Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Variational Quantum Simulation of the Interacting Schwinger Model on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Processor

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Full variational quantum eigensolver runs on a trapped-ion processor reproduce the Schwinger model's phase boundaries within one standard deviation.

desk verdict A genuine but modest VQE hardware demonstration whose quantitative phase-boundary agreement is weaker than it looks once you account for min-selection bias and a sign error in Eq. (8); worth refereeing after a re-analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20824 v1 pith:RGAPRS7R submitted 2025-04-29 quant-ph hep-lat

Christian Melzer , Stephan Schuster , Diego Alberto Olvera Millán , Janine Hilder , Ulrich Poschinger , Karl Jansen , Ferdinand Schmidt-Kaler This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-lat
keywords variationalquantumeigensolverSchwingermodellatticegaugetheorytrappedionschemicalpotentialphasetransitionstatetomographysignproblem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that a full variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) loop can run on real trapped-ion hardware and extract physics from the two-flavor lattice Schwinger model, a one-dimensional toy model of quantum chromodynamics, in the presence of a nonzero chemical potential. This finite-density regime is where classical Monte Carlo methods break down because of the sign problem. Using a four-qubit shuttling-based processor and a charge-conserving ansatz circuit, the authors execute the complete hybrid classical-quantum optimization loop at three chemical-potential values, with no error mitigation beyond discarding lost ions, and observe convergence within about fifty iterations. From the measured energies and particle numbers they compute two first-order phase boundaries, -4.3(5) and 3.6(4), which agree with exact diagonalization values -3.96 and 3.96 within one standard deviation. They also reconstruct the output states by tomography and show that their mutual information structure changes across the phase transition, matching the expected pattern of correlations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the charge-conserving variational ansatz of Eq. (9): one layer of fermionic exchange gates $U^{xy}_{ij}(\theta)=\exp[-(i\theta/2)(X_iX_j+Y_iY_j)]$ and virtual $Z$-rotations $R_i^z(\theta)$, applied to the fixed charge-neutral initial state $|0101\rangle$. Because every generator commutes with the total charge operator, the VQE search stays inside the zero-charge subspace even on a noisy device. The second load-bearing piece is the phase-by-phase energy relation $E_N(\nu)=\nu\cdot N+E_N^{\min}$ and the critical-point formula Eq. (8) derived from it, which converts one energy measurement and one particle-number measurement per phase into a phase boundary. The shuttling schedule, gate ordering, simultaneous-perturbation optimizer, and tomography all exist to make these two ingredients reliable on the processor.

What would settle it

Measure the VQE energy at three or more chemical-potential values within one phase using the same protocol as the paper; if the three energies do not lie on a straight line whose slope equals the measured particle number, the constant-offset assumption behind the phase-boundary formula fails and the reported boundaries are not reproducible by this method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a four-qubit trapped-ion processor, full VQE runs converge for the two-flavor Schwinger model with chemical potentials, and the information extracted about the ground state is accurate even though the raw measured energies are not. For K = -14, 0, and 10, the measured converged energies are -215.8(3.6), -26.6(0.9), and 2.5(2.8), compared with exact values -223.0, -30.7, and 1.0; the optimized parameters, when re-evaluated on a noiseless simulator, give energies about an order of magnitude closer to the exact ground state than the hardware-measured energies do. Applying the phase-boundary formula to the measured energies and particle numbers yields boundaries of -4.3(5) and 3.6(4), matching exact diagonalization values -3.96 and 3.96 within one standard deviation. Tomographic reconstruction gives state fidelities between 0.61 and 0.70 and shows strong mutual information across two of the three two-qubit bipartitions only in the K = 0 phase, consistent with a transition from an interacting phase to chemical-potential-dominated phases. The central claim is that a complete VQE, not just an ideal simulation or a pre-optimized circuit, can map the phase diagram of this model on actual hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The phase-boundary extraction assumes that within each phase the measured energy is the true energy plus an offset that is constant across the whole phase and independent of the prepared state; if gate errors shift different candidate states by different amounts, the extracted boundary would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Converged VQE parameters learned on noisy hardware can be evaluated on a noiseless simulator to obtain energies close to the exact ground state, so hardware noise need not spoil the variational parameter search itself.
  • Phase boundaries of a fermionic lattice model with nonzero chemical potential can be extracted from a few VQE runs without sign-problem-free classical sampling and without post-selection or error mitigation beyond rejecting lost ions.
  • Quantum state tomography of the VQE output states provides a hardware-reachable signature of the phase transition, through mutual information, even when absolute energy values are shifted by noise.
  • The total run of about three days and 750,000 shots demonstrates that a shuttling-based trapped-ion system can maintain the calibration stability required for closed-loop hybrid algorithms.
  • Scaling the same charge-conserving ansatz to more qubits and more flavors is the natural next step toward sign-problem-afflicted regimes that classical methods cannot reach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to measure the energy at three or more chemical-potential values inside one phase and check that the points are collinear with slope equal to the measured particle number; curvature would show that the constant-offset assumption behind the phase-boundary formula is violated.
  • Because the optimized parameters transfer well to a noiseless simulator, a two-stage pipeline that optimizes on the quantum processor and evaluates on an error-mitigated or classical backend could yield more accurate energies than either stage alone; the paper does not propose this.
  • A testable question is whether the noise-induced energy offset scales with state properties such as particle number or energy; that scaling will determine whether the same two-measurements-per-phase strategy remains unbiased on larger systems.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) study of the two-flavor, two-site Schwinger model with a chemical potential, executed on a shuttling-based trapped-ion processor. Using a seven-parameter ansatz circuit from prior work [7], the authors run full VQE optimizations at three values of the chemical potential difference K and extract the ground-state energy in each phase. They then use the measured energies and particle numbers to compute the phase boundaries, reporting -4.3(5) and 3.6(4) in agreement with exact diagonalization values -3.96 and 3.96 within one standard deviation. They also perform quantum state tomography at the optimized parameters and compare mutual information across phases with exact results. The central claim is that full VQE runs converge on the hardware and that the phase boundaries of the model can be mapped out.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is a useful benchmark for variational quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories on a trapped-ion platform. The experiment demonstrates long-term stability of a shuttling-based processor over roughly three days of automated VQE operation, with no post-selection or error mitigation, and it provides tomographic characterization of the prepared states. The phase-boundary result is a falsifiable, quantitative comparison against exact diagonalization, and the measured values agree within the quoted uncertainties. The main strengths are the complete hardware VQE implementation, the absence of error mitigation, and the explicit tomography analysis. The paper's significance is incremental rather than groundbreaking: the system is only four qubits, the phase diagram is known classically, and the model and ansatz are taken from the authors' prior work [7]. However, as a hardware demonstration of VQE in a sign-problem-affected lattice model, it is a valid and potentially reproducible contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) as printed is incorrect. From Eq. (7), the phase offset is E_min_N = E_N(ν) − ν·N, so the correctly derived expression for the critical point has numerator E_N'(ν') − ν'·N' − E_N''(ν'') + ν''·N'' (with the appropriate denominator), not the printed E_N'(ν') + ν'·N' − E_N''(ν'') + ν''·N''. Furthermore, Eq. (8) gives (ν0−ν1), whereas the quoted boundaries −4.3(5) and 3.6(4) are in units of K = κ0/g − κ1/g = (ν0−ν1)/(2√x) with 2√x = 8. Literally applying the printed formula to the Table I entries does not reproduce the reported values; the reported numbers correspond to the correctly derived formula divided by 8. The equation and the surrounding derivation must be corrected, and the conversion between ν and K must be stated explicitly so that the reader can reproduce the phase-boundary calculation.
  2. [§V, Fig. 3 and Table I] The phase boundaries are computed from the single lowest energy value on each noisy SPSA trajectory ('we take the lowest energy W, as evaluated by the quantum backend for each run'). The minimum over a noisy trajectory is a biased estimator of the underlying expectation value: it is pulled downward by the most favorable noise fluctuation, and the bias grows with the number of iterations and with per-evaluation noise. The three runs have different trajectory lengths (K = −14 ran 160 iterations; K = 10 includes an intermediate hardware failure) and were taken on different days with recalibrations, so the bias is not common-mode. The measured offsets from exact are +7.2, +4.1 and +1.5 for the three runs; these offsets enter the boundary formulas as differences divided by 8, so the 1σ agreement of the boundaries is partly determined by these run-dependent offsets. I ask the authors to re-analyze the data with a robust estimator (for example, the mean or median of the converged iterations, or a fit that accounts for the noise floor) and to report whether the phase-boundary agreement persists. At minimum, the choice of the minimum should be justified and its bias quantified.
  3. [§V, phase-boundary uncertainties] The quoted uncertainties on the phase boundaries, −4.3(5) and 3.6(4), are not derived in the text. The energy uncertainties in Table I are given (3.6, 0.9, 2.8), and simple propagation through the corrected boundary formula would give errors of roughly 0.45 and 0.37, which are consistent with the quoted values. However, the paper should state explicitly how these errors are propagated, whether they include the statistical error of the energy measurements only, and whether they account for the systematic choice of the minimum over the trajectory. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the agreement with exact values is statistically meaningful.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and §I] The statement that the model 'becomes intractable for classical numerical methods even for small system sizes due to the notorious sign problem' is overstated. Exact diagonalization and tensor-network methods do not suffer from a sign problem and are routinely used for small lattice sizes; the sign problem affects Monte Carlo approaches. I suggest rephrasing to indicate that Monte Carlo methods encounter a sign problem, while classical methods such as exact diagonalization remain applicable at these sizes.
  2. [§II, after Eq. (7)] The derivation leading to Eq. (8) should be shown explicitly, including the relation between ν and K (ν_f = 2√x κ_f/g) and the factor 1/(2√x) that converts the ν difference to the reported K units. This will remove the ambiguity discussed in the major comment on Eq. (8).
  3. [§IV.A, Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Note the some local gates' should read 'Note that some local gates cancel out around the second barrier.'
  4. [§V, results paragraph] There is a duplicated word: 'the quantum backend results of −4.3(5) and and 3.6(4)' should read '−4.3(5) and 3.6(4)'.
  5. [§VI, first paragraph] The phrase 'Our results also allow serve as a benchmark' contains a grammatical error; it should be 'Our results also serve as a benchmark'.
  6. [§III, first paragraph] The sentence 'Several such crystal can be stored' should read 'Several such crystals can be stored'.
  7. [§V, QMI paragraph] The figure label 'analyticalexperimental' in the rendered figure (Fig. 5 and the bottom of Fig. 4) appears to be a concatenation of 'analytical' and 'experimental'; please correct the label.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured phase boundaries are compared with, not fitted to, exact values; the self-citation to [7] supplies the ansatz and Hamiltonian mapping but is not load-bearing for the hardware result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The phase-boundary formula, Eq. (8), is obtained algebraically from the linear form Eq. (7), E_N(ν)=ν·N+E_min_N, with E_min_N evaluated from one measured VQE energy per phase and with particle numbers N_f taken from separate measurements. No phase-boundary value is used as an input or fitted to the exact boundaries; the reported values -4.3(5) and 3.6(4) are compared against exact-diagonalization values -3.96 and 3.96 only after they are computed from the measured energies. The ansatz circuit and the Hamiltonian mapping are attributed to the authors' earlier paper [7], a published ideal-simulation study of the three-flavor Schwinger model; this is method reuse rather than a load-bearing premise, because the present hardware convergence, tomography fidelities, and energy agreement are measured independently and benchmarked against a simulation backend. The paper also explicitly notes that no post-selection or error mitigation was applied, and that convergence was cross-validated with exact results; these are honest methodological limitations, not circular inputs. The remaining concerns (use of the lowest noisy VQE energy, and a possible sign-convention issue in Eq. (8) as printed) are statistical-correctness issues, not circularity, since the claimed prediction is not defined in terms of the target quantity it is meant to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the standard lattice-gauge-theory mapping to spin qubits, the charge-conserving ansatz from [7], and the assumption that hardware noise does not break the phase-wise linear energy relation. No invented entities or target-fitted constants are introduced; the variational angles and SPSA hyperparameters are optimized, not hand-set.

free parameters (1)
  • Ansatz circuit angles theta (7 parameters) = not reported; optimized per K
    Free variational parameters of U(theta) in Eq (9), optimized by SPSA to minimize the measured energy. They are not hand-set or fitted to the exact ground state, but the phase boundary result depends on SPSA finding good values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kogut-Susskind lattice Hamiltonian with staggered fermions and Gauss law constraint, Eqs (1)-(2)
    The target model is defined in this standard lattice formulation; no alternative derivation is given.
  • standard math The residual gauge transformation and Jordan-Wigner mapping produce the spin Hamiltonian Eq (5)
    Taken from reference [7] (overlapping authors); not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The single-layer ansatz Eq (9) conserves total charge and is expressive enough to contain the ground states of all three phases
    Supported by ideal simulations in [7] and statevector checks in this paper, but not proven.
  • domain assumption The measured energies in each phase satisfy the linear relation E_N(nu)=nu dot N + E_min_N with a constant offset per phase despite hardware noise
    Required for Eqs (7)-(8) to yield unbiased phase boundaries; only validated by final agreement with exact values.
  • domain assumption SPSA with Qiskit-calibrated hyperparameters converges for this noisy cost function
    Empirically observed in Fig 3; no convergence proof is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Quantum Simulation of the Interacting Schwinger Model on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Processor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RGAPRS7R

@misc{pith2026250420824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Quantum Simulation of the Interacting Schwinger Model on a Trapped-Ion Quantum Processor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RGAPRS7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20824}
}
read the original abstract

Simulations in high-energy physics are currently emerging as an application of noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers. In this work, we explore the multi-flavor lattice Schwinger model - a toy model inspired by quantum chromodynamics - in one spatial dimension and with nonzero chemical potential by means of variational quantum simulation on a shuttling-based trapped-ion quantum processor. This fermionic problem becomes intractable for classical numerical methods even for small system sizes due to the notorious sign problem. We employ a parametric quantum circuit executed on our quantum processor to identify ground states in different parameter regimes of the model, mapping out a quantum phase transition which is the hallmark feature of the model. The resulting states are analyzed via quantum state tomography, to reveal how characteristic properties such as correlations in the output state change across the phase transition. Moreover, we use the results to determine the phase boundaries of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Lattice encoding of the multi-flavor Schwinger model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Parameterized circuit for variational exploration of the Hamiltonian Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. VQE runs for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Reconstructed density matrices for tomography results for different values of the system parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. (2+1)D quantum electrodynamics at finite density on a quantum computer

    hep-lat 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A VQE circuit that enforces Gauss's law identifies particle-number phase transitions in two-flavor (2+1)D QED on a 2x2 lattice, with inference runs on IBM hardware.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    Schuster, S

    S. Schuster, S. K¨ uhn, L. Funcke, T. Hartung, M.-O. Pleinert, J. von Zanthier, and K. Jansen, Studying the phase diagram of the three-flavor Schwinger model in the presence of a chemical potential with measurement- and gate-based quantum computing, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114508 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dalmonte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero, C. A. Muschik, B. Reznik, E. Rico, L. Tagliacozzo, K. V. Acoleyen, F. Verstraete, U.-J. 9 Wiese, M. Wingate, J. Zakrzewski, and P. Zoller, Sim- ulating lattice gauge theories within quantum technolo- gies, Euro. Phys. J. D 74, 165 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    C. W. Bauer et al. , Quantum simulation for high- energy physics, PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023), arXiv:2204.03381 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Funcke, T

    L. Funcke, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, Re- view on quantum computing for lattice field theory, PoS (LA TTICE2022), 228 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Di Meglio et al., Quantum computing for high-energy physics: State of the art and challenges, PRX Quantum 5, 037001 (2024)

    A. Di Meglio et al., Quantum computing for high-energy physics: State of the art and challenges, PRX Quantum 5, 037001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, Tensor networks and their use for lattice gauge theories, PoS (LA TTICE 2018), 022 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls and K. Cichy, Review on novel methods for lattice gauge theories, Rep. Prog. Phys. 83, 024401 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Barends et al

    R. Barends et al. , Digital quantum simulation of fermionic models with a superconducting circuit, Nature Communications 6, 7654 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Na- ture 534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of the lattice Schwinger model, Nat. 569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Chertkov, J

    E. Chertkov, J. Bohnet, D. Francois, J. Gaebler, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, K. Lee, D. Hayes, B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, A. C. Potter, and M. Foss-Feig, Holographic dynamics simulations with a trapped-ion quantum com- puter, Nature Physics 18, 1074 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    M. Meth, V. Kuzmin, R. van Bijnen, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, M. Ringbauer, T. Monz, P. Silvi, and P. Schindler, Probing phases of quantum matter with an ion-trap tensor-network quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041035 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Carolan, A. Connelly, Z. Davoudi, E. F. Dumitrescu, and K. Yeter-Aydeniz, Quantum computa- tion of dynamical quantum phase transitions and en- tanglement tomography in a lattice gauge theory, PRX Quantum 4, 030323 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    M. Meth, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. J. Jena, A. Steiner, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, T. Monz, P. Schindler, C. Muschik, and M. Ringbauer, Simulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer, Nat. Phys. 10.1038/s41567- 0...

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of deco- herence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Practical quantum error mitigation for near-future applications, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Funcke, T

    L. Funcke, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, M. Schnei- der, P. Stornati, and X. Wang, Towards quantum simulations in particle physics and beyond on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices, Phil. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 380, 20210062 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Z. Cai, X. Xu, and S. C. Benjamin, Mitigating coher- ent noise using Pauli conjugation, npj Quant. Info. 6, 10.1038/s41534-019-0233-0 (2020)

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, Digital zero noise extrapolation for quantum error mitigation, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2020) pp. 306–316

    2020

  12. [20]

    van den Berg, Z

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse Pauli–Lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Nat. Phys. 19, 1116 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

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

    2016

  15. [23]

    Lohmayer and R

    R. Lohmayer and R. Narayanan, Phase structure of two-dimensional QED at zero temperature with flavor- dependent chemical potentials and the role of multi- dimensional theta functions, Phys. Rev. D 88, 105030 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Narayanan, Two flavor massless Schwinger model on a torus at a finite chemical potential, Phys

    R. Narayanan, Two flavor massless Schwinger model on a torus at a finite chemical potential, Phys. Rev. D 86, 125008 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, Density induced phase transitions in the Schwinger model: A study with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 071601 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    S. R. Coleman, More about the massive Schwinger model, Annals Phys. 101, 239 (1976)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Funcke, K

    L. Funcke, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, Topological vacuum structure of the Schwinger model with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054507 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Kogut and L

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

    1975

  21. [29]

    C. J. Hamer, Z. Weihong, and J. Oitmaa, Series expan- sions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamiltonian lattice theory, Phys. Rev. D 56, 55 (1997)

    1997

  22. [30]

    Kielpinski, C

    D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Architec- ture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer, Nat. 417, 709 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Kaushal, B

    V. Kaushal, B. Lekitsch, A. Stahl, J. Hilder, D. Pijn, C. Schmiegelow, A. Bermudez, M. M¨ uller, F. Schmidt- Kaler, and U. Poschinger, Shuttling-based trapped-ion quantum information processing, AVS Quant. Sci. 2, 014101 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    S. A. Moses et al. , A race-track trapped-ion quantum processor, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041052 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Ruster, C

    T. Ruster, C. T. Schmiegelow, H. Kaufmann, C. Warschburger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, A long-lived Zeeman trapped-ion qubit, Appl. Phys. B 122, 254 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Hilder, D

    J. Hilder, D. Pijn, O. Onishchenko, A. Stahl, M. Orth, B. Lekitsch, A. Rodriguez-Blanco, M. M¨ uller, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Fault-tolerant 10 parity readout on a shuttling-based trapped-ion quantum computer, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011032 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cross, A

    A. Cross, A. Javadi-Abhari, T. Alexander, N. Beaudrap, L. Bishop, S. Heidel, C. Ryan, J. Smolin, J. Gambetta, and B. Johnson, Openqasm 3: A broader and deeper quantum assembly language (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Kreppel, C

    F. Kreppel, C. Melzer, D. O. Mill´ an, J. Wagner, J. Hilder, U. Poschinger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and A. Brinkmann, Quantum circuit compiler for a shuttling-based trapped- ion quantum computer, Quantum 7, 1176 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Durandau, J

    J. Durandau, J. Wagner, F. Mailhot, C.-A. Brunet, F. Schmidt-Kaler, U. Poschinger, and Y. B´ erub´ e- Lauzi` ere, Automated Generation of Shuttling Sequences for a Linear Segmented Ion Trap Quantum Computer, Quantum 7, 1175 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    G.-L. R. Anselmetti, D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin, and R. M. Parrish, Local, expressive, quantum-number-preserving VQE ans¨ atze for fermionic systems, New J. Phys. 23, 113010 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. C. Spall, Multivariate stochastic approximation us- ing a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control37, 332 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    The resulting SPSA hyperparameter used are: i) per- turbation sequence of 0.2 (1+k)0.101 and ii) learning rate se- quence of approximately 0.03174 (1+k)0.602 for iteration index k

  33. [41]

    tomography.qst experiment.StateTomography

    qiskit experiments v0.6.1, qiskit experiments.library. tomography.qst experiment.StateTomography

  34. [42]

    tomography.fitters.linear inversion

    qiskit experiments v0.6.1, qiskit experiments.library. tomography.fitters.linear inversion

  35. [43]

    Data is available from the authors upon request

  36. [44]

    C. Peng, M. C. Diamantini, L. Funcke, S. M. A. Has- san, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, D. Luo, and P. Naredi, Hamil- tonian lattice formulation of compact Maxwell-Chern- Simons theory (2024), arXiv:2407.20225 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. Kan, L. Funcke, S. K¨ uhn, L. Dellantonio, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. A. Muschik, and K. Jansen, Investigating a (3+1)d topological θ-term in the Hamiltonian formu- lation of lattice gauge theories for quantum and classical simulations, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034504 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.