Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 11 cited by

Real-Time Scattering on Quantum Computers via Hamiltonian Truncation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hamiltonian truncation can put real-time phi^4 scattering on a quantum computer with roughly 40 times fewer qubits than lattice methods, at the price of exponential circuit depth.

desk verdict A genuinely useful HT-for-QFT proof-of-principle with a real load-bearing gap: the adiabatic state preparation is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03878 v1 pith:MOHHV6VC submitted 2025-05-06 quant-ph hep-lathep-phhep-th

James Ingoldby , Michael Spannowsky , Timur Sypchenko , Simon Williams , Matthew Wingate This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-lathep-phhep-th
keywords Hamiltoniantruncationreal-timescatteringadiabaticstatepreparationphi^4theoryTrotterizationquantumfieldsimulationNISQhardwarequbitresourcescaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that Hamiltonian truncation—keeping only the low-energy free-Fock states of $(1+1)$-dimensional $\phi^4$ theory on a circle—can put real-time scattering on a quantum computer with far fewer qubits than lattice approaches. The authors prepare two-particle wavepackets in the free theory, adiabatically turn on the coupling to reach the interacting theory, and Trotterize the time evolution; on a noiseless emulator with ten qubits they observe wavepacket collision, the expected $\pi/p_0$ interference fringe spacing, and the appearance of four-particle probability after the collision. They also run the state-preparation circuits on a trapped-ion device, where the free-theory distributions match an emulator well and the interacting distributions are qualitatively right but visibly degraded by gate errors. The key resource claim is a trade-off: Hamiltonian truncation needs roughly a factor of 40 fewer qubits than the standard lattice Hamiltonian formulation at fixed energy or precision, but the non-local truncated Hamiltonian makes naive Trotter circuit depth grow exponentially with the energy cutoff. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a concrete, testable route to a genuinely non-perturbative QFT observable on near-term hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the truncated Hamiltonian matrix $H = H_0 + V$ in the free-Fock basis, restricted to states with $H_0$ eigenvalue at most $E_T$ and to the zero-total-momentum, parity-even subsector. The scattering wavepackets are prepared by the adiabatic state-preparation unitary $U_{\rm SP} = e^{i(H_0+V)\tau}\prod_{a=0}^{N} e^{-i(H_0+(1-a/N)V)\delta\tau}$, which ramps the coupling on and then translates the wavepackets back, followed by first-order Trotterized evolution under the full $H$. What makes the approach economical is that the truncated Hamiltonian is sparse despite being non-local, and that the free vacuum is the computational zero state; what makes it expensive is that each Trotter step has a number of Pauli terms exponential in the qubit count.

What would settle it

Run the same state preparation on the emulator at ramp times $\tau = 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 4$ and compare the output occupation probabilities with the exact eigenstates of the truncated interacting Hamiltonian, which are easy to compute classically for $n_q=10$; if the prepared state changes noticeably with $\tau$ or does not converge to an eigenstate, the adiabatic assumption is the weak link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-energy Hilbert space of $(1+1)$-dimensional $\phi^4$ theory relevant to scattering can be compressed, without any spatial lattice, by enumerating free-field Fock states below an energy cutoff $E_T$ in the zero-momentum, parity-even sector. Because the free vacuum maps exactly to the computational state $|0\rangle$, no ground-state preparation is needed. Starting from a Gaussian two-particle wavepacket, the coupling is ramped on through the adiabatic unitary, and the interacting state is then evolved with first-order Trotter steps of $\delta t = 0.01$. The resulting emulator dynamics show earlier collisions as $g$ grows, consistent with the mass flowing toward the critical point, and fringe spacing $\pi/p_0$, and non-zero four-particle occupation after collision, which the paper reads as particle production. The same state preparation on a hardware device with a four-qubit truncation reproduces the free-theory distribution well and the interacting distribution only qualitatively. The paper further claims that for a fixed maximum energy or fixed precision the truncated approach needs about 40 times fewer qubits than the lattice Hamiltonian approach, at the cost of exponential gate-depth scaling per Trotter step, and that the truncated Hamiltonian is sparse—a property that could later be exploited by post-Trotter simulation algorithms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that turning on the interaction over one time unit is slow enough for the free-theory wavepacket to evolve smoothly into the interacting-theory wavepacket rather than leaking into other states; the paper asserts this but does not show a gap between the desired state and its neighbours or bound the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Real-time $\phi^4$ scattering, including particle production, can be captured in a quantum emulator with ten qubits, placing a genuine non-perturbative QFT observable within reach of near-term hardware.
  • At a fixed centre-of-mass energy or fixed precision, Hamiltonian truncation requires roughly 40 times fewer qubits than the standard lattice Hamiltonian formulation, so larger volumes or higher energies become accessible at the same qubit budget.
  • Because the truncated Hamiltonian is sparse with polynomially many non-zero entries, block-encoding or quantum-walk time evolution could turn the exponential Trotter-depth scaling into a polynomial one, which the paper identifies as the natural next step.
  • The exact mapping of the free vacuum to the computational zero state removes ground-state preparation overhead, shifting the algorithmic difficulty entirely to wavepacket preparation and time evolution.
  • The same symmetry-based truncation strategy can be applied to theories that lack a tractable lattice regularisation, such as strongly coupled conformal field theories perturbed by relevant operators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive check the paper leaves open is to compute the exact low-lying eigenstates of $H_0 + sV$ for $n_q = 10$ and compare the prepared state's overlap with the true interacting wavepacket; a ramp time of $\tau=1$ is only validated if the overlap is close to one.
  • The hardware results imply a rough fidelity budget for the interacting case: nearly a hundred two-qubit gates at the quoted error rate leave only about two-thirds of the ideal probability mass, so near-term progress will come from reducing depth as much as from improving gates.
  • If sparsity-aware evolution algorithms are ported to this setting, the qubit savings of truncation may extend to higher dimensions, where lattice methods are far costlier and exact rotational symmetry is valuable; this is an extrapolation rather than a claim of the paper.
  • Comparing the emulator's scattering observables with independent classical truncation results for $\phi^4$ would show whether the dynamics are quantitatively the field theory's, not just internally consistent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Hamiltonian-truncation framework for simulating real-time scattering in (1+1)-dimensional φ^4 theory on quantum computers. It constructs free-theory two-particle wavepackets in the zero-momentum, parity-even sector, prepares interacting wavepackets by adiabatically ramping the coupling, and evolves them with Trotterized time evolution. Emulator results show wavepacket motion, interference, and particle production; runs on the IonQ Aria trapped-ion device demonstrate preparation of free and interacting wavepackets for a small truncation; and resource estimates compare qubit counts with the Jordan-Lee-Preskill lattice approach. The paper's advertised trade-off is a large reduction in qubit count at the cost of circuit depth that grows exponentially with the truncation energy.

Significance. If the method is sound, this is a useful proof-of-concept for a non-lattice regulator in quantum simulation of QFT scattering, with concrete strengths: the free vacuum is exactly the computational-basis ground state, wavepackets are constructed explicitly in a symmetry sector, the circuit-depth trade-off is stated honestly, and a hardware demonstration is included with a clear discussion of gate-error limitations. The paper also confirms sparsity of the truncated Hamiltonian, pointing toward post-Trotter algorithms. However, the load-bearing adiabatic preparation step is not justified, and the truncation convergence is not tested, so the central physics claims are not yet established. These issues appear addressable, and the methodology is promising.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1.1, Eqs. (3.10)-(3.13)] The adiabatic preparation step is not justified. The state |Ψ0> in Eqs. (3.10)-(3.11) is a superposition of H0 eigenstates |m,-m> with distinct energies 2ω_m, not an eigenstate; calling it an 'approximate eigenstate' does not replace the required argument. The adiabatic theorem is invoked with no spectral gap computed for H(s)=H0+sV in the relevant sector, no adiabatic error bound, and no fidelity check of the prepared state against a defined interacting wavepacket. With τ=1.0 in units M=1, the ramp time is comparable to the inverse energy spread of the packet (for p0=2.5 and L=16, the adjacent modes m=6,7 have 2(ω7-ω6)≈0.73), so τ ΔE ≫ 1 is not obviously satisfied. In addition, the final backward evolution e^{+i(H0+V)τ} in Eq. (3.13) multiplies each adiabatically transported eigencomponent by a different phase e^{i∫[E_n(1)-E_n(s)]ds}, which distorts the momentum profile of the superposition. Because the target interacting wavepacket is never defined and no fidelity is reported, the states whose evolution is shown in Figures 3-5 are not established to be the interacting scattering states claimed.
  2. [Section 3.2.2 and Figures 3-5] All emulator scattering results use the single truncation nq=10, and no convergence study in the truncation energy ET is presented. The extracted observables (wavepacket speeds, interaction times, fringe spacing, and the 4-particle production probability at g=2.0) could all depend on the cutoff; the HT literature cited in Refs. [36-38] shows that truncation corrections can be significant and must be controlled by renormalization. Without a scan over nq (or an equivalent ET scan) and a demonstration that the quoted observables are stable, the quantitative scattering claims are not established as converged properties of φ^4 theory.
  3. [Section 5, Eqs. (5.1)-(5.2) and Fig. 7] The resource comparison rests on two unvalidated identifications. Equation (5.1), Emax≈1/a, is an ad-hoc matching between the HT cutoff and the lattice spacing, and Eq. (5.2) is presented as an NDA-motivated estimate with no derivation or benchmark; the factors of 4! and 4π are not justified. Since the right panel of Fig. 7 uses Eq. (5.2) to set the HT cutoff at a target precision, the claimed factor-of-40 qubit advantage is not quantitatively reliable. The authors should benchmark Eq. (5.2) against effective-Hamiltonian or exact diagonalization data for the 2→4 process before drawing quantitative conclusions from Fig. 7.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Fig. 1] The figure caption gives p0=2.5, while the text says the free wavepacket in the figure is constructed with p0=2.0; please make the two consistent.
  2. [Eq. (3.13)] The ordering convention for the product in Eq. (3.13) should be stated explicitly; if read left to right, the factors appear to ramp the Hamiltonian from H0+V down to H0, which is the opposite of the text's description of ramping the coupling up.
  3. [Section 5, left panel of Fig. 7] The sentence 'across the plotted range, it requires nearly 40 times more qubits than the corresponding lattice calculation' appears to compare the lattice approach with itself; it should say 'than the corresponding HT calculation'.
  4. [Section 4 and Fig. 6] The right panel of Fig. 6 is described as showing 'qualitative agreement', but no quantitative fidelity or distance metric is reported; given the estimated 32% cumulative two-qubit gate error, a quantitative measure would make the degree of agreement precise.
  5. [Section 3.1.1] The phrase 'approximate eigenstates' should be defined or removed; as written it obscures the fact that Eq. (3.11) is a genuine superposition of free eigenstates with an energy spread controlled by δ and p0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the scattering results come from explicit adiabatic ramping and Trotterized evolution, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: define the HT basis from free H0 eigenstates (Section 2.1); construct the free-field two-wavepacket state (Eqs. 3.10-3.11); deform it to the interacting theory via the discretized adiabatic ramp (Eq. 3.13); evolve with Trotterized time evolution (Eq. 3.2); and extract observables through the defined two-particle density operator (Eq. 3.15). None of these steps fits a parameter to the output it later claims to predict. The particle-production signal in Figure 5 is a measured change in free-basis occupation probabilities under the interacting Hamiltonian, not a fitted input renamed as a result. The adiabatic-prepared state is asserted to be the interacting wavepacket via the adiabatic theorem (Section 3.1.1); while this is an unvalidated assumption and a correctness risk, it is not circular, because the target interacting wavepacket is not defined to be the output of the ramp. The self-citations, notably Ref. [28] for the ground-state encoding claim and Refs. [18,22,23] as background, are not load-bearing: the ground-state correspondence is re-derived in this paper's Section 2.1, and the scattering dynamics are computed explicitly here. Eq. (5.2) is a heuristic NDA-based truncation-error estimate used for resource comparison; it is an estimate rather than a fitted prediction. No quoted equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' prior work is used to force the choice of method. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its central numerical demonstrations, and any concerns belong to correctness or validation rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All quantitative results depend on hand-chosen physical and numerical parameters (p0, delta, L, M, g, tau, nq, Trotter steps), and the paper does not extrapolate in nq to the continuum limit. The adiabatic premise and the NDA-based error estimate are the weakest structural assumptions. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (8)
  • initial momentum p0 = 2.5 (main runs); also 0.9, 1.8, 2.0, 3.0, 3.6
    Physical wavepacket parameter; chosen to satisfy 1/p0 << delta << L; not fitted to data.
  • momentum spread delta = 0.75 (main runs); also 1.0, 2.0, 4.0
    Chosen as compromise between localization and slow dispersion (Eq. 3.12).
  • circle length L = 16 (units of M^{-1})
    Finite volume; finite-volume error not quantified.
  • mass M = 1
    Sets the unit system; physical parameter.
  • coupling g = 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 (emulator); 2.0 for hardware
    Interaction strength; parameter scan, not fit.
  • Trotter step delta_t = 0.01 (emulator), 0.2 (hardware adiabatic)
    Chosen small to suppress Trotter error; no rigorous error bound given.
  • adiabatic ramp time tau = 1.0
    Hand-picked as 'long enough' for adiabaticity; no gap estimate; load-bearing.
  • truncation size nq = 10 qubits (emulator), 4 qubits (hardware)
    Truncation parameter; no convergence study in nq; results depend on it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The truncated free-Fock basis with energy cutoff ET adequately represents the low-energy scattering states of phi^4 theory.
    Core assumption of Hamiltonian truncation; paper uses fixed nq without convergence check.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic theorem applies to the wavepacket superposition |Psi0>.
    |Psi0> is a superposition of H0 eigenstates, not a single eigenstate; no spectral gap or adiabatic error bound is given.
  • domain assumption Bare parameters with no renormalization give valid results at the chosen truncation.
    The authors cite renormalization requirements (Refs [37,38]) but do not implement them for the scattering runs.
  • ad hoc to paper Emax ≈ 1/a in Eq. (5.1) connects HT and lattice cutoffs.
    This matching condition drives the qubit comparison but is a coarse identification.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncation error estimate Eq. (5.2), based on NDA counting, is quantitatively correct.
    No derivation is given; used for the right panel of Figure 7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Scattering on Quantum Computers via Hamiltonian Truncation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MOHHV6VC

@misc{pith2026250503878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Scattering on Quantum Computers via Hamiltonian Truncation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MOHHV6VC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03878}
}
abstract

We present a quantum computational framework using Hamiltonian Truncation (HT) for simulating real-time scattering processes in $(1+1)$-dimensional scalar $\phi^4$ theory. Unlike traditional lattice discretisation methods, HT approximates the quantum field theory Hilbert space by truncating the energy eigenbasis of a solvable reference Hamiltonian, significantly reducing the number of required qubits. Our approach involves preparing initial states as wavepackets through adiabatic evolution from the free-field theory to the interacting regime. We experimentally demonstrate this state preparation procedure on an IonQ trapped-ion quantum device and validate it through quantum simulations, capturing key phenomena such as wavepacket dynamics, interference effects, and particle production post-collision. Detailed resource comparisons highlight the advantages of HT over lattice approaches in terms of qubit efficiency, although we observe challenges associated with circuit depth scaling. Our findings suggest that Hamiltonian Truncation offers a promising strategy for quantum simulations of quantum field theories, particularly as quantum hardware and algorithms continue to improve.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

  1. State preparation and detection for quantum simulation of particle collisions

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A boundary-qubit quench plus boundary-reflection interference patterns can prepare and detect quasiparticle wave packets for scattering simulations on quantum simulators.

  2. Higher-order structure of Hamiltonian truncation effective theory

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    All-order local and O(Emax⁻⁴) non-local corrections are derived for Hamiltonian truncation effective theory of 2D λφ⁴; numerically, NNLO barely improves on NLO.

  3. Systematic Improvement of Hamiltonian Truncation Effective Theory

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    NLO matching corrections with nonlocal terms are computed for 1+1D λφ⁴ Hamiltonian truncation, and the eigenvalue error is shown to scale as 1/Emax⁴, confirming the effective theory power counting.

  4. Probing Hadron Scattering in Lattice Gauge Theories on Qudit Quantum Computers

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Proposed qudit circuits simulate meson-antimeson scattering in a spin-1 U(1) lattice gauge theory and remain accurate under realistic dephasing and depolarization noise.

  5. Obtaining continuum physics from dynamical simulations of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories

    hep-lat 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces the SBTE protocol, which treats approximate time evolution error as negligible once it is below statistical uncertainty, and shows this makes continuum-limit renormalization in lattice gauge theor...

  6. Euclidean-Monte-Carlo-informed ground-state preparation for quantum simulation of scalar field theory

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A classical pipeline turns Euclidean Monte Carlo correlation data into a variational ansatz and an efficient quantum circuit for the (1+1)D phi^4 ground state.

  7. Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On a trapped-ion quantum computer, the authors prepared multiple meson wave packets and simulated their early-time collisions in a 1+1D Z2 lattice gauge theory.

  8. Observation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors observe elastic and confined scattering, plus mass-quench-induced inelastic dynamics, in a 1+1D U(1) lattice gauge theory on IBM quantum hardware.

  9. Robust Quantum Machine Learning for Collider Event Selection under Detector Variability

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Quantum autoencoders and data-reuploading classifiers show smaller output-score shifts and better retention of discrimination than standard classical baselines under feature-level detector smearing in two collider benchmarks.

  10. Particle Production, Equilibration, and Quantum Recurrences from Classical Fields

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In small lattice lambda phi^4 theory, a highly occupied coherent field produces particles and relaxes to the diagonal-ensemble values for a finite time before quantum recurrences appear, and the dynamics maps efficien...

  11. Continuous-variable photonic quantum extreme learning machines for fast collider-data selection

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Gaussian photonic QELM with displacement encoding and quadrature/photon-number readout produces polynomial features that, under a linear readout, match or beat small MLPs on top-jet and Higgs classification.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Monte carlo calculation of the thermodynamic properties of a quantum model: A one-dimensional fermion lattice model,

    H. De Raedt and A. Lagendijk, “Monte carlo calculation of the thermodynamic properties of a quantum model: A one-dimensional fermion lattice model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 (Jan,

  2. [2]

    A quantum monte carlo approach to many-body physics,

    W. von der Linden, “A quantum monte carlo approach to many-body physics,” Physics Reports 220 no. 2, (1992) 53–162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037015739290029Y

    arXiv 1992

  3. [3]

    Monte carlo simulations with indefinite and complex-valued measures,

    T. D. Kieu and C. J. Griffin, “Monte carlo simulations with indefinite and complex-valued measures,” Phys. Rev. E 49 (May, 1994) 3855–3859. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.49.3855

    doi:10.1103/physreve.49.3855 1994

  4. [4]

    Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing,

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, “Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. A 99 no. 5, (2019) 052335, [arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies,

    M. C. Ba˜ nulset al. , “Simulating Lattice Gauge Theories within Quantum Technologies,” Eur. Phys. J. D 74 no. 8, (2020) 165, [arXiv:1911.00003 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Quantum simulation of quantum field theories as quantum chemistry

    J. Liu and Y. Xin, “Quantum simulation of quantum field theories as quantum chemistry,” JHEP 12 (2020) 011, [arXiv:2004.13234 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Quantum simulation for high-energy physics,

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhattacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Rinaldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Santiago, M. J. Savage, I. Siddiqi, G. Siopsis, D. Van Zanten, N. Wiebe, Y. Yamauchi...

    2023

  8. [8]

    Efficient quantum implementation of 2+1 U(1) lattice gauge theories with Gauss law constraints,

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

    arXiv

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,

    E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. K¨ uhn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe, A. Schuckert, and S. M. Girvin, “Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields,” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Quantum Computation of Scattering in Scalar Quantum Field Theories,

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum Computation of Scattering in Scalar Quantum Field Theories,” Quant. Inf. Comput. 14 (2014) 1014–1080, [arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories,

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories,” Science 336 (2012) 1130–1133, [arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Quantum Algorithms for Fermionic Quantum Field Theories,

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “Quantum Algorithms for Fermionic Quantum Field Theories,” [arXiv:1404.7115 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,

    E. A. Martinez et al. , “Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,” Nature 534 (2016) 516–519, [arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    BQP-completeness of scattering in scalar quantum field theory,

    S. P. Jordan, H. Krovi, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, “BQP-completeness of scattering in scalar quantum field theory,” Quantum 2 (Jan., 2018) 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-01-08-44 . – 22 –

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Toward hybrid quantum simulations with qubits and qumodes on trapped-ion platforms,

    J. Y. Araz, M. Grau, J. Montgomery, and F. Ringer, “Toward hybrid quantum simulations with qubits and qumodes on trapped-ion platforms,” [arXiv:2410.07346 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Scalable quantum simulations of scattering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits,

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, “Scalable quantum simulations of scattering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits,” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02486

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fermionic wave packet scattering: a quantum computing approach,

    Y. Chai, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, V. R. Pascuzzi, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, “Fermionic wave packet scattering: a quantum computing approach,” Quantum 9 (Feb.,

  10. [18]

    Real-Time Scattering Processes with Continuous-Variable Quantum Computers,

    S. Abel, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, “Real-Time Scattering Processes with Continuous-Variable Quantum Computers,” [arXiv:2502.01767 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the schwinger model,

    W. A. de Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. P losko´ n, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, “Quantum simulation of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in the schwinger model,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (Sep, 2022) 054508. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.054508

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator,

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, “Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator,” Science 377 no. 6603, (2022) 311–314, [https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abl6277]. ht...

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Critical behavior of the ising model by preparing the thermal state on a quantum computer,

    X. Wang, X. Feng, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, and P. Stornati, “Critical behavior of the ising model by preparing the thermal state on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. A 108 (Aug,

  14. [22]

    Simulating Z 2 lattice gauge theory with the variational quantum thermalizer,

    M. Fromm, O. Philipsen, M. Spannowsky, and C. Winterowd, “Simulating Z 2 lattice gauge theory with the variational quantum thermalizer,” EPJ Quant. Technol. 11 no. 1, (2024) 20, [arXiv:2306.06057 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Exploring thermal equilibria of the Fermi-Hubbard model with variational quantum algorithms,

    J. Y. Araz, M. Spannowsky, and M. Wingate, “Exploring thermal equilibria of the Fermi-Hubbard model with variational quantum algorithms,” Phys. Rev. A 109 no. 6, (2024) 062422, [arXiv:2312.09292 [quant-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Atomic quantum simulation of dynamical gauge fields coupled to fermionic matter: From string breaking to evolution after a quench,

    D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. M¨ uller, E. Rico, P. Stebler, U.-J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, “Atomic quantum simulation of dynamical gauge fields coupled to fermionic matter: From string breaking to evolution after a quench,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (Oct, 2012) 175302. https://link.ap...

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Observing the fate of the false vacuum with a quantum laboratory,

    S. Abel and M. Spannowsky, “Observing the fate of the false vacuum with a quantum laboratory,” P. R. X. Quantum. 2 (2021) 010349, [arXiv:2006.06003 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Quantum computing for quantum tunneling,

    S. Abel, N. Chancellor, and M. Spannowsky, “Quantum computing for quantum tunneling,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 1, (2021) 016008, [arXiv:2003.07374 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    First-Order Phase Transition of the Schwinger Model with a Quantum Computer,

    T. Angelides, P. Naredi, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, I. Tavernelli, and D. S. Wang, “First-Order Phase Transition of the Schwinger Model with a Quantum Computer,” [arXiv:2312.12831 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Enhancing quantum field theory simulations on NISQ devices with Hamiltonian truncation,

    J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, and S. Williams, “Enhancing quantum field theory simulations on NISQ devices with Hamiltonian truncation,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 9, (2024) 096016, [arXiv:2407.19022 [quant-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Snowmass white paper: Hamiltonian truncation,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick and E. Katz, “Snowmass white paper: Hamiltonian truncation,” 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11696. – 23 –

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Non-perturbative methodologies for low-dimensional strongly-correlated systems: From non-abelian bosonization to truncated spectrum methods,

    A. J. A. James, R. M. Konik, P. Lecheminant, N. J. Robinson, and A. M. Tsvelik, “Non-perturbative methodologies for low-dimensional strongly-correlated systems: From non-abelian bosonization to truncated spectrum methods,” [arXiv:1703.08421 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, “Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution,” 2000. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0001106

    2000 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Adiabatic quantum computation,

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, “Adiabatic quantum computation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (Jan,

  25. [33]

    Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation,

    S. Jansen, M.-B. Ruskai, and R. Seiler, “Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 48 no. 10, (10,

  26. [34]

    A note on the switching adiabatic theorem,

    A. Elgart and G. A. Hagedorn, “A note on the switching adiabatic theorem,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 53 no. 10, (09, 2012) 102202, [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4748968/15598623/102202 1 online.pdf]. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4748968

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer,

    K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. M. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. C. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, K. M. Hudek, J. Mizrahi, J. D. Wong-Campos, S. Allen, J. Apisdorf, P. Solomon, M. Williams, A. M. Ducore, A. Blinov, S. M. Kreikemeier, V. Chaplin, M. Ke...

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Hamiltonian Truncation Effective Theory,

    T. Cohen, K. Farnsworth, R. Houtz, and M. A. Luty, “Hamiltonian Truncation Effective Theory,” SciPost Phys. 13 no. 2, (2022) 011, [arXiv:2110.08273 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Effective Hamiltonians and Counterterms for Hamiltonian Truncation,

    J. Elias Miro and J. Ingoldby, “Effective Hamiltonians and Counterterms for Hamiltonian Truncation,” JHEP 07 (2023) 052, [arXiv:2212.07266 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hamiltonian truncation crafted for UV-divergent QFTs,

    O. Delouche, J. Elias Miro, and J. Ingoldby, “Hamiltonian truncation crafted for UV-divergent QFTs,” SciPost Phys. 16 no. 4, (2024) 105, [arXiv:2312.09221 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hamiltonian truncation study of the ϕ4 theory in two dimensions,

    S. Rychkov and L. G. Vitale, “Hamiltonian truncation study of the ϕ4 theory in two dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 085011, [arXiv:1412.3460 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Truncated Conformal Space Approach for 2D Landau-Ginzburg Theories,

    A. Coser, M. Beria, G. P. Brandino, R. M. Konik, and G. Mussardo, “Truncated Conformal Space Approach for 2D Landau-Ginzburg Theories,” J. Stat. Mech. 1412 (2014) P12010, [arXiv:1409.1494 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hamiltonian truncation study of the ϕ4 theory in two dimensions. II. The Z2 -broken phase and the Chang duality,

    S. Rychkov and L. G. Vitale, “Hamiltonian truncation study of the ϕ4 theory in two dimensions. II. The Z2 -broken phase and the Chang duality,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 6, (2016) 065014, [arXiv:1512.00493 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Truncated Hilbert space approach to the 2d ϕ4 theory,

    Z. Bajnok and M. Lajer, “Truncated Hilbert space approach to the 2d ϕ4 theory,” JHEP 10 (2016) 050, [arXiv:1512.06901 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The renormalized Hamiltonian truncation method in the large ET expansion,

    J. Elias-Miro, M. Montull, and M. Riembau, “The renormalized Hamiltonian truncation method in the large ET expansion,” JHEP 04 (2016) 144, [arXiv:1512.05746 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    NLO Renormalization in the Hamiltonian Truncation,

    J. Elias-Miro, S. Rychkov, and L. G. Vitale, “NLO Renormalization in the Hamiltonian Truncation,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 6, (2017) 065024, [arXiv:1706.09929 [hep-th]]. – 24 –

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    High-Precision Calculations in Strongly Coupled Quantum Field Theory with Next-to-Leading-Order Renormalized Hamiltonian Truncation,

    J. Elias-Miro, S. Rychkov, and L. G. Vitale, “High-Precision Calculations in Strongly Coupled Quantum Field Theory with Next-to-Leading-Order Renormalized Hamiltonian Truncation,” JHEP 10 (2017) 213, [arXiv:1706.06121 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    False vacuum decay in the (1+1)-dimensionalφ4 theory,

    D. Sz´ asz-Schagrin and G. Tak´ acs, “False vacuum decay in the (1+1)-dimensionalφ4 theory,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 2, (2022) 025008, [arXiv:2205.15345 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Krylov spaces for truncated spectrum methodologies,

    M. K. L´ ajer and R. M. Konik, “Krylov spaces for truncated spectrum methodologies,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 4, (2024) 045016, [arXiv:2308.00277 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    SOLVING TWO-DIMENSIONAL PHI**4 THEORY BY DISCRETIZED LIGHT FRONT QUANTIZATION,

    A. Harindranath and J. P. Vary, “SOLVING TWO-DIMENSIONAL PHI**4 THEORY BY DISCRETIZED LIGHT FRONT QUANTIZATION,” Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 1141–1147

    1987

  41. [49]

    Two-dimensional light-front ϕ4 theory in a symmetric polynomial basis,

    M. Burkardt, S. S. Chabysheva, and J. R. Hiller, “Two-dimensional light-front ϕ4 theory in a symmetric polynomial basis,” Phys. Rev. D 94 no. 6, (2016) 065006, [arXiv:1607.00026 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    RG flow from ϕ4 theory to the 2D Ising model,

    N. Anand, V. X. Genest, E. Katz, Z. U. Khandker, and M. T. Walters, “RG flow from ϕ4 theory to the 2D Ising model,” JHEP 08 (2017) 056, [arXiv:1704.04500 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Form factors and spectral densities from Lightcone Conformal Truncation,

    H. Chen, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and D. Karateev, “Form factors and spectral densities from Lightcone Conformal Truncation,” JHEP 04 (2022) 109, [arXiv:2107.10285 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bootstrapping 2d ϕ4 theory with Hamiltonian truncation data,

    H. Chen, A. L. Fitzpatrick, and D. Karateev, “Bootstrapping 2d ϕ4 theory with Hamiltonian truncation data,” JHEP 02 (2022) 146, [arXiv:2107.10286 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Approximation of semi-groups of operators,

    H. F. Trotter, “Approximation of semi-groups of operators,” Pacific J. Math. 8 (1958) 887–919. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1103039709

    1958

  46. [54]

    Decomposition formulas of exponential operators and Lie exponentials with some applications to quantum mechanics and statistical physics,

    M. Suzuki, “Decomposition formulas of exponential operators and Lie exponentials with some applications to quantum mechanics and statistical physics,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 26 no. 4, (04, 1985) 601–612. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.526596

    1985 doi

  47. [55]

    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,” Phys. Rev. X 11 (Feb, 2021) 011020. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011020

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis,

    X. Sun, G. Tian, S. Yang, P. Yuan, and S. Zhang, “Asymptotically optimal circuit depth for quantum state preparation and general unitary synthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 42 no. 10, (2023) 3301–3314

    2023

  49. [57]

    Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions,

    M. Plesch and i. c. v. Brukner, “Quantum-state preparation with universal gate decompositions,” Phys. Rev. A 83 (Mar, 2011) 032302. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.83.032302

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    Low-depth quantum state preparation,

    X.-M. Zhang, M.-H. Yung, and X. Yuan, “Low-depth quantum state preparation,” Phys. Rev. Res. 3 (Dec, 2021) 043200. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043200

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications,

    X.-M. Zhang, T. Li, and X. Yuan, “Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (Nov, 2022) 230504. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.230504

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    Superconducting qubits: Current state of play,

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “Superconducting qubits: Current state of play,” Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11 no. 1, (2020) 369–395

    2020

  53. [61]

    IonQ Aria

    “IonQ Aria.” https://ionq.com/quantum-systems/aria. Accessed: 02-05-2025. – 25 –

    2025

  54. [62]

    IonQ Aria Practical Performance

    “IonQ Aria Practical Performance.” https://ionq.com/resources/ionq-aria-practical-performance . Accessed: 02-05-2025

    2025

  55. [63]

    High-fidelity two-qubit gates using a microelectromechanical-system-based beam steering system for individual qubit addressing,

    Y. Wang, S. Crain, C. Fang, B. Zhang, S. Huang, Q. Liang, P. H. Leung, K. R. Brown, and J. Kim, “High-fidelity two-qubit gates using a microelectromechanical-system-based beam steering system for individual qubit addressing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (Oct, 2020) 150505. https://li...

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit,

    T. P. Harty, D. T. C. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, “High-fidelity preparation, gates, memory, and readout of a trapped-ion quantum bit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (Nov, 2014) 220501. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103...

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    Analysis of General Power Counting Rules in Effective Field Theory,

    B. M. Gavela, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and L. Merlo, “Analysis of General Power Counting Rules in Effective Field Theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76 no. 9, (2016) 485, [arXiv:1601.07551 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Universal Quantum Simulators,

    S. Lloyd, “Universal Quantum Simulators,” Science 273 no. 5278, (1996) 1073

    1996

  59. [67]

    Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians,

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, “Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians,” in 46th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing . 12, 2013. [arXiv:1312.1414 [quant-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Hamiltonian Simulation with Nearly Optimal Dependence on all Parameters,

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, “Hamiltonian Simulation with Nearly Optimal Dependence on all Parameters,” 1, 2015. [arXiv:1501.01715 [quant-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Optimal Hamiltonian Simulation by Quantum Signal Processing,

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Optimal Hamiltonian Simulation by Quantum Signal Processing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 1, (2017) 010501, [arXiv:1606.02685 [quant-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization,

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, “Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization,” Quantum 3 (2019) 163, [arXiv:1610.06546 [quant-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Quantum simulation of second-quantized Hamiltonians in compact encoding,

    W. M. Kirby, S. Hadi, M. Kreshchuk, and P. J. Love, “Quantum simulation of second-quantized Hamiltonians in compact encoding,” Phys. Rev. A 104 no. 4, (2021) 042607, [arXiv:2105.10941 [quant-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation,

    M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beauchemin, and P. J. Love, “Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation,” Physical Review A 105 no. 3, (Mar., 2022) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.032418

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    Strategies for simulating the time evolution of Hamiltonian lattice field theories,

    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. A 111 no. 2, (2025) 022419, [arXiv:2312.11637 [quant-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Optimized Quantum Simulation Algorithms for Scalar Quantum Field Theories,

    A. Hardy et al. , “Optimized Quantum Simulation Algorithms for Scalar Quantum Field Theories,” [arXiv:2407.13819 [quant-ph]]

  67. [75]

    Exponential improvement in quantum simulations of bosons,

    M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, E. Mendicelli, and E. Rinaldi, “Exponential improvement in quantum simulations of bosons,” 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02553

    2025

  68. [76]

    Quantum-classical computation of schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers,

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, “Quantum-classical computation of schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers,” Phys. Rev. A 98 (Sep, 2018) 032331. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/...

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    Truncated conformal space approach in d – 26 – dimensions: A cheap alternative to lattice field theory?,

    M. Hogervorst, S. Rychkov, and B. C. van Rees, “Truncated conformal space approach in d – 26 – dimensions: A cheap alternative to lattice field theory?,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 025005, [arXiv:1409.1581 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    RG flows on Sd and Hamiltonian truncation,

    M. Hogervorst, “RG flows on Sd and Hamiltonian truncation,” [arXiv:1811.00528 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    Mass spectra of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories in (1+1)-dimensions,

    Y. Matsumura, N. Sakai, and T. Sakai, “Mass spectra of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories in (1+1)-dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 2446–2461, [arXiv:hep-th/9504150]

    1995 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Solving the 2D SUSY Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model with conformal truncation,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, M. T. Walters, and Y. Xin, “Solving the 2D SUSY Gross-Neveu-Yukawa model with conformal truncation,” JHEP 01 (2021) 182, [arXiv:1911.10220 [hep-th]]. – 27 –

    2021 arXiv

  73. [1981]

    https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.46.77

    77–80. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.46.77

    doi

  74. [2007]

    https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2798382

    102111, [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2798382/16055030/102111 1 online.pdf]. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2798382

    doi

  75. [2018]

    https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002

    015002. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015002

    doi

  76. [2023]

    https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.022612

    022612. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.022612

    doi

  77. [2025]

    https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-02-19-1638

    1638. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2025-02-19-1638

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.