Hybrid Classical-Quantum Sampling for Lattice Scalar Field Theory

Hee-Cheol Kim; Jangho Kim

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Hybrid Classical-Quantum Sampling for Lattice Scalar Field Theory

T0 review · 4 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 argues that quantum annealers can efficiently sample continuous scalar field configurations by rewriting the quartic potential as a quadratic QUBO Hamiltonian and feeding the annealer's output histograms into Metropolis-Hastings.

desk verdict A careful demonstration of annealer-based MH sampling for digitized scalar fields, but the efficiency claim rests on a strawman baseline and the real novelty is in the QUBO reductions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09514 v1 pith:WBC3DVZX submitted 2025-06-11 hep-lat quant-ph

Hee-Cheol Kim , Jangho Kim This is my paper

classification hep-latquant-ph MSC 81T2581T8082B80 PACS 11.15.Ha05.10.Ln03.67.Ac

keywords latticescalarfieldtheoryphi^4quantumannealingQUBOpolynomialreductionMetropolis-Hastingsautocorrelationtimehybridquantum-classicalsampling

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 tries to establish that a quantum annealer can be used for importance sampling in a continuous scalar field theory, not just the discrete gauge theories tried before. The obstacle is that the $\phi^4$ potential is quartic, while annealers accept only quadratic binary Hamiltonians (quadratic unconstrained binary optimization, QUBO form), so the authors introduce three polynomial-reduction schemes that add auxiliary qubits to rewrite the quartic terms as quadratic penalties. Using single-site field histograms generated on a D-Wave annealer as proposals in Metropolis-Hastings, they report reproducing classical observables on lattices up to $64\times64$, with acceptance rates around 80% and autocorrelation times about five times shorter than a classical local Metropolis update. If the claim holds, quantum annealing becomes a practical sampling engine for a wider class of lattice field theories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QUBO encoding of a single-site field potential. The field is digitized with $n_q$ precision bits plus an optional sign qubit, and the quartic term is expanded into products of binary variables; each product $q_m q_n$ is replaced by an auxiliary variable constrained by a penalty function. Method I uses $P(q_1,q_2;z)=q_1q_2-2(q_1+q_2)z+3z$, whose minimum enforces $z=q_1q_2$; Method II uses a two-auxiliary-variable $\tilde P$ invariant under flipping $q_1,q_2$ together, enforcing $q_1+q_2+z\equiv 1 \pmod 2$; Method III uses Method I's penalty on a digitization with an explicit sign bit. The annealer's output histogram $h(\phi)$ serves as the proposal density in a Metropolis-Hastings update whose acceptance probability is $e^{-\Delta S} h_{\rm old}/h_{\rm new}$; when $h$ matches the Boltzmann weight, acceptance is unity, so the measured acceptance rate directly quantifies the fidelity of the annealer-generated distribution.

What would settle it

Run a heatbath Monte Carlo on the same 5-bit digitization used in Method III — drawing each site of a $64\times64$ lattice from $\exp[-S_{\rm local}]$ at $\lambda=10$, $\kappa=0.5$ — and measure the integrated autocorrelation time $\tau_{\rm int}$ of $\langle|\phi|\rangle$ with the same binning as Table III; if $\tau_{\rm int}$ comes out at or below the reported 184.7, the claimed efficiency advantage of the annealer-based sampler over classical simulation does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a digitized scalar field can be encoded as a QUBO problem, sampled on an annealer, and then used as a Metropolis-Hastings proposal distribution that outperforms the classical local Metropolis update. The authors find that the standard penalty-based reduction, which replaces products of binary variables by auxiliary variables, explicitly breaks the $Z_2$ symmetry of the action and yields too few valid samples; a two-auxiliary-qubit variant $\tilde P(q_1,q_2;z,s)$ restores the symmetry at the price of $n_q^2$ logical qubits per site; and a third scheme that adds a single sign qubit, $\phi(x) = (1-2s)(\phi_{\min} + \delta\sum_n 2^n q_n(x))$, gives the best fidelity, with Kullback-Leibler divergence below 0.07 against exact enumeration. On this basis the paper reports acceptance rates near 80% where local Metropolis falls to roughly 20%, agreement of $\langle|\phi|\rangle$, susceptibility, and skewness $B_3$ with classical runs, a critical line $\kappa_c(\lambda)$ that interpolates between the Gaussian and Ising regimes, and an integrated autocorrelation time of 184.7 versus 873.6 for classical Metropolis at $\lambda=10$, $\kappa=0.5$ on a $64\times64$ lattice. The authors conclude that, despite current hardware constraints, annealers can generate physically relevant scalar-field configurations efficiently.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the right classical baseline is a local Metropolis update on continuous variables; the paper never compares against a classical heatbath that draws each site from the exact digitized Boltzmann distribution, which at 5 or 6 bits per site would accept every proposal and have near-zero autocorrelation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Continuous scalar field theories become accessible to annealer-based importance sampling, extending earlier annealing work that was restricted to integer-valued degrees of freedom.
The hybrid scheme reaches the same statistical precision with roughly one-third the number of samples at $\lambda=10$, $\kappa=0.5$ on a $64\times64$ lattice, because the annealer-generated proposal decorrelates about five times faster than a local Metropolis update.
The acceptance rate functions as a built-in fidelity check, since a proposal perfectly matching the target distribution would be accepted with probability one; the high acceptance observed across lattice sizes indicates the annealer histograms remain close to the digitized Boltzmann distribution.
Extending the method to $\kappa\neq0$ by conditioning the annealer on boundary conditions (Table IV) would let quantum sampling operate natively in the interacting regime, rather than reusing $\kappa=0$ histograms as the paper currently does.

Reading between the lines

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

The physical-qubit cost of embedding grows near-exponentially with the number of precision bits (Fig. 11), so on current hardware the practical advantage is confined to coarse digitizations; the paper's 50-qubit-per-site scenario is a scaling argument rather than a near-term experiment.
Method II's $Z_2$-symmetric penalty is the natural building block for studies in which the symmetry is itself an observable, such as magnetization or Binder cumulants (standard symmetry-sensitive cumulants); the paper reserves Method III for the phase-boundary study and does not compare the two on symmetric-phase observables.
A testable next step the paper itself outlines is to generate the boundary-condition-conditioned histograms of Table IV for $n_q=5,6$ and check whether acceptance stays near 80% for $\kappa\neq0$; only then would the reported $\kappa\neq0$ efficiency gain be genuinely quantum-native rather than inherited from classical Metropolis post-processing.
The paper's infeasibility argument against classical histogram sampling counts enumerated configurations ($2^{50}$ per site at 50 qubits); classical heatbath or rejection sampling from a stored histogram avoids enumeration entirely, so that argument would need a wall-clock comparison against such samplers to stand.

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

First, what's actually here: three QUBO reduction schemes for the quartic potential of lattice phi^4, of which Method II (Z2-symmetric, two auxiliary qubits) and Method III (sign qubit) are new. The authors use them to generate single-site histograms on a D-Wave device, then feed those histograms into Metropolis-Hastings to simulate the full lattice. The MH step is correct, the KL divergences against exact enumeration are small (0.06), and the observables match classical results. That part is solid and self-consistent.

The soft spot is the efficiency claim. Section III and Table III compare against classical Metropolis with a continuous uniform proposal, which is a deliberately weak baseline. At the demonstrated 5-6 bit digitization, the single-site Boltzmann histogram is exactly computable by enumerating 64 or 128 states; using that exact histogram as a proposal is a heatbath update with acceptance 1 and essentially zero autocorrelation. The paper itself states in Eq. (13) that a perfect histogram is equivalent to a heatbath. So the D-Wave histogram is an approximate, slower version of a classically trivial proposal. The tau_int comparison (184.7 vs 873.6) therefore doesn't establish efficiency; it only shows that a better proposal beats a worse one. The infeasibility argument in the conclusion, based on enumerating 2^50 states per site, is a strawman—nobody would compute a 50-bit single-site histogram by enumeration, and the paper's own Fig. 11 shows physical qubit count exploding with n_q, so 50 qubits per site is out of reach for present hardware.

Two more things. The nonzero-kappa simulations use the kappa=0 histogram as a fixed proposal, so the quantum device never samples the interacting distribution; it only precomputes a single-site target. That limits the claim to 'annealer-assisted local potential sampling,' not full field theory sampling. And the phase boundary in Fig. 10 has no error bars and depends on an unexplained phi_max switch at lambda=2.

None of this makes the QUBO work wrong. The reductions are novel and the hybrid MH framework is worth having. But the paper overstates what the hardware contributes. A serious referee should engage; the authors need to re-benchmark against a digitized heatbath and either drop or heavily qualify the efficiency claim.

This is for lattice practitioners and annealing algorithm developers. I'd send it to review, with major revision expected.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a hybrid classical-quantum sampling framework for 2D Euclidean lattice phi^4 scalar field theory on a D-Wave quantum annealer. Three QUBO reformulations are introduced to reduce quartic interactions to quadratic form via auxiliary qubits; Method III, which adds a sign qubit, achieves the best fidelity. The annealer-generated single-site histograms are used as Metropolis-Hastings proposals, and the resulting observables and phase boundary are compared with classical Metropolis simulations. The central claim is that quantum annealers can efficiently sample scalar field configurations and offer a scalable framework for QFT simulations, supported by acceptance rates above 70%, small KL divergences, and a lower integrated autocorrelation time than local Metropolis.

Significance. If the efficiency claim held, the work would be a useful demonstration of using quantum annealers to generate local Boltzmann weights for continuous-field theories, with the strength of being benchmarked against exact enumeration (Figs. 1, 2, 5) and of using a correct Metropolis-Hastings acceptance correction (Eq. (13)). The explicit KL divergences, autocorrelation analysis, and the proposed extension to nonzero kappa via boundary-condition-dependent histograms are commendable. However, the practical significance is currently not established: at the demonstrated digitization the single-site distribution is classically trivial, and the efficiency comparison omits the exact classical heatbath baseline. The claimed quantum advantage therefore rests on a comparison against a deliberately weak classical algorithm.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (13), Table III] The efficiency comparison is against local Metropolis on continuous fields, not against the exact single-site heatbath that is classically trivial at the demonstrated resolution. Equation (13) states that a perfect histogram is equivalent to a heatbath with acceptance 1. For Method III with n_q=5 plus a sign qubit, the single-site distribution has only 64 states and is exactly enumerable, as the paper's own red 'enumeration' lines in Figs. 1, 2, and 5 show. A classical heatbath using those exact weights has acceptance 1 and essentially zero autocorrelation. The reported tau_int=184.7 for the D-Wave proposal versus 873.6 for local Metropolis therefore does not establish an efficiency advantage; the D-Wave-generated histogram (KL~0.068, acceptance~0.8) is strictly less efficient than this exact classical baseline. The claim of 'approximately one-third the number of samples' must be rebenchmarked against the heatbath.
[Section IV, '50 qubits' paragraph] The infeasibility argument for classical histogram sampling is a strawman. At the demonstrated resolution, the single-site distribution is 64-128 states and is exactly enumerable in microseconds; the paper itself performs such enumeration for the comparison curves. For larger n_q, classical algorithms can sample from the single-site Boltzmann distribution without enumerating all 2^50 states, for example by inverse-CDF or rejection sampling on the continuous field. Moreover, Table V and Fig. 11 show that n_q=50 would require 1+50*51/2=1276 logical qubits per site for Method III and a number of physical qubits orders of magnitude beyond the ~5000 currently available, so the 50-qubit scenario is not a realistic extrapolation of the hardware tested. The exponential-enumeration argument is therefore not relevant to the demonstrated method.
[Fig. 10] The phase boundary kappa_c(lambda) is presented with no error bars, bootstrap intervals, or other uncertainty quantification, even though it is extracted from a kappa scan with 0.01 resolution using autocorrelated Monte Carlo data. Section III reports that the proposal histograms are generated at kappa=0 and that per-boundary-condition distributions for nonzero kappa were not produced, so the simulations at nonzero kappa use a systematically biased proposal. As a consequence, the claimed nonmonotonic shape of kappa_c(lambda) (rise, plateau, fall) is not statistically supported as presented. Please provide uncertainties and state whether the kappa_c values include any correction for the proposal bias.
[Appendix A, Table III] The autocorrelation comparison at kappa=0.5 is made using histograms generated at kappa=0, as Section III states that distributions for different boundary conditions at nonzero kappa were not generated. The D-Wave proposal at kappa=0.5 is therefore systematically mismatched to the target distribution, and the reported tau_int improvement may reflect the particular choice of proposal rather than any intrinsic advantage of the quantum-generated distribution. To make the efficiency claim meaningful, report the acceptance rate and integrated autocorrelation time for the actual kappa=0.5 runs, and compare against a classical heatbath that uses the exact kappa=0.5 single-site distributions, which are classically computable for 64-128 states.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (12)] The notation in Eq. (12) contains a typo: '2^n q q(x)' should presumably be '2^n q_n(x)'.
[Figs. 3(b), 7(b)] The y-axis labels in these figures appear as '| |' with the phi symbol missing; they should read '<|phi|>'.
[Reference [1]] The text identifies the D-Wave Advantage2 prototype as being 'built on the Pegasus topology'; if this prototype uses a different topology, the statement should be corrected or clarified.
[Table IV and surrounding text] The term 'boundary condition' is used before it is defined; the definition of the nearest-neighbor sum in Eq. (15) should be introduced before Table IV.
[Conclusion] The statement that 'the scalar field was digitized using only six qubits per site' is ambiguous; clarify whether this refers to total qubits per site (1 sign + 5 precision) or precision qubits only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QUBO encodings are exact algebraic constructions, the Metropolis-Hastings correction is derived from detailed balance, and the physical benchmarks are external to the fitted hyperparameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The polynomial reductions in Eq. (6) and Eq. (8) are exact penalty constructions whose zero-minimum conditions enforce the auxiliary-variable constraints; Eq. (10) is an algebraic consequence of Eq. (9), and the paper verifies the truth tables in Tables I and II rather than assuming the target distribution. The digitization in Eqs. (5) and (12) is a standard binary encoding, and no observable is defined in terms of the annealer output. The Metropolis-Hastings acceptance formula in Eq. (13) is the textbook detailed-balance correction, so the use of acceptance rate and KL divergence as fidelity diagnostics is logically derived rather than circular. The hyperparameters w and chain strength are tuned on the device, but the paper does not rename fitted values as predictions; the reported tau_int, observables, and phase-boundary curves are measured outputs benchmarked against classical Metropolis and exact enumeration. The self-citations in Refs. [2-4] are background references for annealer-based importance sampling and are not load-bearing for the current construction. The most serious caveat, that the efficiency comparison omits a classical digitized heatbath baseline (a baseline the paper itself notes in Eq. (13) would achieve acceptance 1), is a fairness/correctness concern rather than a circularity of the derivation.

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

The central claim rests on tuning two hardware/algorithm parameters (w and chain strength) and on the assumption that the annealer produces useful distributions. No new physical entities are introduced; the auxiliary qubits are computational ancillas.

free parameters (4)

Penalty factor w = w=50 (Method I), w=10 (Method II), w=3 (Method III)
Controls the strength of the constraint that ties auxiliary qubits to products; tuned to maximize validity and acceptance rates.
Chain strength = 0.4 (Methods I/II); optimized around 0.3-0.5 (Method III)
Hardware parameter for embedding logical qubits into chains of physical qubits; tuned against validity and acceptance rates.
Digitization bounds phi_min, phi_max = [-2,2] for Methods I/II; [0,2] for Method III; phi_max=10 for lambda<2 and 2 otherwise in phase diagram
Chosen by hand to cover the relevant field range; affects resolution and the extracted phase boundary.
Precision qubits n_q = 5-6 for main results; up to 9 for scaling
Determines the number of digitized field values; larger n_q increases QUBO size and physical qubit count.

assumptions (4)

standard math The penalty function P(q1,q2;z) in Eq.(6) has minimum 0 exactly when z=q1*q2.
Used in Methods I and III to reduce quartic terms; verified by Table I.
standard math The enhanced penalty function P~ in Eq.(8) has minimum 0 when q1+q2+z is odd, justifying replacement (10).
Method II relies on this identity; Table II lists values.
domain assumption D-Wave annealer samples approximate the low-energy Boltzmann distribution of the embedded QUBO after validity filtering.
The entire method depends on the annealer generating useful histograms; the paper tunes w and chain strength to make this approximately true.
domain assumption A digitized scalar field with n_q bits per site is a sufficient approximation to the continuous theory for the observables studied.
The paper verifies consistency with continuous classical Metropolis for |phi|, but does not demonstrate continuum limit or resolution independence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Classical-Quantum Sampling for Lattice Scalar Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WBC3DVZX

@misc{pith2026250609514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Classical-Quantum Sampling for Lattice Scalar Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WBC3DVZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09514}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate lattice scalar field theory in two-dimensional Euclidean space via a quantum annealer. To accommodate the quartic interaction terms, we introduce three schemes for rewriting them as quadratic polynomials through the use of auxiliary qubits. These methods are applied on D-Wave quantum annealer, and their effectiveness is assessed by examining the annealer-generated distributions. Using these distributions, we perform Monte Carlo sampling via the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm and compare the outcomes with those from classical Metropolis simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09514 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a): Validity rate as a function of the penalty factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a): Acceptance rate versus penalty factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The histogram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) The acceptance rate versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) The acceptance rate versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Susceptibility and skewness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Histograms of observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Phase boundary in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a): Monte Carlo history of Classical and D-Wave(method III) simulations. (b): The bin size is determined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Initialize the field configuration

work page
[2]

1+4 (11,11) 121 1+5 (16,16) 249 1+6 (22,22) 505 1+7 (29,29) 1017 TABLE IV

Update even lattice sites: (a) Construct the QUBO for even sites us- ing nearest-neighbor interactions and qubits size of QUBO number of b.c. 1+4 (11,11) 121 1+5 (16,16) 249 1+6 (22,22) 505 1+7 (29,29) 1017 TABLE IV. The list of the QUBO matrix size and the number of distinct boundary conditions for single scalar field with one qubit for sign and other qu...

work page
[3]

Update odd lattice sites: Repeat steps 2(a)- 2(e) for odd sites

work page
[4]

Store the updated field configuration

work page
[5]

Whenκ= 0, the field variables are completely decoupled due to the absence of nearest-neighbor interactions

Repeat from step 2 for the desired number of iterations. Whenκ= 0, the field variables are completely decoupled due to the absence of nearest-neighbor interactions. As a result, the target distribution does not depend on the boundary conditions, and a single sampling is sufficient to represent all cases. The scalability of the embeddings is shown in Fig.1...

work page
[6]

Systems,Pegasus: The Topol- ogy of D-Wave Quantum Processors, Tech

D.-W. Systems,Pegasus: The Topol- ogy of D-Wave Quantum Processors, Tech. Rep. (D-Wave Systems Inc., 2019) https://docs.dwavesys.com/docs/latest/ c_gs_4.html#topology-intro-pegasus

work page 2019
[7]

J. Kim, T. Luu, and W. Unger, U(N) gauge theory in the strong coupling limit on a quan- tum annealer, Phys. Rev. D108, 074501 (2023), arXiv:2305.18179 [hep-lat]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[8]

J. Kim, T. Luu, and W. Unger, Testing impor- tance sampling on a quantum annealer for strong coupling SU(3) gauge theory, in40th Interna- tional Symposium on Lattice Field Theory(2023) arXiv:2311.07209 [hep-lat]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 26 references

[9]

J. Kim, T. Luu, and W. Unger, Quantum sampling on a quantum annealer for large volumes in the strong coupling limit for gauge group U(3), Phys. Rev. D111, 094504 (2025), arXiv:2412.11677 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[10]

A. P. Lund, M. J. Bremner, and T. C. Ralph, Quantum sampling problems, BosonSampling and quantum supremacy, npj Quantum Inf.3, 15 13 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Volume sweep 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 | | 64x64 Classical 64x64 D-Wave (a) Monte Carlo history 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200...

2017
[11]

Ghamari, R

D. Ghamari, R. Covino, and P. Faccioli, Sam- pling a Rare Protein Transition Using Quantum Annealing, J. Chem. Theor. Comput.20, 3322 (2024)

2024
[12]

Vuffray, C

M. Vuffray, C. Coffrin, Y. A. Kharkov, and A. Y. Lokhov, Programmable Quantum Annealers as Noisy Gibbs Samplers, PRX Quantum3, 020317 (2022), arXiv:2012.08827 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[13]

M. S. Jattana, Quantum annealer accelerates the variational quantum eigensolver in a triple-hybrid algorithm, Phys. Scripta99, 095117 (2024), arXiv:2407.11818 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Z. G. Izquierdo, T. Albash, and I. Hen, Testing a Quantum Annealer as a Quantum Thermal Sam- pler, ACM Trans. Quant. Comput.2, 7 (2021), arXiv:2003.00361 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[15]

D. S. Wild, D. Sels, H. Pichler, C. Zanoci, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum sampling algo- rithms, phase transitions, and computational complexity, Phys. Rev. A104, 032602 (2021), arXiv:2109.03007 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[16]

Sandt and R

R. Sandt and R. Spatschek, Efficient low temper- ature Monte Carlo sampling using quantum an- nealing, Sci. Rep.13, 6754 (2023)

2023
[17]

Ghamari, P

D. Ghamari, P. Hauke, R. Covino, and P. Faccioli, Sampling rare conformational transitions with a quantum computer, Sci. Rep.12, 16336 (2022), arXiv:2201.11781 [quant-ph]

2022
[18]

Shibukawa, R

R. Shibukawa, R. Tamura, and K. Tsuda, Boltz- mann sampling with quantum annealers via fast Stein correction, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043050 (2024), arXiv:2309.04120 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2024 arXiv
[19]

F. A. Quinton, P. A. S. Myhr, M. Barani, P. C. del Granado, and H. Zhang, Quantum annealing applications, challenges and limitations for optimi- sation problems compared to classical solvers, Sci. Rep.15, 12733 (2025), arXiv:2409.05542 [quant- ph]

2025
[20]

Weinberg, M

P. Weinberg, M. Tylutki, J. M. R¨ onkk¨ o, J. Wester- holm, J. A. ˚Astr¨ om, P. Manninen, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and A. W. Sandvik, Scaling and Diabatic Effects in Quantum Annealing with a D-Wave Device, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 090502 (2020)

2020
[21]

A. K. De, A. Harindranath, J. Maiti, and T. Sinha, Investigations in 1+1 dimensional lattice phi**4 theory, Phys. Rev. D72, 094503 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0506002

2005 arXiv
[22]

N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable Quantum Simula- tions of Scattering in Scalar Field Theory on 120 Qubits, (2024), arXiv:2411.02486 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[23]

Klco and M

N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A99, 052335 (2019), arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Illa and M

M. Illa and M. J. Savage, Basic elements for sim- ulations of standard-model physics with quantum annealers: Multigrid and clock states, Phys. Rev. A106, 052605 (2022), arXiv:2202.12340 [quant- ph]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Boros and P

E. Boros and P. L. Hammer, Pseudo-boolean opti- mization, Discrete Applied Mathematics123, 155 (2002)

2002
[26]

Wolff (ALPHA), Monte Carlo errors with less errors, Comput

U. Wolff (ALPHA), Monte Carlo errors with less errors, Comput. Phys. Commun.156, 143 (2004), [Erratum: Comput.Phys.Commun. 176, 383 (2007)], arXiv:hep-lat/0306017

2004 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Initialize the field configuration

work page

[2] [2]

1+4 (11,11) 121 1+5 (16,16) 249 1+6 (22,22) 505 1+7 (29,29) 1017 TABLE IV

Update even lattice sites: (a) Construct the QUBO for even sites us- ing nearest-neighbor interactions and qubits size of QUBO number of b.c. 1+4 (11,11) 121 1+5 (16,16) 249 1+6 (22,22) 505 1+7 (29,29) 1017 TABLE IV. The list of the QUBO matrix size and the number of distinct boundary conditions for single scalar field with one qubit for sign and other qu...

work page

[3] [3]

Update odd lattice sites: Repeat steps 2(a)- 2(e) for odd sites

work page

[4] [4]

Store the updated field configuration

work page

[5] [5]

Whenκ= 0, the field variables are completely decoupled due to the absence of nearest-neighbor interactions

Repeat from step 2 for the desired number of iterations. Whenκ= 0, the field variables are completely decoupled due to the absence of nearest-neighbor interactions. As a result, the target distribution does not depend on the boundary conditions, and a single sampling is sufficient to represent all cases. The scalability of the embeddings is shown in Fig.1...

work page

[6] [6]

Systems,Pegasus: The Topol- ogy of D-Wave Quantum Processors, Tech

D.-W. Systems,Pegasus: The Topol- ogy of D-Wave Quantum Processors, Tech. Rep. (D-Wave Systems Inc., 2019) https://docs.dwavesys.com/docs/latest/ c_gs_4.html#topology-intro-pegasus

work page 2019

[7] [7]

J. Kim, T. Luu, and W. Unger, U(N) gauge theory in the strong coupling limit on a quan- tum annealer, Phys. Rev. D108, 074501 (2023), arXiv:2305.18179 [hep-lat]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

J. Kim, T. Luu, and W. Unger, Testing impor- tance sampling on a quantum annealer for strong coupling SU(3) gauge theory, in40th Interna- tional Symposium on Lattice Field Theory(2023) arXiv:2311.07209 [hep-lat]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023