Obtaining continuum physics from dynamical simulations of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories

Christian W. Bauer; Christopher F. Kane; Siddharth Hariprakash

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Obtaining continuum physics from dynamical simulations of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories

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 Approximate time evolution errors can be ignored once they fall below statistical noise, simplifying the continuum limit.

desk verdict The SBTE protocol is a genuinely useful organizing idea, but the advertised a priori guarantee for QSP is not proven as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16559 v1 pith:TN5LGMM3 submitted 2025-06-19 hep-lat hep-phquant-ph

Christopher F. Kane , Siddharth Hariprakash , Christian W. Bauer This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-lathep-phquant-ph MSC 81P6881T25 PACS 03.67.Ac11.15.Ha

keywords latticegaugetheoryHamiltoniansimulationcontinuumlimitrenormalizationproductformulasquantumsignalprocessingstatisticaluncertaintysystematicerrorbounds

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 argues that the systematic error from approximate time evolution in Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory simulations can be made irrelevant to the continuum limit by driving it below the working statistical uncertainty. It packages this in a protocol called Statistically-Bounded Time Evolution (SBTE), under which renormalization proceeds exactly as if time evolution were exact, with no need to tune bare parameters against the Trotter step size or against an auxiliary Euclidean lattice action. The authors prove a general lemma bounding the required simulation accuracy in terms of the operator norm of the observable and the target statistical precision, and apply it to product formulas and quantum signal processing (QSP). For product formulas the extra cost is polynomial in $1/\sigma_O$, while for QSP it is only logarithmic, so the overhead of the protocol is essentially free for QSP-based simulations. If correct, the protocol gives a uniform basis for comparing the full continuum-limit cost of different simulation algorithms, including theories with fermions where the earlier Euclidean heat-kernel approach breaks down.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operator difference $\Delta_{\mathrm{sim}}$ between the ideal and implemented time evolutions, together with the triangle-inequality bound on the induced expectation-value error. Lemma 1 turns a bound on $\|\Delta_{\mathrm{sim}}\|$ into a guarantee that the systematic error stays below the statistical uncertainty $\sigma_{\hat O}$ by a factor $\beta$. For product formulas the machinery is the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion, which identifies the effective Hamiltonian of a Trotter step; for QSP it is the Jacobi-Anger expansion of $e^{-iHt}$ into Chebyshev polynomials, encoded as the top-left block of a larger unitary via quantum signal processing.

What would settle it

Implement a QSP block-encoding for a small lattice gauge theory where exact diagonalization is possible, pick a target $\sigma_{\hat O}$ and $\beta$, and check whether the observed deviation $\epsilon_\delta = |\langle\hat O\rangle_{\rm exact}-\langle\hat O\rangle_{\rm QSP}|$ respects $\epsilon_\delta \le \sigma_{\hat O}/\beta$ whenever the circuit parameters satisfy the Lemma 1 condition; a violation would show that the dropped $O(\|\Delta_{\mathrm{sim}}\|^2)$ term or the block-encoding Hilbert-space mismatch breaks the a priori guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that no new ultraviolet divergences appear in the limit of exact time evolution, so approximate time evolution can be treated as a bounded systematic uncertainty rather than as an extra direction of renormalization. Concretely, the paper defines $\Delta_{\mathrm{sim}} = e^{-iHt} - U_{\mathrm{sim}}(t)$ and proves (Lemma 1) that if $\|\Delta_{\mathrm{sim}}\| \le \sigma_{\hat O}/(2\beta\,\|\hat O(0,a)\|)$, then the error in $\langle\hat O(t)\rangle$ from using $U_{\mathrm{sim}}$ is at most $\sigma_{\hat O}/\beta$. For a second-order product formula this translates into an explicit Trotter number bound (Theorem 2), and for QSP into an explicit truncation-degree bound (Theorem 3) whose dependence on $1/\sigma_{\hat O}$ is logarithmic. The paper further shows that the product-formula Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff route to renormalization can be replaced by tuning bare parameters at vanishing Trotter step and accepting only $O(a^p)$ errors, and it highlights that the previous heat-kernel/Euclidean-action strategy fails for fermions, whereas SBTE requires no classical Euclidean action.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee assumes that the approximate evolution $U_{\mathrm{sim}}$ differs from the exact evolution by a small operator acting on the same Hilbert space and that the square of that small difference can be neglected; for QSP the implemented circuit only realizes the approximate evolution inside a block of a larger unitary, so this assumption is not literally satisfied in that construction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any simulation algorithm with a rigorous error bound, the continuum limit can be taken by following the exact-time-evolution renormalization trajectory and choosing algorithmic parameters to satisfy Lemma 1.
Product formulas need only polynomially more Trotter steps to meet the SBTE condition, so the protocol is viable but carries noticeable overhead for observables whose norms grow with volume.
QSP-based simulations satisfy the condition with an additive logarithmic cost in $1/\sigma_{\hat O}$, making the time-evolution error a negligible part of the total resource estimate.
The simplified renormalization route works for fermionic theories, circumventing the absence of a classical Euclidean action that reproduces a Trotterized fermionic Hamiltonian.
A priori, end-to-end cost comparisons of different time-evolution algorithms for continuum physics become possible before any simulation is run.

Reading between the lines

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

The same SBTE logic should transfer to other bounded-error Hamiltonian simulation methods, such as qubitization or Taylor-series approaches, giving a general template for continuum-limit resource estimation beyond the two algorithms analyzed here.
A testable extension is to choose the Trotter number or QSP truncation from the protocol's bound using measured shot noise on small hardware demonstrations, then compare the continuum extrapolation with the exactly evolved result to probe the tightness of the prefactors.
The framework implies that an 'effective Hamiltonian' interpretation of a simulation method is a convenience rather than a requirement for continuum physics, which may simplify error accounting for non-unitary or postselected implementations.
The asymptotic comparison leaves the prefactor question open: block-encoding costs for QSP can dominate at small volumes, so the logarithmic scaling alone does not determine which algorithm wins in practice.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The reader's conditional verdict is fair, and the stress-test note lands. The paper's core practical claim is correct in spirit: if you drive the approximate-evolution error below the working statistical error, you can stop worrying about its renormalization. What's new is the formal SBTE protocol, the derivation of a priori cost bounds for both Trotter and QSP, and the argument that QSP's logarithmic overhead makes this cheap. The paper also gives a good, honest review of the Euclidean renormalization route and its limitations with fermions. That's real value.

The soft spots are equally real. Lemma 1 silently drops the O(||Delta||^2) term, so the stated constant is not proven as written; a quadratic inequality repairs it but changes the formula. For QSP, the proof treats U_sim as a unitary on the system Hilbert space. It isn't. QSP encodes a polynomial approximation in the top-left block of a bigger unitary, and the measurement is a postselected ratio. The denominator correction is uncontrolled in the proof, so Theorem 3's guarantee is not established as written. That is the load-bearing flaw. The L=O(1) assumption in the PF cost analysis is a lesser issue but worth noting for lattice Hamiltonians with volume-many terms.

None of this is fatal. The protocol's concept survives, and the QSP gap is repairable with a few extra lines bounding the success probability. But as it stands, the advertised rigorous guarantee overreaches.

I'd send this to peer review. A serious referee could push the authors to fix Lemma 1 and Theorem 3, and the revised version would be a useful reference. For my own work, I'd cite it only after the QSP proof is closed. It's a good reading-group paper because it raises exactly the right questions about what 'control' means in this setting.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol, Statistically-Bounded Time Evolution (SBTE), for controlling the systematic error from approximate Hamiltonian time evolution when taking the continuum limit in Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory simulations. The central idea is that if the approximation error of the time evolution operator is driven below the working statistical uncertainty, then the approximate evolution can be treated as exact for the purposes of renormalization and continuum extrapolation, without requiring an effective-Hamiltonian renormalization of the Trotter step. The authors apply this idea to product formulas and to quantum signal processing (QSP), deriving sufficient resource bounds (Theorem 2 for product formulas, Theorem 3 for QSP) and comparing their costs. The paper also reviews and critiques existing renormalization approaches based on Euclidean transfer matrices, and includes a numerical study of the tightness of the PF and QSP error bounds.

Significance. If the claimed guarantees held, the SBTE protocol would be a useful, algorithm-agnostic criterion for controlling time-step errors in Hamiltonian LGT simulations, and it would provide a clean basis for comparing the total quantum cost of continuum-limit calculations across different time-evolution algorithms. The paper's physical argument that no new UV divergences appear in the δ→0 limit is plausible and well explained, and the critique of Ref. [136] — in particular the difficulty of generalizing the heat-kernel transfer-matrix approach to fermions — is a genuine and clearly stated contribution. The literature review is extensive, and the numerical bound-tightness comparison in Appendix B is a useful addition. However, the advertised 'rigorous a priori guarantee' is not currently established: Lemma 1's proof drops a quadratic term, and the QSP application applies a unitarity-based lemma to a non-unitary block-encoded evolution. These are load-bearing gaps for Theorems 2 and 3, though they appear repairable.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV A, Lemma 1, Eqs. (45)–(49)] The proof of Lemma 1 is not valid as written. Equation (49) gives ε_δ ≤ 2��Δ_sim��O(0,a)�� + ��Δ_sim��^2, and the text then drops the quadratic term before imposing the condition in Eq. (45). With Eq. (45) the actually proven bound is ε_δ ≤ σ_O/β + σ_O^2/(4β^2��O(0,a)��^2), not ε_δ ≤ σ_O/β. Lemma 1 as stated is therefore false, and the constants in Theorems 2 and 3 inherit the error. The gap is repairable by solving the quadratic inequality, for example by requiring ��Δ_sim�� ≤ √(��O��^2 + σ_O/β) − ��O��, but the manuscript must be revised to state and prove the corrected condition.
[Sec. IV A 2, Eq. (69) and Theorem 3] Theorem 3 applies Lemma 1 to QSP, but the QSP approximation is not a unitary operator on the system Hilbert space. Equation (69) asserts P(W_H) = exp(-iHt); in the generalized QSP construction, P(W_H) is a contraction whose top-left block approximates exp(-iHt) up to the truncation error, and the full circuit is unitary only on an extended space. The proof of Lemma 1 requires U_sim^{-1} = e^{iHt} - Δ^†, which is not available for the non-unitary block-encoded polynomial. The postselected measurement yields a ratio whose denominator ⟨ψ|p^†p|ψ⟩ deviates from 1 by a term not controlled by ��p − exp(-iHt)�� alone. Consequently, the claim that the value of N_QSP in Eq. (73) suffices is not established as stated. A separate error analysis for the postselected expectation value, including the denominator correction, is needed; this is likely feasible, but it is not present in the manuscript.
[Sec. IV A 1, Eq. (58)] The assumption L = O(1) is not valid for the lattice gauge theory Hamiltonians that are the paper's stated target. For a Kogut–Susskind Hamiltonian on a lattice with V sites, the decomposition H = Σ_ℓ H_ℓ has L = O(V) terms (electric and magnetic/plaquette terms), so the gate complexity is χ = O(N_PF L), not χ = O(N_PF). This changes the stated product-formula cost scaling and weakens the comparison with QSP in Sec. IV B. The authors should either remove or explicitly qualify this assumption, and the complexity conclusions should be restated with L-dependent factors.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV A, Eq. (49)] The notation O(��Δ_sim��)^2 is confusing; it should be ��Δ_sim��^2.
[Sec. IV A, Eq. (46)] Equation (46) uses a norm on the left-hand side although ε_δ was defined in Eq. (43) as an absolute expectation value; the proof should specify that the bound is uniform over normalized states, or the definition should be adjusted.
[Sec. IV A, Eq. (47)] The substitution in Eq. (47) appears inconsistent with the definition U_sim(t) = e^{-iHt} - Δ_sim in Eq. (44); the order of U_sim and U_sim^{-1} in the expansion should be checked.
[Sec. IV A 2, Eq. (63)] The condition P(x)^2 ≤ 1 should be written |P(x)| ≤ 1; as written it is ambiguous for complex x.
[Throughout] There are several typos: 'affect' should be 'effect' in Sec. I, 'peforming' in Sec. II, and 'Euclidan' in Sec. III C; these should be corrected in revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SBTE cost bounds are obtained by inverting external, parameter-free simulation error bounds, not by fitting or by self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: Lemma 1 turns a spectral-norm bound on the exponentiation error ||Delta_sim|| into a sufficient condition on the observable error epsilon_delta; Theorems 2 and 3 then substitute the rigorous PF bound of Ref. [159] (Eq. (62)) and the QSP/Jacobi-Anger bound of Refs. [142,152,161] (Eq. (74)) and solve for N_PF and N_QSP. These bounds are external, parameter-free estimates of ||Delta_sim|| and do not incorporate the continuum observable the paper claims to protect. The central statement that a systematic error below the statistical error can be neglected is a standard error-budgeting premise that defines the SBTE protocol; it is not a quantity fitted from simulation output, and no closely related quantity is renamed as a prediction. The authors' self-citations (e.g., Refs. [29,115,119]) appear in numerical discretization schemes or block-encoding comparisons and are not load-bearing for Lemma 1 or Theorems 2-3. The proof gap in Lemma 1, which drops the O(||Delta_sim||^2) term before imposing the bound, and the open question whether a postselected QSP circuit satisfies the unitarity premise of U_sim are correctness risks, not instances of the derivation reducing to its inputs, and are therefore not counted as circularity here.

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

The central claim rests on no fitted parameters; the only user-chosen number in the protocol is the safety factor beta. The main assumptions are standard continuum-limit and external error-bound results, plus two non-trivial modeling assumptions (L=O(1) and the unitary treatment of QSP blocks) that are stated or implicit in the proof. No new physical entities are introduced; SBTE is a protocol, not a postulated object.

free parameters (1)

beta = user-chosen, >=1 (e.g., 1 or 10)
A safety factor in the SBTE condition epsilon_delta <= sigma_O/beta; it is not fitted to data but chosen by the user to control how far below statistical uncertainty the time-evolution error must be. It appears in Lemma 1 and Theorems 2 and 3.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Exact time evolution of the lattice Hamiltonian introduces no additional UV divergences; g(a,0)=g(a), m(a,0)=m(a).
Invoked in Sec. II and Sec. IV as the basis for treating approximate time-evolution error as a bounded systematic rather than a renormalization effect; it assumes the lattice-regularized Hamiltonian already defines the continuum theory in the a to 0 limit.
standard math The Trotter error bound of Proposition 16 in Ref. [159] and the Jacobi-Anger truncation bounds of Refs. [141,142,152,161] are valid and used as stated.
Theorem 2 uses Ref. [159] Prop. 16 to bound the second-order product formula error; Theorem 3 uses standard QSP/truncation bounds on Bessel functions. These are external published results, not rederived here.
domain assumption The Hamiltonian decomposes with L=O(1) terms for the product-formula cost scaling.
Sec. IV A 1 states 'we will assume that L=O(1)' to reduce gate complexity to O(N_PF); this is not representative of lattice gauge theory Hamiltonians, where the number of terms grows with lattice volume.
domain assumption The statistical uncertainty sigma_O can be estimated independently of the time-evolution approximation and used as a fixed threshold.
SBTE sets the error threshold relative to sigma_O; in practice sigma_O is measured from shot noise, but the protocol assumes it is known or iteratively estimated before final runs.
domain assumption For QSP, the block-encoded polynomial P(W_H) acts as an approximate time-evolution operator that satisfies the operator-norm assumptions of Lemma 1.
Lemma 1 treats U_sim(t) as a unitary on the same Hilbert space as e^{-iHt}; QSP encodes the polynomial in a sub-block of a larger unitary with postselection, so this assumption is non-trivial and is not proven in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Obtaining continuum physics from dynamical simulations of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TN5LGMM3

@misc{pith2026250616559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Obtaining continuum physics from dynamical simulations of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TN5LGMM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16559}
}

read the original abstract

Taking the continuum limit is essential for extracting physical observables from quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories. Achieving the correct continuum limit requires careful control of all systematic uncertainties, including those arising from approximate implementations of the time evolution operator. In this work, we review existing approaches based on renormalization techniques, and point out their limitations. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a new general framework -- the Statistically-Bounded Time Evolution (SBTE) protocol -- for rigorously controlling the impact of approximate time evolution on the continuum limit. The central insight is that, since exact time evolution introduces no UV divergences, errors from approximate evolution can be treated as a source of systematic uncertainty that can be neglected if reduced below the working statistical uncertainty. We show that, using the SBTE protocol, which prescribes driving the approximate time evolution error below the working statistical uncertainty, leads to a simplified renormalization procedure. Furthermore, we show that, due to the existence of rigorous error bounds, one can guarantee a priori that such errors are negligible and do not affect the continuum limit. Ultimately, our protocol lays the foundation for performing systematic and fair comparisons between different simulation algorithms for lattice gauge theory simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16559 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

Quantum Error Correction Codes for Truncated SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theories
quant-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Gauss's law constraints in jmax=1/2 SU(2) lattice gauge theory are converted into stabilizer codes that correct single-qubit errors using about 9N or 12N physical qubits per N plaquettes.
The Practicality of Randomized Quantum Linear Systems Solvers
quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A randomized Fourier-series quantum linear-systems solver needs on the order of 10^15 non-Clifford gates even for a 4×4 matrix with condition number 100, making the scheme impractical despite formally bounded errors.
Efficient Qudit Circuit for Quench Dynamics of $2+1$D Quantum Link Electrodynamics
quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A matter-integrated-out reformulation of 2+1D U(1) quantum link electrodynamics is translated into explicit qudit circuits, with Trotterized simulations matching exact dynamics on small lattices.
Reducing the Gate Count with Efficient Trotter-Suzuki Schemes
hep-lat 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Recommended order-4 and order-6 Trotter-Suzuki schemes reduce the computational cost needed to reach a target accuracy on the Heisenberg XXZ model compared with standard schemes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[136]

M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, PoS LA TTICE2018, 022 (2018), arXiv:1810.12838 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2018
[1]

Determine the renormalization trajectory and therefore g(a), ˆmi(a), ˆκ(a), and c(a) (a) Calculate a set of known dimensionless observ- ables for a given parameter set pi (b) Adjust the parameters to until calculations match the known dimensionless values (c) Determine a and at for this parameter set by comparing against a dimensionful observables (recall...
[2]

Compute the desired physical observable (a) Pick a value of a by choosing a set of param- eters pi(a) and c(a) 6 Note that our arguments also apply to the scenario where one is computing more general matrix elements of an operator between two different states ψf O(t) |ψi⟩. (b) If calculating a time-dependent observable, determine the appropriate value ofˆ...
[3]

LX ℓ3=ℓ1 Hℓ3,

SBTE protocol with Product Formulas We begin this section by briefly reviewing the theory of PFs. For a more careful treatment of this theory, see for example Refs. [115, 158–160]. For any Hamiltonian H, the following decomposition into mutually non-commuting operators exists: H = LX ℓ=1 Hℓ, (50) where we assume that there exists an efficient implemen- ta...
[4]

SBTE protocol with Quantum Signal Processing As we did for product formulas, we start this section with a brief review of the theory of QSP. QSP provides an alternative algorithmic framework to performing time evolution with the benefit of providing optimal dependence on the simulation time t and expo- nentiation error∥∆sim∥. We begin this section by revi...
[5]

Construct a unitary that provides query access to the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian H
[6]

Determine the setA necessary to implement a poly- nomial transformation of these eigenvalues such that the resulting polynomial sufficiently approx- imates the true time evolution operator We accomplish the first of these tasks as follows. Given a Hamiltonian H, the block-encoding of H (denoted by UH) is a unitary that encodesH in (typically) its top left...
[7]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Science 336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2012

Show all 173 references

[8]

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

2023 arXiv
[9]

C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Nature Rev. Phys. 5, 420 (2023), arXiv:2404.06298 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[10]

Di Meglio et al

A. Di Meglio et al. , PRX Quantum 5, 037001 (2024), arXiv:2307.03236 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Banerjee, M

D. Banerjee, M. Dalmonte, M. Muller, E. Rico, P. Ste- bler, U. J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 175302 (2012), arXiv:1205.6366 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2012 arXiv
[12]

Hauke, D

P. Hauke, D. Marcos, M. Dalmonte, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. X 3, 041018 (2013), arXiv:1306.2162 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

2013 arXiv
[13]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Phys. Rev. A 88, 023617 (2013), arXiv:1303.5040 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[14]

K¨ uhn, J

S. K¨ uhn, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Ba˜ nuls, Phys. Rev. A 90, 042305 (2014), arXiv:1407.4995 [quant-ph]

2014 arXiv
[15]

Kasper, F

V. Kasper, F. Hebenstreit, M. Oberthaler, and J. Berges, Phys. Lett. B 760, 742 (2016), arXiv:1506.01238 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2016 arXiv
[16]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 014401 (2016), arXiv:1503.02312 [quant-ph]

2016 arXiv
[17]

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, Nature 534, 516 (2016), arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]

2016 arXiv
[18]

D. Yang, G. S. Giri, M. Johanning, C. Wunderlich, P. Zoller, and P. Hauke, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052321 (2016), arXiv:1604.03124 [quant-ph]

2016 arXiv
[19]

Kokail et al

C. Kokail et al. , Nature 569, 355 (2019), arXiv:1810.03421 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[20]

N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Mor- ris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018), arXiv:1803.03326 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Lu et al

H.-H. Lu et al. , Phys. Rev. A 100, 012320 (2019), arXiv:1810.03959 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[22]

D. B. Kaplan and J. R. Stryker, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094515 (2020), arXiv:1806.08797 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[23]

A. Mil, T. V. Zache, A. Hegde, A. Xia, R. P. Bhatt, M. K. Oberthaler, P. Hauke, J. Berges, and F. Jen- drzejewski, Science 367, 1128 (2020), arXiv:1909.07641 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2020 arXiv
[24]

Davoudi, M

Z. Davoudi, M. Hafezi, C. Monroe, G. Pagano, A. Seif, and A. Shaw, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023015 (2020), arXiv:1908.03210 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[25]

F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021041 (2020), arXiv:1902.09551 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2020 arXiv
[26]

J. F. Haase, L. Dellantonio, A. Celi, D. Paulson, A. Kan, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, Quantum 5, 393 (2021), arXiv:2006.14160 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[27]

D. Luo, J. Shen, M. Highman, B. K. Clark, B. DeMarco, A. X. El-Khadra, and B. Gadway, Phys. Rev. A 102, 032617 (2020), arXiv:1912.11488 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[28]

A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, Quantum 4, 306 (2020), arXiv:2002.11146 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[29]

B. Yang, H. Sun, R. Ott, H.-Y. Wang, T. V. Zache, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, P. Hauke, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 587, 392 (2020), arXiv:2003.08945 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

2020 arXiv
[30]

R. Ott, T. V. Zache, F. Jendrzejewski, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130504 (2021), arXiv:2012.10432 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. 16

2021 arXiv
[31]

Paulson et al

D. Paulson et al. , PRX Quantum 2, 030334 (2021), arXiv:2008.09252 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[32]

N. H. Nguyen, M. C. Tran, Y. Zhu, A. M. Green, C. H. Alderete, Z. Davoudi, and N. M. Linke, PRX Quantum 3, 020324 (2022), arXiv:2112.14262 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[33]

Zhou, G.-X

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, Science 377, 311 (2022), arXiv:2107.13563 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Riechert, J

H. Riechert, J. C. Halimeh, V. Kasper, L. Bretheau, E. Zohar, P. Hauke, and F. Jendrzejewski, Phys. Rev. B 105, 205141 (2022), arXiv:2108.01086 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

2022 arXiv
[35]

C. W. Bauer and D. M. Grabowska, Phys. Rev. D 107, L031503 (2023), arXiv:2111.08015 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[36]

C. Kane, D. M. Grabowska, B. Nachman, and C. W. Bauer, (2022), arXiv:2211.10497 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[37]

D. M. Grabowska, C. Kane, B. Nachman, and C. W. Bauer, (2022), arXiv:2208.03333 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Observa- tion of microscopic confinement dynamics by a tunable topological θ-angle,

W.-Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Cheng, M.-G. He, H.-Y. Wang, T.-Y. Wang, Z.-H. Zhu, G.-X. Su, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y.-G. Zheng, H. Sun, B. Yang, P. Hauke, W. Zheng, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, “Observa- tion of microscopic confinement dynamics by a tunable topological θ-angle,” (...

2023 arXiv
[39]

R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024), arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[40]

Nagano, A

L. Nagano, A. Bapat, and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034501 (2023), arXiv:2302.10933 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Gustafson et al

E. Gustafson et al. , Phys. Rev. Applied 23, 064002 (2025), arXiv:2408.12641 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[42]

Crane et al

E. Crane et al. , (2024), arXiv:2409.03747 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[43]

Zohar, J

E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 125304 (2013), arXiv:1211.2241 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[44]

Stannigel, P

K. Stannigel, P. Hauke, D. Marcos, M. Hafezi, S. Diehl, M. Dalmonte, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120406 (2014), arXiv:1308.0528 [quant-ph]

2014 arXiv
[45]

Mezzacapo, E

A. Mezzacapo, E. Rico, C. Sabin, I. L. Egusquiza, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 240502 (2015), arXiv:1505.04720 [quant-ph]

2015 arXiv
[46]

Mathur and T

M. Mathur and T. P. Sreeraj, Phys. Rev. D 92, 125018 (2015), arXiv:1509.04033 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[47]

Raychowdhury and J

I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033039 (2020), arXiv:1812.07554 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[48]

Raychowdhury and J

I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114502 (2020), arXiv:1912.06133 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[49]

N. Klco, J. R. Stryker, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[50]

Dasgupta and I

R. Dasgupta and I. Raychowdhury, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023322 (2022), arXiv:2009.13969 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[51]

Davoudi, I

Z. Davoudi, I. Raychowdhury, and A. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074505 (2021), arXiv:2009.11802 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[52]

Y. Y. Atas, J. Zhang, R. Lewis, A. Jahanpour, J. F. Haase, and C. A. Muschik, Nature Commun. 12, 6499 (2021), arXiv:2102.08920 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[53]

A Rahman, R

S. A Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Pow- ell, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034501 (2021), arXiv:2103.08661 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[54]

Osborne, I

J. Osborne, I. P. McCulloch, B. Yang, P. Hauke, and J. C. Halimeh, (2022), arXiv:2211.01380 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

2022 arXiv
[55]

J. C. Halimeh, H. Lang, and P. Hauke, New Journal of Physics 24, 033015 (2022)

2022
[56]

A Rahman, R

S. A Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Pow- ell, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074502 (2022), arXiv:2205.09247 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[57]

T. V. Zache, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 171902 (2023)

2023
[58]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, A. Carosso, M. J. Cervia, E. M. Murairi, and A. Sheng, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094502 (2024), arXiv:2308.05253 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[59]

D’Andrea, C

I. D’Andrea, C. W. Bauer, D. M. Grabowska, and M. Freytsis, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074501 (2024), arXiv:2307.11829 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[60]

Turro, A

F. Turro, A. Ciavarella, and X. Yao, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114511 (2024), arXiv:2402.04221 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[61]

D. M. Grabowska, C. F. Kane, and C. W. Bauer, (2024), arXiv:2409.10610 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[62]

I. M. Burbano and C. W. Bauer, (2024), arXiv:2409.13812 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[63]

Anishetty, M

R. Anishetty, M. Mathur, and I. Raychowdhury, J. Phys. A 43, 035403 (2010), arXiv:0909.2394 [hep-lat]

2010 arXiv
[64]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, S. Harmalkar, H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and N. C. Warrington (NuQS), Phys. Rev. D 100, 114501 (2019), arXiv:1906.11213 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[65]

Ciavarella, N

A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094501 (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[66]

R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054512 (2023), arXiv:2207.01731 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[67]

R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054513 (2023), arXiv:2209.10781 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[68]

Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M. L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033184 (2023), arXiv:2207.03473 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[69]

A. N. Ciavarella and I. A. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074504 (2022), arXiv:2112.09083 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[70]

q deformed formula- tion of hamiltonian su(3) yang-mills theory,

T. Hayata and Y. Hidaka, “ q deformed formula- tion of hamiltonian su(3) yang-mills theory,” (2023), arXiv:2306.12324 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[71]

R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Phys. Rev. D109, 114510 (2024), arXiv:2401.08044 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[72]

A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 111901 (2024), arXiv:2402.10265 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[73]

E. J. Gustafson, Y. Ji, H. Lamm, E. M. Murairi, S. O. Perez, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034515 (2024), arXiv:2405.05973 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[74]

Balaji, C

P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. El- haderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, A. Lytle, and E. Rinaldi, (2025), arXiv:2503.08866 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[75]

A. N. Ciavarella, I. M. Burbano, and C. W. Bauer, (2025), arXiv:2503.11888 [hep-lat]

2025
[76]

Kreshchuk, S

M. Kreshchuk, S. Jia, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, J. P. Vary, and P. J. Love, Entropy 23, 597 (2021), arXiv:2009.07885 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[77]

Kreshchuk, W

M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beau- chemin, and P. J. Love, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032418 (2022)

2022
[78]

Sim- ulating scattering of composite particles,

M. Kreshchuk, J. P. Vary, and P. J. Love, “Sim- ulating scattering of composite particles,” (2023), arXiv:2310.13742 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[79]

C. W. Bauer, W. A. de Jong, B. Nachman, and D. Provasoli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 062001 (2021), 17 arXiv:1904.03196 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[80]

C. W. Bauer, S. Chigusa, and M. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032432 (2024), arXiv:2310.19881 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[81]

Chigusa and M

S. Chigusa and M. Yamazaki, Phys. Lett. B834, 137466 (2022), arXiv:2204.12500 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[82]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 051601 (2022), arXiv:2203.02823 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[83]

Gustafson and R

E. Gustafson and R. Van de Water, PoS LA T- TICE2023, 215 (2024), arXiv:2402.04317 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[84]

A. N. Ciavarella, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094513 (2023), arXiv:2307.05593 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[85]

M. Illa, M. J. Savage, and X. Yao, (2025), arXiv:2503.09688 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[86]

M. Illa, M. J. Savage, and X. Yao, (2025), arXiv:2504.21575 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[87]

Roggero, A

A. Roggero, A. C. Y. Li, J. Carlson, R. Gupta, and G. N. Perdue, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074038 (2020), arXiv:1911.06368 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[88]

J. D. Watson, J. Bringewatt, A. F. Shaw, A. M. Childs, A. V. Gorshkov, and Z. Davoudi, (2023), arXiv:2312.05344 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[89]

I. M. Burbano, M. A. Carrillo, R. Urek, A. N. Ciavarella, and R. A. Brice˜ no, (2025), arXiv:2506.06511 [hep-lat]

2025
[90]

Tagliacozzo, A

L. Tagliacozzo, A. Celi, P. Orland, and M. Lewen- stein, Nature Commun. 4, 2615 (2013), arXiv:1211.2704 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2013 arXiv
[91]

Bazavov, Y

A. Bazavov, Y. Meurice, S.-W. Tsai, J. Unmuth- Yockey, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 076003 (2015), arXiv:1503.08354 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[92]

S. P. Jordan, H. Krovi, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 44 (2018), arXiv:1703.00454 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[93]

Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, E

D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, E. Zohar, and J. I. Cirac, New J. Phys. 19, 063038 (2017), arXiv:1702.05492 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[94]

G¨ org, K

F. G¨ org, K. Sandholzer, J. Minguzzi, R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, and T. Esslinger, Nature Phys. 15, 1161 (2019), arXiv:1812.05895 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2019 arXiv
[95]

H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS), Phys. Rev. D 100, 034518 (2019), arXiv:1903.08807 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[96]

Zohar and J

E. Zohar and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114511 (2019), arXiv:1905.00652 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[97]

A. J. Buser, H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda, and J. Liu, JHEP 09, 034 (2021), arXiv:2011.06576 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[98]

J. a. Barata, N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042410 (2021), arXiv:2012.00020 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[99]

J. R. Stryker, (2021), arXiv:2105.11548 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[100]

Davoudi, C

Z. Davoudi, C. Jarzynski, N. Mueller, G. Oruganti, C. Powers, and N. Y. Halpern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 250402 (2024), arXiv:2404.02965 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[101]

Mueller, T

N. Mueller, T. Wang, O. Katz, Z. Davoudi, and M. Cetina, (2024), arXiv:2408.00069 [quant-ph]

2024
[102]

Davoudi, C

Z. Davoudi, C. Jarzynski, N. Mueller, G. Oru- ganti, C. Powers, and N. Y. Halpern, (2025), arXiv:2502.19418 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[103]

F. M. Surace et al. , (2024), arXiv:2411.10652 [quant- ph]

2024 arXiv
[104]

De et al

A. De et al. , (2024), arXiv:2410.13815 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[105]

Davoudi, C.-C

Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Quantum 8, 1520 (2024), arXiv:2402.00840 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[106]

E. R. Bennewitz et al. , (2024), arXiv:2403.07061 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[107]

Mueller, J

N. Mueller, J. A. Carolan, A. Connelly, Z. Davoudi, E. F. Dumitrescu, and K. Yeter-Aydeniz, PRX Quan- tum 4, 030323 (2023), arXiv:2210.03089 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[108]

D. M. K¨ urk¸ c¨ uoglu, H. Lamm, and A. Maestri, (2024), arXiv:2410.16414 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[109]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054516 (2024), arXiv:2402.16780 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[110]

A. N. Ciavarella, Phys. Rev. D 111, 054501 (2025), arXiv:2411.05915 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[111]

A. N. Ciavarella, C. W. Bauer, and J. C. Halimeh, (2025), arXiv:2502.03533 [quant-ph]

2025
[112]

Ingoldby, M

J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, S. Williams, and M. Wingate, (2025), arXiv:2505.03878 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[113]

Gupta, C

N. Gupta, C. D. White, and Z. Davoudi, (2025), arXiv:2506.02313 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[114]

C. W. Bauer, (2025), arXiv:2503.16602 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[115]

S. Alvi, C. W. Bauer, and B. Nachman, JHEP 02, 220 (2023), arXiv:2206.08391 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[116]

Kan and Y

A. Kan and Y. Nam, (2021), arXiv:2107.12769 [quant- ph]

2021 arXiv
[117]

Alexandru, P

A. Alexandru, P. F. Bedaque, A. Carosso, M. J. Cervia, and A. Sheng, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034503 (2023), arXiv:2209.00098 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[118]

Y. Tong, V. V. Albert, J. R. McClean, J. Preskill, and Y. Su, Quantum 6, 816 (2022)

2022
[119]

Davoudi, A

Z. Davoudi, A. F. Shaw, and J. R. Stryker, Quantum 7, 1213 (2023), arXiv:2212.14030 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[120]

C. F. Kane, N. Gomes, and M. Kreshchuk, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012455 (2024), arXiv:2310.13757 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[121]

Hariprakash, N

S. Hariprakash, N. S. Modi, M. Kreshchuk, C. F. Kane, and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. A 111, 022419 (2025), arXiv:2312.11637 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[122]

M. L. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, PRX Quantum 5, 040347 (2024), arXiv:2405.10416 [quant- ph]

2024 arXiv
[123]

Du and J

W. Du and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D111, 016013 (2025), arXiv:2407.13672 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[124]

Z. Li, D. M. Grabowska, and M. J. Savage, (2024), arXiv:2407.13835 [quant-ph]

2024
[125]

C. F. Kane, S. Hariprakash, N. S. Modi, M. Kreshchuk, and C. W. Bauer, Quantum 9, 1747 (2025), arXiv:2408.16824 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[126]

E. M. Murairi, M. Sohaib Alam, H. Lamm, S. Hadfield, and E. Gustafson, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074501 (2024), arXiv:2408.00075 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[127]

Assi and H

B. Assi and H. Lamm, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074511 (2024), arXiv:2405.12204 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[128]

Lamm, Y.-Y

H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054505 (2024), arXiv:2405.12890 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[129]

Gomes, H

N. Gomes, H. Lim, and N. Wiebe, (2024), arXiv:2408.03254 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[130]

Hardy et al

A. Hardy et al. , (2024), arXiv:2407.13819 [quant-ph]

2024
[131]

W. A. Simon, C. M. Gustin, K. Serafin, A. Ralli, G. R. Goldstein, and P. J. Love, (2025), arXiv:2503.11641 [quant-ph]

2025
[132]

Decker et al

E. Decker et al. , (2025), arXiv:2504.07214 [quant-ph]

2025
[133]

Davoudi, C.-C

Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, (2025), arXiv:2505.20408 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[134]

Pichler, M

T. Pichler, M. Dalmonte, E. Rico, P. Zoller, and S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. X 6, 011023 (2016), arXiv:1505.04440 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2016 arXiv
[135]

M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041046 (2017), arXiv:1707.06434 [hep-lat]. 18

2017 arXiv
[137]

M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys. 14, 173 (2023), arXiv:2205.10345 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[138]

Mathew, N

E. Mathew, N. Gupta, S. V. Kadam, A. Bapat, J. Stryker, Z. Davoudi, and I. Raychowdhury, PoS LA TTICE2024, 472 (2025), arXiv:2501.18301 [hep- lat]

2025 arXiv
[139]

Belyansky, S

R. Belyansky, S. Whitsitt, N. Mueller, A. Fahimniya, E. R. Bennewitz, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 091903 (2024), arXiv:2307.02522 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[140]

Clemente, A

G. Clemente, A. Crippa, and K. Jansen, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114511 (2022), arXiv:2206.12454 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[141]

Crippa, S

A. Crippa, S. Romiti, L. Funcke, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, P. Stornati, and C. Urbach, (2024), arXiv:2404.17545 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[142]

Carena, H

M. Carena, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094519 (2021), arXiv:2107.01166 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[143]

Funcke, C

L. Funcke, C. F. Groß, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, S. Romiti, and C. Urbach, PoS LA TTICE2022, 292 (2023), arXiv:2212.09627 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[144]

C. F. Groß, S. Romiti, L. Funcke, K. Jansen, A. Kan, S. K¨ uhn, and C. Urbach, (2025), arXiv:2503.11480 [hep-lat]

2025
[145]

Carena, E

M. Carena, E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, and W. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114504 (2022), arXiv:2208.10417 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[146]

A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Quant. Inf. Comput. 12, 0901 (2012), arXiv:1202.5822 [quant-ph]

2012 arXiv
[147]

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017), arXiv:1606.02685 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[148]

G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Quantum 3, 163 (2019), arXiv:1610.06546 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[149]

Campbell, Phys

E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070503 (2019)

2019
[150]

Li and S

Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017), arXiv:1611.09301 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[151]

J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, R. Kothari, and G. H. Low, SIAM J. Comput. 52, FOCS18 (2021), arXiv:1801.03922 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[152]

X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. Benjamin, Quantum 3, 191 (2019), arXiv:1812.08767 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[153]

Motlagh and N

D. Motlagh and N. Wiebe, PRX Quantum 5, 020368 (2024), arXiv:2308.01501 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[154]

P. Zeng, J. Sun, L. Jiang, and Q. Zhao, PRX Quantum 6, 010359 (2025), arXiv:2212.04566 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[155]

J. D. Watson and J. Watkins, (2024), arXiv:2408.14385 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[156]

J. D. Watson, (2024), arXiv:2411.04240 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[157]

Chakraborty, S

S. Chakraborty, S. Hazra, T. Li, C. Shao, X. Wang, and Y. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2504.02385 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[158]

Gily´ en, Y

A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, in 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Com- puting (2018) arXiv:1806.01838 [quant-ph]

2018 arXiv
[159]

Creutz, Quarks, Gluons and Lattices (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1983)

M. Creutz, Quarks, Gluons and Lattices (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1983)

1983
[160]

Hoshina, H

H. Hoshina, H. Fujii, and Y. Kikukawa, PoS LA T- TICE2019, 190 (2020)

2020
[161]

Kanwar and M

G. Kanwar and M. L. Wagman, Phys. Rev. D 104, 014513 (2021), arXiv:2103.02602 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[162]

Menotti and E

P. Menotti and E. Onofri, Nucl. Phys. B 190, 288 (1981)

1981
[163]

A. M. Childs and Y. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 050503 (2019)

2019
[164]

M. Heyl, P. Hauke, and P. Zoller, Science Advances 5, eaau8342 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aau8342

2019 doi
[165]

A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021), arXiv:1912.08854 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[166]

Suchsland, R

P. Suchsland, R. Moessner, and P. W. Claeys, Phys. Rev. B 111, 014309 (2025), arXiv:2308.03851 [quant- ph]

2025 arXiv
[167]

D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari (2015) arXiv:1501.01715 [quant-ph]

2015 arXiv
[168]

Umeda, K

T. Umeda, K. Nomura, and H. Matsufuru, Eur. Phys. J. C 39S1, 9 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0211003

2005 arXiv
[169]

Nomura, T

K. Nomura, T. Umeda, and H. Matsufuru, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 129, 390 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0312010

2004 arXiv
[170]

Aarts, C

G. Aarts, C. Allton, A. Amato, P. Giudice, S. Hands, and J.-I. Skullerud, JHEP 02, 186 (2015), arXiv:1412.6411 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[171]

Klco and M

N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052335 (2019), arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]. 19 Appendix A: Scale setting and the Kogut-Susskind Hamiltonian In this Appendix, we provide a pedagogical discussion regarding the need for scale setting in lattice gauge theory simulations...

2019 arXiv
[172]

all inputs into any numerical simulation are dimensionless

Computers (classical and quantum) can only work with dimensionless variables,i.e. all inputs into any numerical simulation are dimensionless
[173]

To isolate the logic of these two steps, we first consider the simple case of the harmonic oscillator and show that no such scale setting procedure is necessary

The value of the lattice spacing a is not independent of the bare parameters in the Hamiltonian, but is related through renormalization group equations. To isolate the logic of these two steps, we first consider the simple case of the harmonic oscillator and show that no such ...

Pith tools

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

[1] [136]

M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and S. K¨ uhn, PoS LA TTICE2018, 022 (2018), arXiv:1810.12838 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2018

[2] [1]

Determine the renormalization trajectory and therefore g(a), ˆmi(a), ˆκ(a), and c(a) (a) Calculate a set of known dimensionless observ- ables for a given parameter set pi (b) Adjust the parameters to until calculations match the known dimensionless values (c) Determine a and at for this parameter set by comparing against a dimensionful observables (recall...

[3] [2]

Compute the desired physical observable (a) Pick a value of a by choosing a set of param- eters pi(a) and c(a) 6 Note that our arguments also apply to the scenario where one is computing more general matrix elements of an operator between two different states ψf O(t) |ψi⟩. (b) If calculating a time-dependent observable, determine the appropriate value ofˆ...

[4] [3]

LX ℓ3=ℓ1 Hℓ3,

SBTE protocol with Product Formulas We begin this section by briefly reviewing the theory of PFs. For a more careful treatment of this theory, see for example Refs. [115, 158–160]. For any Hamiltonian H, the following decomposition into mutually non-commuting operators exists: H = LX ℓ=1 Hℓ, (50) where we assume that there exists an efficient implemen- ta...

[5] [4]

SBTE protocol with Quantum Signal Processing As we did for product formulas, we start this section with a brief review of the theory of QSP. QSP provides an alternative algorithmic framework to performing time evolution with the benefit of providing optimal dependence on the simulation time t and expo- nentiation error∥∆sim∥. We begin this section by revi...

[6] [5]

Construct a unitary that provides query access to the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian H

[7] [6]

Determine the setA necessary to implement a poly- nomial transformation of these eigenvalues such that the resulting polynomial sufficiently approx- imates the true time evolution operator We accomplish the first of these tasks as follows. Given a Hamiltonian H, the block-encoding of H (denoted by UH) is a unitary that encodesH in (typically) its top left...

[8] [7]

S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Science 336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2012