaussian elimination onA, producing I0 B = I0 C D ,(D10) whereC∈F S×S 2 andD∈F S×(N−S) 2 are the former and latter parts ofB

    work page

  18. [18]

    Use Hadamard gates to swap, I D C0 .(D11)

    work page

  19. [19]

    Again, use CNOTs to perform Gaussian elim- ination onXspace, producing I0 C0 .(D12)

    work page

  20. [20]

    We can apply phase gates to add a diagonal matrix toCto convertCinto the formC=M M T for some invertibleMbased on Lem

    Commutativity states thatIC T is symmetric, implying thatCis symmetric. We can apply phase gates to add a diagonal matrix toCto convertCinto the formC=M M T for some invertibleMbased on Lem. D.2

    work page

  21. [21]

    Use CNOTs, producing M0 M0 .(D13) 19

    work page

  22. [22]

    Apply phase gates toSqubits to obtain M0 0 .(D14)

    work page

  23. [23]

    Again, use CNOTs to perform Gaussian elim- ination onM, producing I0 0 .(D15)

    work page

  24. [24]

    The parallel apply of Hadamard gates and Phase gates implies that step 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 can be achieved with constant depth andO(N) gates

    Use Hadamard gates for swappingXandZ space 0 I0 .(D16) Let us evaluate the circuit complexity in this al- gorithm. The parallel apply of Hadamard gates and Phase gates implies that step 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 can be achieved with constant depth andO(N) gates. Steps 2, 4, 6, and 8 involving CNOTs can be con- structed byO(N 2) gates withO(logN) depth for each st...

    work page

  25. [25]

    QCD phase diagram: an overview

    M. A. Stephanov, “QCD phase diagram: An Overview,”PoSLA T2006(2006) 024, arXiv:hep-lat/0701002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  26. [26]

    The phase diagram of dense QCD

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, “The phase diagram of dense QCD,”Rept. Prog. Phys.74 (2011) 014001,arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    Quantum chromodynamics and the theory of superdense matter,

    E. V. Shuryak, “Quantum chromodynamics and the theory of superdense matter,”Physics Reports 61no. 2, (1980) 71–158

    work page 1980

  28. [28]

    Confinement of Quarks,

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

    work page 1974

  29. [29]

    Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, “Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilson’s Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D11(1975) 395–408

    work page 1975

  30. [30]

    Quantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, 20 S N−S W FIG. 11: Quantum circuit for the first measurement basis (physicalZ-basis) for any dimension and arbitrary boundary conditions.W is the unitary obtained in Eq. (D17). S N−S W H⊗S FIG. 12: Quantum circuit for the second measurement basis (physica...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    Ab initio determination of light hadron masses,

    S. Durr, Z. Fodor, J. Frison, C. Hoelbling, R. Hoffmann, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, T. Kurth, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert,et al., “Ab initio determination of light hadron masses,”Science 322no. 5905, (2008) 1224–1227

    work page 2008

  32. [32]

    Nagata,Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Prog

    K. Nagata, “Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127(2022) 103991, arXiv:2108.12423 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Variational Gibbs state preparation on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices,

    M. Consiglio, J. Settino, A. Giordano, C. Mastroianni, F. Plastina, S. Lorenzo, S. Maniscalco, J. Goold, and T. J. G. Apollaro, “Variational Gibbs state preparation on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices,”Phys. Rev. A 110no. 1, (2024) 012445,arXiv:2303.11276 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Thermal Multi-scale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz for Variational Gibbs State Preparation,

    T. J. Sewell, C. D. White, and B. Swingle, “Thermal Multi-scale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz for Variational Gibbs State Preparation,”arXiv:2210.16419 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv

  35. [35]

    An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, and A. Gily´ en, “An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler,”arXiv:2311.09207 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Quantum Thermal State Preparation

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, F. G. Brand˜ ao, and A. Gily´ en, “Quantum thermal state preparation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18224(2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Generation of thermofield double states and critical ground states with a quantum computer,

    D. Zhu, S. Johri, N. M. Linke, K. A. Landsman, N. H. Nguyen, C. H. Alderete, A. Y. Matsuura, T. H. Hsieh, and C. Monroe, “Generation of thermofield double states and critical ground states with a quantum computer,”Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 117no. 41, (2020) 25402–25406, arXiv:1906.02699 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Variational preparation of the thermofield double state of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model,

    V. P. Su, “Variational preparation of the thermofield double state of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model,”Physical Review A104no. 1, (2021) 012427. [15]QuNuCollaboration, X.-D. Xie, X. Guo, H. Xing, Z.-Y. Xue, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu, “Variational thermal quantum simulation of the lattice Schwinger model,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 5, (2022) 054509,arXiv:2205.12767 [...

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Thermal Pure Quantum States at Finite Temperature

    S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, “Thermal Pure Quantum States at Finite Temperature,”Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 240401,arXiv:1112.0740 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    Canonical Thermal Pure Quantum State

    S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, “Canonical Thermal Pure Quantum State,”Phys. Rev. Lett.111no. 1, (2013) 010401,arXiv:1302.3138 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Exploring finite temperature properties of materials with quantum computers,

    C. Powers, L. Bassman Oftelie, D. Camps, and W. A. de Jong, “Exploring finite temperature properties of materials with quantum computers,” Sci. Rep.13no. 1, (2023) 1986,arXiv:2109.01619 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Predicting Gibbs-State Expectation Values with Pure Thermal Shadows,

    L. Coopmans, Y. Kikuchi, and M. Benedetti, “Predicting Gibbs-State Expectation Values with Pure Thermal Shadows,”PRX Quantum4no. 1, (2023) 010305,arXiv:2206.05302 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Quantum algorithm for the microcanonical Thermal Pure Quantum method,

    K. Mizukami and A. Koga, “Quantum algorithm for the microcanonical Thermal Pure Quantum method,”arXiv:2209.10199 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution,

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O. Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution,”Nature Phys. 16(2019) 205–210,arXiv:1901.07653 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Minimally entangled typical thermal state algorithms,

    S. R. White and E. M. Stoudenmire, “Minimally entangled typical thermal state algorithms,”New J. Phys.12no. 5, (2010) 055026

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    Minimally entangled typical quantum states at finite temperature,

    S. R. White, “Minimally entangled typical quantum states at finite temperature,”Physical review letters102no. 19, (2009) 190601

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    J. Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,”Quantum2(2018) 79, arXiv:1801.00862 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

    D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction,”arXiv:quant-ph/9705052

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Classical and quantum simulations of 1+1-dimensionalZ 2 gauge theory at finite temperature and density,

    I.-C. Chen, J. C. Getelina, K. Pollock, A. Khindanov, S. Sen, Y.-X. Yao, and T. Iadecola, “Classical and quantum simulations of 1+1-dimensionalZ 2 gauge theory at finite temperature and density,”Commun. Phys.8 21 no. 1, (2025) 375,arXiv:2407.11949 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Schwinger model at finite temperature and density with beta VQE,

    A. Tomiya, “Schwinger model at finite temperature and density with beta VQE,” arXiv:2205.08860 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv

  52. [52]

    Towards Quantum Computing Phase Diagrams of Gauge Theories with Thermal Pure Quantum States,

    Z. Davoudi, N. Mueller, and C. Powers, “Towards Quantum Computing Phase Diagrams of Gauge Theories with Thermal Pure Quantum States,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131no. 8, (2023) 081901, arXiv:2208.13112 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    HAMILTONIAN APPROACH TO Z(N) LATTICE GAUGE THEORIES,

    D. Horn, M. Weinstein, and S. Yankielowicz, “HAMILTONIAN APPROACH TO Z(N) LATTICE GAUGE THEORIES,”Phys. Rev. D19 (1979) 3715

    work page 1979

  54. [54]

    Confinement in aZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, “Confinement in aZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer,” Nature Phys.21no. 2, (2025) 312–317, arXiv:2203.08905 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Floquet prethermalization of Z2 lattice gauge theory on superconducting qubits,

    T. Hayata, K. Seki, and A. Yamamoto, “Floquet prethermalization of Z2 lattice gauge theory on superconducting qubits,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 11, (2024) 114503,arXiv:2408.10079 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    About the Pauli exclusion principle,

    P. Jordan and E. P. Wigner, “About the Pauli exclusion principle,”Z. Phys.47(1928) 631–651

    work page 1928

  57. [57]

    The pivot algorithm: A highly efficient monte carlo method for the self-avoiding walk,

    N. Madras and A. D. Sokal, “The pivot algorithm: A highly efficient monte carlo method for the self-avoiding walk,”Journal of Statistical Physics 50no. 1, (1988) 109–186

    work page 1988

  58. [58]

    Monte carlo methods in statistical mechanics: foundations and new algorithms,

    A. Sokal, “Monte carlo methods in statistical mechanics: foundations and new algorithms,” in Functional integration: Basics and applications, pp. 131–192. Springer, 1997

    work page 1997

  59. [59]

    Monte carlo errors with less errors,

    U. Wolff, A. Collaboration,et al., “Monte carlo errors with less errors,”Computer Physics Communications156no. 2, (2004) 143–153

    work page 2004

  60. [60]

    Symmetric minimally entangled typical thermal states for canonical and grand-canonical ensembles

    M. Binder and T. Barthel, “Symmetric minimally entangled typical thermal states for canonical and grand-canonical ensembles,”Phys. Rev. B95 (2017) 195148,arXiv:1701.03872 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Symmetric Minimally Entangled Typical Thermal States

    B. Bruognolo, J. von Delft, and A. Weichselbaum, “Symmetric minimally entangled typical thermal states,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03336(2015)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements,

    W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields, “Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements,”Annals Phys.191no. 2, (1989) 363–381

    work page 1989

  63. [63]

    Quantum computation in fermionic thermal field theories,

    W. Qian and B. Wu, “Quantum computation in fermionic thermal field theories,”JHEP07(2024) 166,arXiv:2404.07912 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Quantum simulation of chiral phase transitions,

    A. M. Czajka, Z.-B. Kang, H. Ma, and F. Zhao, “Quantum simulation of chiral phase transitions,” JHEP08(2022) 209,arXiv:2112.03944 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Quantum many-body simulation of finite-temperature systems with sampling a series expansion of a quantum imaginary-time evolution,

    N. Matsumoto, S. Tsutsui, Y. O. Nakagawa, Y. Hidaka, S. Kanasugi, K. Maruyama, H. Oshima, and S. Sato, “Quantum many-body simulation of finite-temperature systems with sampling a series expansion of a quantum imaginary-time evolution,”Phys. Rev. Res.7no. 1, (2025) 013254, arXiv:2409.07070 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Quasiexact kondo dynamics of fermionic alkaline-earth-like atoms at finite temperatures,

    S. Goto and I. Danshita, “Quasiexact kondo dynamics of fermionic alkaline-earth-like atoms at finite temperatures,”Physical Review Letters123 no. 14, (2019) 143002

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    Implementation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on NISQ devices by introducing nonlocal approximation,

    H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, “Implementation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on NISQ devices by introducing nonlocal approximation,”npj Quantum Inf.7 (2021) 85,arXiv:2005.12715 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    Quantum Computation of Finite-Temperature Static and Dynamical Properties of Spin Systems Using Quantum Imaginary Time Evolution,

    S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, R. N. Tazhigulov, A. T. K. Tan, G. K.-L. Chan, and A. J. Minnich, “Quantum Computation of Finite-Temperature Static and Dynamical Properties of Spin Systems Using Quantum Imaginary Time Evolution,”PRX Quantum2no. 1, (2021) 010317, arXiv:2009.03542 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Adaptive variational quantum minimally entangled typical thermal states for finite temperature simulations,

    J. C. Getelina, N. Gomes, T. Iadecola, P. P. Orth, and Y.-X. Yao, “Adaptive variational quantum minimally entangled typical thermal states for finite temperature simulations,”SciPost Phys.15 no. 3, (2023) 102,arXiv:2301.02592 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, “Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,”Physical Review X11no. 1, (2021) 011020

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Efficient step-merged quantum imaginary time evolution algorithm for quantum chemistry,

    N. Gomes, F. Zhang, N. F. Berthusen, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, P. P. Orth, and Y. Yao, “Efficient step-merged quantum imaginary time evolution algorithm for quantum chemistry,”Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation16no. 10, (2020) 6256–6266

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    A linearized stabilizer formalism for systems of finite dimension,

    N. de Beaudrap, “A linearized stabilizer formalism for systems of finite dimension,”Quant. Inf. Comput.13no. 1-2, (2013) 0073–0115, arXiv:1102.3354 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  73. [73]

    Imaginary-time evolution using forward and backward real-time evolution with a single ancilla: First-quantized eigensolver algorithm for quantum chemistry,

    T. Kosugi, Y. Nishiya, H. Nishi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, “Imaginary-time evolution using forward and backward real-time evolution with a single ancilla: First-quantized eigensolver algorithm for quantum chemistry,”Phys. Rev. Res. 4no. 3, (2022) 033121,arXiv:2111.12471 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    Adiabatic quantum imaginary time evolution,

    K. Hejazi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Adiabatic quantum imaginary time evolution,” Phys. Rev. Res.6no. 3, (2024) 033084, arXiv:2308.03292 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Stabilizing quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories by dissipation,

    T. Schmale and H. Weimer, “Stabilizing quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories by dissipation,”Phys. Rev. Res.6no. 3, (2024) 033306,arXiv:2404.16454 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Symmetry verification for noisy quantum simulations of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories,

    E. Ballini, J. Mildenberger, M. M. Wauters, and P. Hauke, “Symmetry verification for noisy quantum simulations of non-Abelian lattice gauge theories,”Quantum9(2025) 1802, arXiv:2412.07844 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries,

    A. Rajput, A. Roggero, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum error correction with gauge symmetries,”npj Quantum Inf.9no. 1, (2023) 41, arXiv:2112.05186 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant 22 digitizations of lattice field theories,

    M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, “Quantum error thresholds for gauge-redundant 22 digitizations of lattice field theories,”Phys. Rev. D 110no. 5, (2024) 054516,arXiv:2402.16780 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Improved Simulation of Stabilizer Circuits

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits,”Phys. Rev. A70 no. 5, (2004) 052328,arXiv:quant-ph/0406196

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  80. [80]

    Note on Logical Gates by Gauge Field Formalism of Quantum Error Correction,

    J. Haruna, “Note on Logical Gates by Gauge Field Formalism of Quantum Error Correction,” arXiv:2511.15224 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv

Showing first 80 references.