- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

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

Navya Gupta1,2,3,*, Christopher David White2,4,†, and Zohreh Davoudi1,2,3,‡

  • *Contact author: navyag@umd.edu
  • †Contact author: christopher.d.white117.ctr@us.navy.mil
  • ‡Contact author: davoudi@umd.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 114515 – Published 12 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3c4m-b4t3

Abstract

Quantum simulators offer great potential for investigating dynamical properties of quantum field theories. However, preparing accurate nontrivial initial states for these simulations is challenging. Classical Euclidean-time Monte-Carlo methods provide a wealth of information about states of interest to quantum simulations. Thus, it is desirable to facilitate state preparation on quantum simulators using this information. To this end, we present a fully classical pipeline for generating efficient quantum circuits for preparing the ground state of an interacting scalar field theory in 1+1 dimensions. The first element of this pipeline is a variational Ansatz family based on the stellar hierarchy for bosonic quantum systems. The second element of this pipeline is the classical moment-optimization procedure that augments the standard variational energy minimization by penalizing deviations in selected sets of ground-state correlation functions (i.e., moments). The values of ground-state moments are sourced from classical Euclidean methods. The resulting states yield comparable ground-state energy estimates but exhibit distinct correlations and local non-Gaussianity. The third element of this pipeline is translating the moment-optimized Ansatz into an efficient quantum circuit with an asymptotic cost that is polynomial in system size. This work opens the way to systematically applying classically obtained knowledge of states to prepare accurate initial states in quantum field theories of interest in nature.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (138)

  1. K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974).
  2. M. Creutz, L. Jacobs, and C. Rebbi, Monte Carlo computations in lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rep. 95, 201 (1983).
  3. I. Montvay and G. Münster, Quantum Fields on a Lattice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1994), 10.1017/CBO9780511470783.
  4. H. J. Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction (World Scientific, Singapore, 2012), 10.1142/8229.
  5. C. Gattringer and C. Lang, Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice: An Introductory Presentation, Vol. 788 (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2009), 10.1007/978-3-642-01850-3.
  6. Y. Aoki, T. Blum, S. Collins, L. Del Debbio, M. Della Morte, P. Dimopoulos, X. Feng, M. Golterman, S. Gottlieb, R. Gupta et al., FLAG review 2024, Phys. Rev. D 113, 014508 (2026).
  7. U. Collaboration, A. Bazavov, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, and P. Petreczky, Hot-dense lattice QCD, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 1 (2019).
  8. Z. Davoudi, E. T. Neil, C. W. Bauer, T. Bhattacharya, T. Blum, P. Boyle, R. C. Brower, S. Catterall, N. H. Christ, V. Cirigliano et al., Report of the Snowmass 2021 topical group on lattice gauge theory, arXiv:2209.10758.
  9. A. S. Kronfeld, T. Bhattacharya, T. Blum, N. H. Christ, C. DeTar, W. Detmold, R. Edwards, A. Hasenfratz, H.-W. Lin, S. Mukherjee et al., Lattice QCD and particle physics, arXiv:2207.07641.
  10. M. Lüscher, Two-particle states on a torus and their relation to the scattering matrix, Nucl. Phys. B354, 531 (1991).
  11. L. Lellouch and M. Lüscher, Weak transition matrix elements from finite-volume correlation functions, Commun. Math. Phys. 219, 31 (2001).
  12. R. A. Briceno, Z. Davoudi, and T. C. Luu, Nuclear reactions from lattice QCD, J. Phys. G 42, 023101 (2015).
  13. R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, and R. D. Young, Scattering processes and resonances from lattice QCD, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025001 (2018).
  14. M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Lattice QCD and three-particle decays of resonances, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 65 (2019).
  15. Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, P. Shanahan, K. Orginos, A. Parreno, M. J. Savage, and M. L. Wagman, Nuclear matrix elements from lattice QCD for electroweak and beyond-standard-model processes, Phys. Rep. 900, 1 (2021).
  16. C. Gattringer and K. Langfeld, Approaches to the sign problem in lattice field theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1643007 (2016).
  17. G. Cohen, E. Gull, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Taming the dynamical sign problem in real-time evolution of quantum many-body problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 266802 (2015).
  18. M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005).
  19. V. Goy, V. Bornyakov, D. Boyda, A. Molochkov, A. Nakamura, A. Nikolaev, and V. Zakharov, Sign problem in finite density lattice QCD, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2017, 031D01 (2017).
  20. K. Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103991 (2022).
  21. N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Standard Model physics and the digital quantum revolution: Thoughts about the interface, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 064301 (2022).
  22. C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 420 (2023).
  23. C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhattacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada et al., Quantum simulation for high-energy physics, PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023).
  24. A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft et al., Quantum computing for high-energy physics: State of the art and challenges, PRX Quantum 5, 037001 (2024).
  25. D. Beck, J. Carlson, Z. Davoudi, J. Formaggio, S. Quaglioni, M. Savage, J. Barata, T. Bhattacharya, M. Bishof, I. Cloet et al., Quantum information science and technology for nuclear physics. input into us long-range planning, arXiv:2303.00113.
  26. T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 73, 022328 (2006).
  27. A. F. Shaw, P. Lougovski, J. R. Stryker, and N. Wiebe, Quantum algorithms for simulating the lattice Schwinger model, Quantum 4, 306 (2020).
  28. A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Trailhead for quantum simulation of SU(3) Yang-Mills lattice gauge theory in the local multiplet basis, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094501 (2021).
  29. A. Kan and Y. Nam, Lattice quantum chromodynamics and electrodynamics on a universal quantum computer, arXiv:2107.12769.
  30. H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi (NuQS Collaboration), General methods for digital quantum simulation of gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034518 (2019).
  31. J. F. Haase, L. Dellantonio, A. Celi, D. Paulson, A. Kan, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, A resource efficient approach for quantum and classical simulations of gauge theories in particle physics, Quantum 5, 393 (2021).
  32. Z. Davoudi, A. F. Shaw, and J. R. Stryker, General quantum algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation with applications to a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory, Quantum 7, 1213 (2023).
  33. E. M. Murairi, M. J. Cervia, H. Kumar, P. F. Bedaque, and A. Alexandru, How many quantum gates do gauge theories require?, Phys. Rev. D 106, 094504 (2022).
  34. M. L. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, Exponential improvements in the simulation of lattice gauge theories using near-optimal techniques, PRX Quantum 5, 040347 (2024).
  35. H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, Block encodings of discrete subgroups on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054505 (2024).
  36. P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. Elhaderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, A. Lytle, and E. Rinaldi, Quantum circuits for SU(3) lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 112, 054511 (2025).
  37. S. P. Jordan, K. S. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum computation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 1014 (2014).
  38. S. P. Jordan, K. S. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science 336, 1130 (2012).
  39. S. P. Jordan, H. Krovi, K. S. Lee, and J. Preskill, BQP-completeness of scattering in scalar quantum field theory, Quantum 2, 44 (2018).
  40. A. D. Bookatz, QMA-complete problems, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 6 (2014); arXiv:1212.6312.
  41. J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem, SIAM J. Comput. 35, 1070 (2006).
  42. A. Y. Kitaev, A. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi, Classical and Quantum Computation (American Mathematical Soc., Providence, 2002), 10.1090/gsm/047.
  43. K. Marshall, R. Pooser, G. Siopsis, and C. Weedbrook, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory using continuous variables, Phys. Rev. A 92, 063825 (2015).
  44. M. Bagherimehrab, Y. R. Sanders, D. W. Berry, G. K. Brennen, and B. C. Sanders, Nearly optimal quantum algorithm for generating the ground state of a free quantum field theory, PRX Quantum 3, 020364 (2022).
  45. N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Minimally entangled state preparation of localized wave functions on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012612 (2020).
  46. N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Systematically localizable operators for quantum simulations of quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012619 (2020).
  47. N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Fixed-point quantum circuits for quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052422 (2020).
  48. A. Kitaev and W. A. Webb, Wavefunction preparation and resampling using a quantum computer, arXiv:0801.0342.
  49. H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, Implementation of quantum imaginary-time evolution method on nisq devices by introducing nonlocal approximation, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 85 (2021).
  50. Y. Ge, J. Tura, and J. I. Cirac, Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation with fewer qubits, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 60 (2019).
  51. Y. Dong, L. Lin, and Y. Tong, Ground-state preparation and energy estimation on early fault-tolerant quantum computers via quantum eigenvalue transformation of unitary matrices, PRX Quantum 3, 040305 (2022).
  52. L. Lin and Y. Tong, Near-optimal ground state preparation, Quantum 4, 372 (2020).
  53. K. Choi, D. Lee, J. Bonitati, Z. Qian, and J. Watkins, Rodeo algorithm for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040505 (2021).
  54. T. D. Cohen and H. Oh, Efficient vacuum-state preparation for quantum simulation of strongly interacting local quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. A 109, L020402 (2024).
  55. A. Luis, Quantum-state preparation and control via the Zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A 63, 052112 (2001).
  56. Y. Zhan, Z. Ding, J. Huhn, J. Gray, J. Preskill, G. K. Chan, and L. Lin, Rapid quantum ground state preparation via dissipative dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 16, 011004 (2026).
  57. Z. Ding, C.-F. Chen, and L. Lin, Single-ancilla ground state preparation via Lindbladians, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033147 (2024).
  58. C. Feniou, O. Adjoua, B. Claudon, J. Zylberman, E. Giner, and J.-P. Piquemal, Sparse quantum state preparation for strongly correlated systems, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 15, 3197 (2024).
  59. J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth et al., The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Phys. Rep. 986, 1 (2022).
  60. H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 10, 3007 (2019).
  61. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley et al. (Google AI Quantum and Collaborators), Hartree-Fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Science 369, 1084 (2020).
  62. J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 014008 (2018).
  63. A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P. W. Jensen, S. Sim, M. Díaz-Tinoco, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, A quantum computing view on unitary coupled cluster theory, Chem. Soc. Rev. 51, 1659 (2022).
  64. A. Romero, J. Engel, H. L. Tang, and S. E. Economou, Solving nuclear structure problems with the adaptive variational quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064317 (2022).
  65. E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R. C. Pooser, D. J. Dean, and P. Lougovski, Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 210501 (2018).
  66. O. Kiss, M. Grossi, P. Lougovski, F. Sanchez, S. Vallecorsa, and T. Papenbrock, Quantum computing of the Li6 nucleus via ordered unitary coupled clusters, Phys. Rev. C 106, 034325 (2022).
  67. S. Rethinasamy, E. Guo, A. Wei, M. M. Wilde, and K. D. Launey, Neutron-nucleus dynamics simulations for quantum computers, Quantum Sci. Technol. 11, 015052 (2026).
  68. N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, Quantum-classical computation of Schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018).
  69. Y. Y. Atas, J. Zhang, R. Lewis, A. Jahanpour, J. F. Haase, and C. A. Muschik, SU(2) hadrons on a quantum computer via a variational approach, Nat. Commun. 12, 6499 (2021).
  70. R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Scalable circuits for preparing ground states on digital quantum computers: The Schwinger model vacuum on 100 qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024).
  71. A. Crippa, K. Jansen, and E. Rinaldi, Analysis of the confinement string in (2+1)-dimensional quantum electrodynamics with a trapped-ion quantum computer, arXiv:2411.05628.
  72. M. Fromm, O. Philipsen, M. Spannowsky, and C. Winterowd, Simulating Z2 lattice gauge theory with the variational quantum thermalizer, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 1 (2024).
  73. R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114510 (2024).
  74. Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Scattering wave packets of hadrons in gauge theories: Preparation on a quantum computer, Quantum 8, 1520 (2024).
  75. Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory, arXiv:2505.20408.
  76. A. T. Than, Y. Y. Atas, A. Chakraborty, J. Zhang, M. T. Diaz, K. Wen, X. Liu, R. Lewis, A. M. Green, C. A. Muschik et al., The phase diagram of quantum chromodynamics in one dimension on a quantum computer, Nat. Commun. 16, 10288 (2025).
  77. X.-D. Xie, X. Guo, H. Xing, Z.-Y. Xue, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu (QuNu Collaboration), Variational thermal quantum simulation of the lattice Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054509 (2022).
  78. M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 174 (2025).
  79. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  80. E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps, Nat. Commun. 13, 7760 (2022).
  81. N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052335 (2019).
  82. J. Liu, Z. Li, H. Zheng, X. Yuan, and J. Sun, Towards a variational Jordan-Lee-Preskill quantum algorithm, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 3, 045030 (2022).
  83. J. Barata, N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Single-particle digitization strategy for quantum computation of a ϕ4 scalar field theory, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042410 (2021).
  84. A. Hardy, P. Mukhopadhyay, M. S. Alam, R. Konik, L. Hormozi, E. Rieffel, S. Hadfield, J. Barata, R. Venugopalan, D. E. Kharzeev et al., Scattering processes from quantum simulation algorithms for scalar field theories, PRX Quantum 7, 010343 (2026).
  85. K. Yeter-Aydeniz, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, R. S. Bennink, R. C. Pooser, and G. Siopsis, Scalar quantum field theories as a benchmark for near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032306 (2019).
  86. S. Thompson and G. Siopsis, Quantum computation of phase transition in interacting scalar quantum field theory, Quantum Inf. Process. 22, 396 (2023).
  87. A. C. Li, A. Macridin, S. Mrenna, and P. Spentzouris, Simulating scalar field theories on quantum computers with limited resources, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032603 (2023).
  88. M. Turco, G. Quinta, J. Seixas, and Y. Omar, Quantum simulation of bound state scattering, PRX Quantum 5, 020311 (2024).
  89. N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable quantum simulations of scattering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 112, 034502 (2025).
  90. J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, S. Williams, and M. Wingate, Real-time scattering on quantum computers via Hamiltonian truncation, arXiv:2505.03878.
  91. J. D. Watson, J. Bringewatt, A. F. Shaw, A. M. hilds, A. V. Gorshkov, and Z. Davoudi, Quantum algorithms for simulating nuclear effective field theories, arXiv:2312.05344.
  92. W. Loinaz and R. Willey, Monte Carlo simulation calculation of the critical coupling constant for two-dimensional continuum φ4 theory, Phys. Rev. D 58, 076003 (1998).
  93. U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Stellar representation of non-Gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063605 (2020).
  94. U. Chabaud and S. Mehraban, Holomorphic representation of quantum computations, Quantum 6, 831 (2022).
  95. Š. Blahnik and S. Shandera, Natural disorder distributions from measurement, arXiv:2405.02214.
  96. A. Serafini, Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2023).
  97. X. Han, S. A. Hartnoll, and J. Kruthoff, Bootstrapping matrix quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 041601 (2020).
  98. D. Berenstein and G. Hulsey, Bootstrapping simple QM systems, arXiv:2108.08757.
  99. Z. Ozzello and Y. Meurice, Bootstrap methods for digitized scalar field theory, Proc. Sci., LATTICE2023 (2024) 163 [arXiv:2312.10559].
  100. P. Stevenson, Gaussian effective potential: Quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 30, 1712 (1984).
  101. P. Stevenson, Gaussian effective potential. II. λϕ4 field theory, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1389 (1985).
  102. R. D. Somma, Quantum simulations of one dimensional quantum systems, arXiv:1503.06319.
  103. A. Macridin, A. Li, S. Mrenna, and P. Spentzouris, Bosonic field digitization for quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052405 (2022).
  104. A. Macridin, P. Spentzouris, J. Amundson, and R. Harnik, Digital quantum computation of fermion-boson interacting systems, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042312 (2018).
  105. G. K. Brennen, P. Rohde, B. C. Sanders, and S. Singh, Multiscale quantum simulation of quantum field theory using wavelets, Phys. Rev. A 92, 032315 (2015).
  106. S. Rychkov and L. G. Vitale, Hamiltonian truncation study of the φ4 theory in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 91, 085011 (2015).
  107. R. D. Somma, Quantum computation, complexity, and many-body physics, arXiv:quant-ph/0512209.
  108. P. C. Encinar, A. Agustí, and C. Sabín, Digital quantum simulation of beam splitters and squeezing with IBM quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052609 (2021).
  109. N. M. Tubman, C. Mejuto-Zaera, J. M. Epstein, D. Hait, D. S. Levine, W. Huggins, Z. Jiang, J. R. McClean, R. Babbush, M. Head-Gordon et al., Postponing the orthogonality catastrophe: Efficient state preparation for electronic structure simulations on quantum devices, arXiv:1809.05523.
  110. N. Gleinig and T. Hoefler, An efficient algorithm for sparse quantum state preparation, in 2021 58th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) (2021), 10.1109/DAC18074.2021.9586240.
  111. T. M. de Veras, L. D. da Silva, and A. J. da Silva, Double sparse quantum state preparation, Quantum Inf. Process. 21, 204 (2022).
  112. X.-M. Zhang, T. Li, and X. Yuan, Quantum state preparation with optimal circuit depth: Implementations and applications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230504 (2022).
  113. S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, M. Kiser, J. Fraxanet, P. A. M. Casares, A. Delgado, J. Huh, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller et al., Initial state preparation for quantum chemistry on quantum computers, PRX Quantum 5, 040339 (2024).
  114. R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Simulating physical phenomena by quantum networks, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042323 (2002).
  115. Y. Tong, V. V. Albert, J. R. McClean, J. Preskill, and Y. Su, Provably accurate simulation of gauge theories and bosonic systems, Quantum 6, 816 (2022).
  116. B. Peng, Y. Su, D. Claudino, K. Kowalski, G. H. Low, and M. Roetteler, Quantum simulation of boson-related Hamiltonians: Techniques, effective Hamiltonian construction, and error analysis, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 023002 (2025).
  117. A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021).
  118. Z. Davoudi, A. F. Shaw, and J. R. Stryker, General quantum algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation with applications to a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory, Quantum 7, 1213 (2023).
  119. T. I. Andersen, N. Astrakhantsev, A. H. Karamlou, J. Berndtsson, J. Motruk, A. Szasz, J. A. Gross, A. Schuckert, T. Westerhout, Y. Zhang et al., Thermalization and criticality on an analogue–digital quantum simulator, Nature (London) 638, 79 (2025).
  120. S. Harmalkar, H. Lamm, and S. Lawrence, Quantum simulation of field theories without state preparation, arXiv:2001.11490.
  121. E. J. Gustafson and H. Lamm, Toward quantum simulations of Z2 gauge theory without state preparation, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054507 (2021).
  122. P. Stornati, A. Acin, U. Chabaud, A. Dauphin, V. Parigi, and F. Centrone, Variational quantum simulation using non-Gaussian continuous-variable systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043212 (2024).
  123. A. D. Linde, A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems, Phys. Lett. B 108B, 389 (1982).
  124. A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmology for grand unified theories with radiatively induced symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982).
  125. N. Gupta, C. D. White, and Z. Davoudi, Data for: Euclidean-Monte-Carlo-informed ground-state preparation for quantum simulation of scalar field theory, 10.5281/zenodo.18463645 (2026).
  126. J. Gong and P. Aravind, Expansion coefficients of a squeezed coherent state in the number state basis, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1003 (1990).
  127. F. De Oliveira, M. S. Kim, P. L. Knight, and V. Bužek, Properties of displaced number states, Phys. Rev. A 41, 2645 (1990).
  128. B. Golubov, A. Efimov, and V. Skvortsov, Walsh Series and Transforms: Theory and Applications (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2012), Vol. 64, 10.1007/978-94-011-3288-6.
  129. Z. Davoudi, N. M. Linke, and G. Pagano, Toward simulating quantum field theories with controlled phonon-ion dynamics: A hybrid analog-digital approach, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043072 (2021).
  130. R. G. Jha, F. Ringer, G. Siopsis, and S. Thompson, Toward quantum computations of the O(3) model using qumodes, Proc. Sci., LATTICE2023 (2024) 230 [arXiv:2308.06946].
  131. V. Ale, N. M. Bauer, R. G. Jha, F. Ringer, and G. Siopsis, Quantum computation of SU(2) lattice gauge theory with continuous variables, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2025) 084.
  132. R. A. Briceño, R. G. Edwards, M. Eaton, C. González-Arciniegas, O. Pfister, and G. Siopsis, Toward coherent quantum computation of scattering amplitudes with a measurement-based photonic quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043065 (2024).
  133. E. Crane, K. C. Smith, T. Tomesh, A. Eickbusch, J. M. Martyn, S. Kühn, L. Funcke, M. A. DeMarco, I. L. Chuang, N. Wiebe et al., Hybrid oscillator-qubit quantum processors: Simulating fermions, bosons, and gauge fields, arXiv:2409.03747.
  134. S. D. Bartlett, B. C. Sanders, S. L. Braunstein, and K. Nemoto, Efficient classical simulation of continuous variable quantum information processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 097904 (2002).
  135. C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. García-Patrón, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012).
  136. B. Marco and Z. Alessandro, Manipulating light states by single-photon addition and subtraction, in Progress in Optics, Vol. 55 (Elsevier, New York, 2010), pp. 41–83, 10.1016/B978-0-444-53705-8.00002-3.
  137. M. Hofheinz, E. Weig, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. O’connell, H. Wang, J. M. Martinis, and A. Cleland, Generation of Fock states in a superconducting quantum circuit, Nature (London) 454, 310 (2008).
  138. U. Chabaud, G. Ferrini, F. Grosshans, and D. Markham, Classical simulation of Gaussian quantum circuits with non-Gaussian input states, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033018 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 114515– Published 12 June, 2026
  • Received 2 July 2025
  • Accepted 5 January 2026
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation