Bloch oscillation with a diatomic tight-binding model on quantum computers

Frank X. Lee; Jaime Park; Peng Guo

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Bloch oscillation with a diatomic tight-binding model on quantum computers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that few-body lattice dynamics can be simulated in a statevector basis where Gamma qubits encode N=2^Gamma sites, with two-particle systems needing two sets of Gamma registers, giving exponential qubit savings over…

desk verdict Statevector encoding for few-body lattice dynamics is real but the paper's circuit equations have a factor-of-two error that must be fixed before the hardware comparison is meaningful. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15945 v2 pith:QRD4MCFM submitted 2025-05-21 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.otherhep-latnucl-th

Peng Guo , Jaime Park , Frank X. Lee This is my paper

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.otherhep-latnucl-th MSC 81P68 PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Ac

keywords statevectorbasisrepresentationfew-bodyquantumsimulationtight-bindingmodelBlochoscillationqubitresourcescalingJordan-WignertransformTrottertimeevolutioncontactinteractioncircuit

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 proposes simulating few-body lattice dynamics on a quantum computer by working directly in the statevector basis — computational basis states that label occupied sites — instead of passing the Hamiltonian through the Jordan-Wigner transform. The payoff is exponential qubit compression: for a single particle on an $N$-site chain, $\Gamma = \log_2 N$ qubits represent all $N$ sites, and two interacting particles fit in two sets of $\Gamma$ registers, spanning the $N^2$-dimensional two-particle Hilbert space. Using a two-band diatomic tight-binding chain as a testbed, the authors build explicit circuits for the hopping, electric-field, and contact-interaction terms, obtaining exact exponentials for each and Trotterizing the full time evolution. They demonstrate the idea on a cloud quantum processor, where the two-qubit, four-site case tracks the exact Bloch-oscillation curve, while deeper circuits are overwhelmed by hardware noise. If the scaling holds, few-body real-time dynamics becomes accessible with a handful of qubits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the statevector basis representation: instead of encoding fermionic operators through Jordan-Wigner strings, each computational basis state $\lvert l \rangle$ directly represents a single excitation located at site $l$, and the two-particle basis is the tensor product $\lvert l_1, l_2 \rangle = \lvert l_1 \rangle \otimes \lvert l_2 \rangle$. The exponential qubit saving comes from encoding the site index $l$ in binary, so $N = 2^\Gamma$ states occupy $\Gamma$ qubits. The machinery that carries the argument is the decomposition of the Hamiltonian into hopping, Stark, and contact pieces whose exponentials have exact, compact circuit realizations — $X$-gates and multi-controlled-$X$ gates for the hoppings, weighted $Z$-gate insertions for the linear potential, and a sum of $Z$-gate tensor products for the on-site interaction — allowing the full time evolution to be assembled from Trotter steps of controlled error.

What would settle it

Compare the unitary implemented by the circuit in Fig. 5 for a two-qubit system against the matrix exponential of $H_a$ in Eq. (14) using the stated $\Delta_a$; if the off-diagonal phase differs by a factor of two, the circuit realizes a Hamiltonian with hopping coupling $2\Delta_a$ rather than $\Delta_a$, and every 'exact' comparison in Figs. 14, 15, and 17 would need to be redone against the actually simulated model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the statevector basis representation of a few-body Hamiltonian is exponentially more economical in qubits than the Jordan-Wigner representation while solving the same simulation problem. A single-particle excitation on a 1D chain of $N$ sites is encoded in $\Gamma = \log_2 N$ qubits, and a two-particle state is encoded in two sets of $\Gamma$ registers, giving an $N^2$-dimensional Hilbert space. For the two-band diatomic tight-binding model, the paper constructs the actual circuits: the intra- and inter-cell hopping terms become $X$-gate and multi-controlled-$X$ circuits with exact time-evolution exponentials, the linear electric potential becomes a linear superposition of $Z$-gate circuits, and the contact interaction becomes a sum of tensor products of $Z$-gates with all terms commuting, so $e^{-iH_V\delta t}$ factorizes into $N$ simple gates. Time evolution is then a low-order Trotter product of these exponentials. On present-day superconducting hardware, the two-qubit four-site system matches the exact Bloch-oscillation probability curve without error mitigation, while the three-qubit eight-site and four-qubit two-particle cases deviate substantially; the authors attribute this to circuit depth and hardware noise.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that the circuit rotation angles faithfully exponentiate the Hamiltonian in Eq. (14); if the rotation angles in Eqs. (29)-(30) are taken literally, the circuits evolve with hopping couplings twice as large as stated, so the apparent agreement with the 'exact' curves would require the exact solver to have used the same doubled couplings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single-particle excitation on an $N$-site chain can be simulated with $\log_2 N$ qubits in the statevector basis, versus $N$ qubits under the Jordan-Wigner mapping, so exponentially larger chains become addressable at fixed qubit count.
Two interacting particles on an $N$-site lattice fit in two sets of $\log_2 N$ registers, and the on-site contact interaction is implemented exactly by a product of commuting $Z$-gate circuits described by Eq. (35).
Since each constituent exponential has an exact circuit, the only approximation in the time evolution is the Trotter step size, so the method inherits standard controllable Trotter error.
The same register construction extends to higher spatial dimensions by adding one set of registers per dimension, as outlined for the two-dimensional tight-binding Hamiltonian.
On current noisy hardware the method works at two qubits but degrades sharply at three and four qubits, meaning practical use will require error mitigation or error correction.

Reading between the lines

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

The method should become the preferred encoding precisely in the few-body, large-$N$ regime; while the paper states the crossover condition $N^q > 2^N$, mapping where that crossover falls for the diatomic model would be a natural next step.
If the rotation-angle discrepancy flagged in the appendix is confirmed, the hardware agreement in the two-qubit case might simply reflect that both the circuit and the 'exact' solver used the same doubled hopping; recomputing the exact curves with the literal Eq. (14) couplings would settle whether the circuit implements the intended model.
The $Z$-gate decomposition of the contact interaction suggests that more advanced phase-gadget compilation could drastically reduce the depth of the two-particle circuit, which is the stated bottleneck on current hardware; that is a testable engineering extension the paper does not pursue.
The statevector approach transfers naturally to other few-body observables such as scattering phase shifts or real-time correlation functions, where the relevant Hilbert-space sector is small even though the full Fock space is huge.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core resource claim is correct: a single particle on an N-site chain needs log N qubits in the statevector basis, and two particles need 2 log N. The paper also honestly reports that the 3- and 4-qubit hardware runs fail. That is genuine progress reporting, not a demo dressed up. The explicit circuit decompositions for the diatomic tight-binding model, including the contact-interaction circuit in Eq. (34), are the new part and they look plausible.

The soft spot is the factor-of-two inconsistency the stress test flagged, and it is real. Eq. (14) defines the hopping off-diagonals as -Delta/4, so exponentiating that 2x2 block gives angles Delta*dt/4. Equations (29) and (30) display cos(Delta*dt/2) and sin(Delta*dt/2), which correspond to hopping strengths -Delta/2. The circuits as written simulate a Hamiltonian with doubled hoppings. Either the displayed angles are typos or the exact curves in Figs. 14-17 used the doubled couplings. Either way, the published equations do not match the stated model. This is load-bearing for the hardware comparison because Fig. 14 is the one success story. The two-particle identity in Eq. (33) is also wrong as printed: the left side is unitary, the right side is the sum of two unitaries and generally is not. The correct tensor-product identity is e^{-i(H1⊗I + I⊗H2)dt} = e^{-iH1dt} ⊗ e^{-iH2dt}. That is a minor fix, but it matters for the two-particle circuit.

The encoding itself is a known first-quantized technique, and the only related citation is the authors' own [26]. That undercuts the novelty framing, but the circuit constructions for this specific model are new. The paper also lacks error bars, shot counts, and code or data for the hardware runs, which makes the comparison hard to assess. The ZNE mitigated point in Fig. 17 is still way off, so the failure is honestly reported.

Bottom line: the math is mostly straightforward algebra once you fix the angles, and the central resource claim survives. The paper is worth refereeing, but only after the authors correct Eqs. (29)-(30) and Eq. (33) and clarify what the exact solver actually used. I'd send it to a serious referee who will check the circuit equations line by line. It is a useful incremental contribution, not a breakthrough. I would not cite it myself until the factor of two is resolved, since right now the displayed circuits do not implement the stated Hamiltonian.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to simulate few-body dynamics on quantum computers using the few-body Hamiltonian matrix in the statevector (first-quantized position) basis, rather than mapping the second-quantized Hamiltonian to qubits via the Jordan-Wigner transform. For a single particle on N=2^Gamma sites, Gamma qubits encode the N-dimensional single-particle space. The authors construct Trotterized quantum circuits for the hopping, electric-field, and contact-interaction terms of a two-band diatomic tight-binding model, and report IBM hardware results for one-particle (2- and 3-qubit) and two-particle (4-qubit) cases, comparing against exact numerical solutions.

Significance. If the equation-level errors noted below are corrected, the central observation is sound and useful: the statevector encoding gives exponential qubit savings for few-body few-particle simulations relative to Jordan-Wigner, at the cost of deeper circuits. The algebraic expansion for the contact interaction in Eq. (34) is an exact and concise identity, no parameters are fitted, and the hardware failures on the 3- and 4-qubit circuits are reported honestly, which is a valuable negative result for NISQ-era simulation. The paper also acknowledges the crossover point beyond which the statevector basis becomes inefficient, which lends credibility to the proposal.

major comments (3)

[III.A, Eqs. (29)-(30)] The displayed exponentials do not match the Hamiltonian in Eq. (14). Exponentiating the 2x2 block [[0,-Delta_a/4],[-Delta_a/4,0]] over time delta_t gives cos(Delta_a delta_t/4) on the diagonal and i sin(Delta_a delta_t/4) on the off-diagonal, not cos(Delta_a delta_t/2) and i sin(Delta_a delta_t/2) as written. The same factor of two appears for Delta_b. If the circuits are built from the displayed angles, they evolve under hoppings Delta_a/2 and Delta_b/2, twice the stated model. The agreement with the 'exact' curves in Figs. 14-17 therefore requires either that the exact solver used the same doubled couplings, contradicting the stated parameters, or that the displayed angles are typographical and the implemented angles are Delta_a delta_t/4 and Delta_b delta_t/4. These equations and the numerical comparison must be corrected and verified.
[III.B, Eq. (33)] Equation (33) states e^{-i H_K delta_t} = e^{-i H_sv^(1) delta_t} (x) I + I (x) e^{-i H_sv^(2) delta_t}. For H_K = H_sv^(1) (x) I + I (x) H_sv^(2), the correct identity is e^{-i H_K delta_t} = e^{-i H_sv^(1) delta_t} (x) e^{-i H_sv^(2) delta_t}, because the two summands commute. The expression on the right-hand side of Eq. (33) is not unitary in general. This error affects the two-particle non-interacting evolution as written; the authors should either correct Eq. (33) or clarify that the circuit in Fig. 16 implements the correct tensor-product form.
[II.B, Eqs. (21), (24), (25)] Equation (21) defines |l_1,l_2> as the antisymmetrized two-fermion state (1/sqrt(2))(c^dag_{l1,up} c^dag_{l2,down} - c^dag_{l1,down} c^dag_{l2,up})|0>. This state is symmetric under l_1 <-> l_2 and has norm sqrt(2) when l_1 = l_2, whereas Eq. (25) identifies it with the unsymmetrized tensor product |l_1> (x) |l_2>. These identifications are incompatible: the tensor-product basis has dimension N^2, while the singlet subspace spanned by Eq. (21) has dimension N(N+1)/2, and the on-site interaction matrix element in Eq. (24) differs by a factor of two depending on which identification is used. The authors should state clearly whether the two-particle simulation targets the antisymmetrized two-electron system or a first-quantized model of two distinguishable particles, and adjust the state normalization and H_V accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[IV, Figs. 14-17] The hardware results are presented without shot counts, error bars, or device/date metadata, which makes the 'comparable' statement in Fig. 14 and the quantitative failure assessment in Figs. 15-17 difficult to evaluate. Please provide this information.
[III.B, Eq. (34)] The notation (I_{Gamma-1} (x) ... (x) I_0)^2 is explained parenthetically as a tensor product of two sets of Gamma qubits; consider using an explicit symbol such as W^{otimes 2} or W (x) W to avoid confusion.
[II.A.2, Eq. (19)] The text 'only a single no-zero element' should read 'only a single nonzero element'.
[IV] The word 'Trotterziation' in the sentence introducing Eq. (32) should be 'Trotterization'.
[II, first paragraph] The phrase 'periodic boundary conditions' in Fig. 1 and the use of 'periodic' in the main text are not fully consistent with the open-ended chain illustration; please clarify the boundary conditions used in the simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the statevector encoding is a direct basis choice, and the hopping and interaction circuit identities are exact algebraic mappings checked against the stated Hamiltonian; the sole self-citation [26] is non-load-bearing. Separate correctness flags: Eqs. (29)-(30) carry a factor-of-two mismatch vs Eq. (14), and Eq. (33) is not unitary — errors, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central claims do not reduce to their inputs. (1) The qubit-efficiency claim (Gamma qubits for N=2^Gamma sites) is a direct property of encoding the site index l in the computational basis of Gamma registers; it is a representation choice, not a prediction derived from itself. (2) The single-particle hopping exponentials are stated as exact: expanding the 2x2 bond block of H_a in Eq. (14) (off-diagonal -Delta_a/4) gives exp(-i delta t [[0,-Delta_a/4],[-Delta_a/4,0]]) = cos(Delta_a delta t/4) I + i sin(Delta_a delta t/4) sigma_x. The angles printed in Eqs. (29)-(30) are cos(Delta_a delta t/2) and sin(Delta_a delta t/2), i.e., they exponentiate hoppings twice the model's; likewise Eq. (33) prints a sum of tensor-product exponentials, which is not unitary, where the correct identity is e^{-i(H1 otimes I + I otimes H2) delta t} = e^{-iH1 delta t} otimes e^{-iH2 delta t}. These are internal mathematical errors in claimed 'exact expressions', not fits or input-output equivalences. (3) The interaction circuit Eq. (34) is verified algebraically: with |l><l| = otimes_i (I + (-1)^{l_i} Z_i)/2, summing V |l,l><l,l| over l yields (V/2^Gamma) sum_s Z_s otimes Z_s exactly as written, so the Z-gate decomposition is an identity, not an ansatz smuggled by citation. (4) The benchmarks (Figs. 14-17) compare hardware results to an independently computed exact solution of the coupled equations (17) at stated parameters (Delta_a=5, Delta_b=1, F=1.5, V=10, delta t=0.02); no parameter is fitted to the hardware data. (5) The only self-citation, Ref. [26], is illustrative ('See Ref. [26] for an application of the statevector basis representation in a scattering problem') and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported. The paper is therefore in the 0-2 'no significant circularity' band; score 2 reflects the presence of that single minor self-citation. The factor-of-two and unitarity discrepancies must be corrected and the hardware-versus-exact agreement re-verified, but they are correctness risks, not circularity.

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

The ledger has no fitted free parameters: Delta_a, Delta_b, F, V, and dt are physical or numerical inputs. The core unproved premises are the standard Jordan-Wigner and Trotter results, the spatial-symmetry reduction of the singlet state, and the finite-size periodic chain approximation. The most fragile premise is the claimed exact exponentials in Eqs. (29)-(30), whose angles disagree with Eq. (14) by a factor of two.

assumptions (4)

standard math The Jordan-Wigner transformation maps fermionic creation and annihilation operators to Pauli strings as in Eq. (7).
Invoked in Sec. II A 1 to define the comparison encoding; used only for resource comparison, not for the statevector circuits.
standard math The lowest-order Trotter-Suzuki product U(dt) = e^{-iHa dt} e^{-iHb dt} e^{-iHE dt} converges to e^{-iH dt} as dt tends to zero.
Used in Eq. (32) to build time evolution circuits; the paper does not quantify the Trotter error at dt = 0.02.
domain assumption The two-electron singlet state in Eq. (21) is symmetric under spatial exchange, so it can be encoded as the tensor product |l1> x |l2> without explicit antisymmetrization gates.
Assumed in Sec. II B, Eqs. (20)-(25); physically standard for opposite-spin contact interactions, but the paper does not verify that the N^2-dimensional encoding stays within the physical symmetric subspace for all Trotter steps.
domain assumption Truncating the infinite chain to N sites with periodic boundary conditions and the chosen parameters reproduces the infinite-chain Bloch oscillation.
Used throughout the numerical section; Appendix A only validates the infinite-chain limit for equal couplings, so finite-size effects for unequal couplings (Delta_a = 5, Delta_b = 1) are not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bloch oscillation with a diatomic tight-binding model on quantum computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRD4MCFM

@misc{pith2026250515945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bloch oscillation with a diatomic tight-binding model on quantum computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRD4MCFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15945}
}

abstract

We aim to explore a more efficient way to simulate few-body dynamics on quantum computers. Instead of mapping the second quantization of the system Hamiltonian to qubit Pauli gates representation via the Jordan-Wigner transform, we propose to use the few-body Hamiltonian matrix under the statevector basis representation which is more economical on the required number of quantum registers. For a single-particle excitation state on a one-dimensional chain, $\Gamma$ qubits can simulate $N=2^\Gamma$ number of sites, in comparison to $N$ qubits for $N$ sites via the Jordan-Wigner approach. A two-band diatomic tight-binding model is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the statevector basis representation. Both one-particle and two-particle quantum circuits are constructed and some numerical tests on IBM hardware are presented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15945 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Quantum circuit of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: Quantum circuit of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (14 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Quantum circuit of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Quantum circuit of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Quantum circuits for time evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11: Quantum circuits of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12: Quantum circuit of the lowest order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13: Quantum circuit of the lowest order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14: Demo plots of probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15: Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: FIG. 16: Quantum circuit of the lowest order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: FIG. 17: Demo plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_17.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: FIG. 19: Expectation value of electron position in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_19.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: FIG. 18: Dispersion relation of the electron in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: FIG. 20: Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_20.png]

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: FIG. 22: Expectation value of electron momentum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_22.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[26]

Guo, Z.-Y

X.-Y. Guo, Z.-Y. Ge, H. Li, Z. Wang, Y.-R. Zhang, P. Song, Z. Xiang, X. Song, Y. Jin, L. Lu, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Observation of bloch oscilla- tions and wannier-stark localization on a superconduct- ing quantum processor, npj Quantum Information7, 51 (2021)

work page 2021
[1]

Jordan-Wigner representation In this representation, the non-interacting tight-binding model Hamiltonian operator in Eq.(1) truncated toN sites can be mapped ontoN-qubit quantum registers by applying the Jordan-Wigner transformation, see e.g. Refs. [8–10]. For example, for a spinless fermion, creation operators are mapped to c† l =I N−1 ⊗ · · · ⊗Il+1 ⊗σ †...

work page
[2]

  ,(12) where|ψ(l, t)|2 describes the probability of finding a par- ticle at site-lat timet

Statevector basis representation In this representation, the individual single-particle exci- tation at site-lis defined by |l⟩=c † l |0⟩= 00 · · ·0l−1 1l 0l+1 · · ·0N−1 T ,(11) thus the overall single-particle state is given by |Ψ(t)⟩= N−1X l=0 ψ(l, t)|l⟩=   ψ(0, t) ψ(1, t) ...   ,(12) where|ψ(l, t)|2 describes the probability of finding a par- tic...

work page
[3]

Schaefer, R

S. Schaefer, R. Sommer, and F. Virotta (ALPHA), Crit- ical slowing down and error analysis in lattice QCD sim- ulations, Nucl. Phys. B845, 93 (2011), arXiv:1009.5228 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2011
[4]

E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Sign problem in the nu- merical simulation of many-electron systems, Phys. Rev. B41, 9301 (1990)

1990
[5]

de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, PoS LA T2009, 010 (2009), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

P. de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, PoS LA T2009, 010 (2009), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2009
[6]

G. P. Lepage, The analysis of algorithms for lattice field theory, Boulder ASI1989, 97 (1989)

work page 1989
[7]

Drischler, W

C. Drischler, W. Haxton, K. McElvain, E. Mereghetti, A. Nicholson, P. Vranas, and A. Walker-Loud, Towards grounding nuclear physics in qcd, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics121, 103888 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 34 references

[8]

Tacchino, A

F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, S. Carretta, and D. Gerace, Quantum computers as universal quantum simulators: State-of-the-art and perspectives, Advanced Quantum Technologies3, 1900052 (2020)

2020
[9]

Hubbard and B

J. Hubbard and B. H. Flowers, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276, 238 (1963)

1963
[10]

Ortiz, J

G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations, Phys. Rev. A64, 022319 (2001)

2001
[11]

Somma, G

R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Simulating physical phenomena by quan- tum networks, Phys. Rev. A65, 042323 (2002)

2002
[12]

Jordan and E

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

1928
[13]

H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of opera- tors, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 545 (1959)

1959
[14]

Hatano and M

N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding Exponential Product Formulas of Higher Orders, Lect. Notes Phys.679, 37 (2005), arXiv:math-ph/0506007. 10

2005 arXiv
[15]

Bloch, ¨Uber die quantenmechanik der elektronen in kristallgittern, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik52, 555 (1929)

F. Bloch, ¨Uber die quantenmechanik der elektronen in kristallgittern, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik52, 555 (1929)

1929
[16]

Zener and R

C. Zener and R. H. Fowler, A theory of the electrical breakdown of solid dielectrics, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character145, 523 (1934)

1934
[17]

G. H. Wannier, Dynamics of band electrons in electric and magnetic fields, Rev. Mod. Phys.34, 645 (1962)

1962
[18]

Hartmann, F

T. Hartmann, F. Keck, H. J. Korsch, and S. Mossmann, Dynamics of bloch oscillations, New Journal of Physics 6, 2 (2004)

2004
[19]

Callaway,Quantum Theory of the Solid State, Quan- tum Theory of the Solid State (Academic Press, 1974)

J. Callaway,Quantum Theory of the Solid State, Quan- tum Theory of the Solid State (Academic Press, 1974)

1974
[20]

Gl¨ uck, A

M. Gl¨ uck, A. R. Kolovsky, and H. J. Korsch, Wan- nier–stark resonances in optical and semiconductor su- perlattices, Physics Reports366, 103 (2002)

2002
[21]

Feldmann, K

J. Feldmann, K. Leo, J. Shah, D. A. B. Miller, J. E. Cunningham, T. Meier, G. von Plessen, A. Schulze, P. Thomas, and S. Schmitt-Rink, Optical investigation of bloch oscillations in a semiconductor superlattice, Phys. Rev. B46, 7252 (1992)

1992
[22]

Ben Dahan, E

M. Ben Dahan, E. Peik, J. Reichel, Y. Castin, and C. Sa- lomon, Bloch oscillations of atoms in an optical potential, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 4508 (1996)

1996
[23]

Pertsch, P

T. Pertsch, P. Dannberg, W. Elflein, A. Br¨ auer, and F. Lederer, Optical bloch oscillations in temperature tuned waveguide arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 4752 (1999)

1999
[24]

Morandotti, U

R. Morandotti, U. Peschel, J. S. Aitchison, H. S. Eisen- berg, and Y. Silberberg, Experimental observation of lin- ear and nonlinear optical bloch oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 4756 (1999)

1999
[25]

P. Song, Z. Xiang, Y.-X. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Guo, X. Ruan, X. Song, K. Xu, Y. Y. Gao, H. Fan, and D. Zheng, Coherent control of bloch oscillations in a su- perconducting circuit, PRX Quantum5, 020302 (2024)

2024
[27]

Holthaus and D

M. Holthaus and D. W. H. and, Localiza- tion effects in ac-driven tight-binding lattices, Philosophical Magazine B74, 105 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1080/01418639608240331

1996 doi
[28]

Guo, Toward extracting scattering phase shift from integrated correlation functions on quantum computers, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2504.14474 [quant-ph]

P. Guo, Toward extracting scattering phase shift from integrated correlation functions on quantum computers, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2504.14474 [quant-ph]

2025
[29]

van den Berg, Z

E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, and K. Temme, Model-free readout-error mitigation for quantum expectation values, Phys. Rev. A105, 032620 (2022)

2022
[30]

Temme, S

K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitiga- tion for short-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

2017
[31]

J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A94, 052325 (2016)

2016
[32]

Y. Wu, W. Liu, J. Geng, X. Song, X. Ye, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du, Observa- tion of parity-time symmetry breaking in a single-spin system, Science364, 878 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaw8205

2019 doi
[33]

Dogra, A

S. Dogra, A. A. Melnikov, and G. S. Paraoanu, Quan- tum simulation of parity–time symmetry breaking with a superconducting quantum processor, Communications Physics4, 26 (2021)

2021
[34]

A. M. Bouchard and M. Luban, Bloch oscillations and other dynamical phenomena of electrons in semiconduc- tor superlattices, Phys. Rev. B52, 5105 (1995). 11 Appendix A: Basic properties of diatomic non-interacting tight-binding model In the absence of particle interactions and...

1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Guo, Z.-Y

X.-Y. Guo, Z.-Y. Ge, H. Li, Z. Wang, Y.-R. Zhang, P. Song, Z. Xiang, X. Song, Y. Jin, L. Lu, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Observation of bloch oscilla- tions and wannier-stark localization on a superconduct- ing quantum processor, npj Quantum Information7, 51 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [1]

Jordan-Wigner representation In this representation, the non-interacting tight-binding model Hamiltonian operator in Eq.(1) truncated toN sites can be mapped ontoN-qubit quantum registers by applying the Jordan-Wigner transformation, see e.g. Refs. [8–10]. For example, for a spinless fermion, creation operators are mapped to c† l =I N−1 ⊗ · · · ⊗Il+1 ⊗σ †...

work page

[3] [2]

  ,(12) where|ψ(l, t)|2 describes the probability of finding a par- ticle at site-lat timet

Statevector basis representation In this representation, the individual single-particle exci- tation at site-lis defined by |l⟩=c † l |0⟩= 00 · · ·0l−1 1l 0l+1 · · ·0N−1 T ,(11) thus the overall single-particle state is given by |Ψ(t)⟩= N−1X l=0 ψ(l, t)|l⟩=   ψ(0, t) ψ(1, t) ...   ,(12) where|ψ(l, t)|2 describes the probability of finding a par- tic...

work page

[4] [3]

Schaefer, R

S. Schaefer, R. Sommer, and F. Virotta (ALPHA), Crit- ical slowing down and error analysis in lattice QCD sim- ulations, Nucl. Phys. B845, 93 (2011), arXiv:1009.5228 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2011

[5] [4]

E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Sign problem in the nu- merical simulation of many-electron systems, Phys. Rev. B41, 9301 (1990)

1990

[6] [5]

de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, PoS LA T2009, 010 (2009), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

P. de Forcrand, Simulating QCD at finite density, PoS LA T2009, 010 (2009), arXiv:1005.0539 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2009

[7] [6]

G. P. Lepage, The analysis of algorithms for lattice field theory, Boulder ASI1989, 97 (1989)

work page 1989

[8] [7]

Drischler, W

C. Drischler, W. Haxton, K. McElvain, E. Mereghetti, A. Nicholson, P. Vranas, and A. Walker-Loud, Towards grounding nuclear physics in qcd, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics121, 103888 (2021)

work page 2021