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

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Optimized quantum algorithms for simulating the Schwinger effect

Angus Kan, Jessica Lemieux*, Olga Okrut, and Burak Şahinoğlu

  • PsiQuantum, 700 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, California 94304, USA

  • *Contact author: jlemieux@psiquantum.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 114503 – Published 5 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ps29-tshk

Abstract

The Schwinger model, which describes lattice quantum electrodynamics in 1+1 space-time dimensions, provides a valuable framework to investigate fundamental aspects of quantum field theory, and a stepping stone toward non-Abelian gauge theories. Specifically, it enables the study of physically relevant dynamical processes, such as the nonperturbative particle-antiparticle pair production, known as the Schwinger effect. In this work, we analyze the quantum computational resource requirements associated with simulating the Schwinger effect under two distinct scenarios: (1) a quench process, where the initial state is a simple product state of a non-interacting theory and then interactions are turned on at time t=0, and (2) a splitting (or scattering) process where two Gaussian states, peaked at given initial momenta, are shot away from (or toward) each other. We explore different physical regimes in which the Schwinger effect is expected to be observable. These regimes are characterized by initial momenta and coupling strengths, as well as simulation parameters such as lattice size and electric-field cutoffs. Leveraging known rigorous bounds for electric-field cutoffs, we find that a reliable simulation of the Schwinger effect is provably possible at high cutoff scales. Furthermore, we provide optimized circuit implementations of both the second-order Trotter formula and an interaction-picture algorithm based on the Dyson series to implement the time evolution. Our detailed resource estimates show the regimes in which the interaction-picture approach outperforms the Trotter approach, and vice versa. The improved theoretical error bounds, optimized quantum circuit designs, and explicitly compiled subroutines developed in this study are broadly applicable to simulations of other lattice models in high-energy physics and beyond.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (91)

  1. Julian Schwinger, Gauge invariance and mass. II, Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962).
  2. Sidney Coleman, R. Jackiw, and Leonard Susskind, Charge shielding and quark confinement in the massive Schwinger model, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 93, 267 (1975).
  3. Sidney Coleman, More about the massive Schwinger model, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 101, 239 (1976).
  4. T. Banks, Leonard Susskind, and John Kogut, Strong-coupling calculations of lattice gauge theories: (1+1)-dimensional exercises, Phys. Rev. D 13, 1043 (1976).
  5. C. J. Hamer, J. Kogut, D. P. Crewther, and M. M. Mazzolini, The massive Schwinger model on a lattice: Background field, chiral symmetry and the string tension, Nucl. Phys. B208, 413 (1982).
  6. Satoshi Iso and Hitoshi Murayama, Hamiltonian formulation of the Schwinger model: Non-confinement and screening of the charge, Prog. Theor. Phys. 84, 142 (1990).
  7. DP Crewther and C. J. Hamer, Eigenvalues for the massive Schwinger model from a finite-lattice Hamiltonian approach, Nucl. Phys. B170, 353 (1980).
  8. M Grady, Numerical study of the lattice massive Schwinger model using a fast fermion Monte Carlo algorithm, Phys. Rev. D 35, 1961 (1987).
  9. C. J. Hamer, Zheng Weihong, and J. Oitmaa, Series expansions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamiltonian lattice theory, Phys. Rev. D 56, 55 (1997).
  10. Helmut Kröger and Norbert Scheu, The massive Schwinger model-a Hamiltonian lattice study in a fast moving frame, Phys. Lett. B 429, 58 (1998).
  11. Florian Hebenstreit, Jürgen Berges, and Daniil Gelfand, Simulating fermion production in 1+1 dimensional QED, Phys. Rev. D 87, 105006 (2013).
  12. Mari Carmen Bañuls, K. Cichy, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Karl Jansen, The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with matrix product states, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2013) 158.
  13. Mari Carmen Bañuls, Krzysztof Cichy, Karl Jansen, and Hana Saito, Chiral condensate in the Schwinger model with matrix product operators, Phys. Rev. D 93, 094512 (2016).
  14. Boye Buyens, Jutho Haegeman, Henri Verschelde, Frank Verstraete, and Karel Van Acoleyen, Confinement and string breaking for QED2 in the Hamiltonian picture, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041040 (2016).
  15. Boye Buyens, Jutho Haegeman, Florian Hebenstreit, Frank Verstraete, and Karel Van Acoleyen, Real-time simulation of the Schwinger effect with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. D 96, 114501 (2017).
  16. Irene Papaefstathiou, Daniel Robaina, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Mari Carmen Banuls, Density of states of the lattice Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 104, 014514 (2021).
  17. Ross Dempsey, Igor R Klebanov, Silviu S Pufu, and Bernardo Zan, Discrete chiral symmetry and mass shift in the lattice Hamiltonian approach to the Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043133 (2022).
  18. Matthias Troyer and Uwe-Jens Wiese, Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005).
  19. Christof Gattringer and Kurt Langfeld, Approaches to the sign problem in lattice field theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1643007 (2016).
  20. Philipp Hauke, David Marcos, Marcello Dalmonte, and Peter Zoller, Quantum simulation of a lattice Schwinger model in a chain of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. X 3, 041018 (2013).
  21. Esteban A. Martinez, Christine A. Muschik, Philipp Schindler, Daniel Nigg, Alexander Erhard, Markus Heyl, Philipp Hauke, Marcello Dalmonte, Thomas Monz, Peter Zoller et al., Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Nature (London) 534, 516 (2016).
  22. Christine Muschik, Markus Heyl, Esteban Martinez, Thomas Monz, Philipp Schindler, Berit Vogell, Marcello Dalmonte, Philipp Hauke, Rainer Blatt, and Peter Zoller, U(1) wilson lattice gauge theories in digital quantum simulators, New J. Phys. 19, 103020 (2017).
  23. Torsten Victor Zache, Florian Hebenstreit, Fred Jendrzejewski, Markus K. Oberthaler, Jürgen Berges, and Philipp Hauke, Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories using Wilson fermions, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 034010 (2018).
  24. Dmitri E. Kharzeev and Yuta Kikuchi, Real-time chiral dynamics from a digital quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023342 (2020).
  25. Alexander F. Shaw, Pavel Lougovski, Jesse R. Stryker, and Nathan Wiebe, Quantum algorithms for simulating the lattice Schwinger model, Quantum 4, 306 (2020).
  26. Angus Kan and Yunseong Nam, Simulating lattice quantum electrodynamics on a quantum computer, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 015008 (2022).
  27. Kazuki Sakamoto, Hayata Morisaki, Junichi Haruna, Etsuko Itou, Keisuke Fujii, and Kosuke Mitarai, End-to-end complexity for simulating the Schwinger model on quantum computers, Quantum 8, 1474 (2024).
  28. Roland C. Farrell, Marc Illa, Anthony N. Ciavarella, and Martin J. Savage, Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114510 (2024).
  29. Angus Kan and Yunseong Nam, Lattice quantum chromodynamics and electrodynamics on a universal quantum computer, arXiv:2107.12769.
  30. Mason Rhodes, Michael Kreshchuk, and Shivesh Pathak, Exponential improvements in the simulation of lattice gauge theories using near-optimal techniques, PRX Quantum 5, 040347 (2024).
  31. Seth Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  32. Richard P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
  33. Masuo Suzuki, Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Lett. 146A, 319 (1990).
  34. Dominic W. Berry, Graeme Ahokas, Richard Cleve, and Barry C. Sanders, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, Commun. Math. Phys. 270, 359 (2007).
  35. Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C. Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu, Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021).
  36. Mauro E. S. Morales, Pedro Costa, Daniel K. Burgarth, Yuval R. Sanders, and Dominic W. Berry, Selection and improvement of product formulae for best performance of quantum simulation, Quantum Inf. Comput. 25, 1 (2025).
  37. Andrew M. Childs and Nathan Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 12, 901 (2012).
  38. Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, and Robin Kothari, Hamiltonian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters, in 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, New York, 2015), pp. 792–809, 10.1109/FOCS.2015.54.
  39. Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015).
  40. Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017).
  41. Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019).
  42. Guang Hao Low and Nathan Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation in the interaction picture, arXiv:1805.00675.
  43. Mária Kieferová, Artur Scherer, and Dominic W. Berry, Simulating the dynamics of time-dependent Hamiltonians with a truncated Dyson series, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042314 (2019).
  44. Burak Şahinoğlu and Rolando D. Somma, Hamiltonian simulation in the low-energy subspace, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 119 (2021).
  45. Minh C. Tran, Yuan Su, Daniel Carney, and Jacob M. Taylor, Faster digital quantum simulation by symmetry protection, PRX Quantum 2, 010323 (2021).
  46. Andrew M. Childs and Yuan Su, Nearly optimal lattice simulation by product formulas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 050503 (2019).
  47. Chi-Fang Chen and Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, Average-case speedup for product formulas, Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 32 (2024).
  48. Yosi Atia and Dorit Aharonov, Fast-forwarding of Hamiltonians and exponentially precise measurements, Nat. Commun. 8, 1572 (2017).
  49. Shouzhen Gu, Rolando D. Somma, and Burak Şahinoğlu, Fast-forwarding quantum evolution, Quantum 5, 577 (2021).
  50. Yu Tong, Victor V. Albert, Jarrod R. McClean, John Preskill, and Yuan Su, Provably accurate simulation of gauge theories and bosonic systems, Quantum 6, 816 (2022).
  51. Stephen P. Jordan, Keith S. M. Lee, and John Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science 336, 1130 (2012).
  52. Anthony N. Ciavarella, Siddharth Hariprakash, Jad C. Halimeh, and Christian W. Bauer, Truncation uncertainties for accurate quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories, arXiv:2508.00061.
  53. P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das paulische Äquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928).
  54. David Tong, Gauge theory, Lecture notes, DAMTP Cambridge, 2018, https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/gaugetheory.html.
  55. Jeongwan Haah, Matthew B. Hastings, Robin Kothari, and Guang Hao Low, Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice Hamiltonians, SIAM J. Comput. 52, 250 (2021).
  56. Steven R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345 (1993).
  57. T. M. R. Byrnes, Pranav Sriganesh, Robert J. Bursill, and Chris J. Hamer, Density matrix renormalization group approach to the massive Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 66, 013002 (2002).
  58. Matthew B. Hastings, Entropy and entanglement in quantum ground states, Phys. Rev. B 76, 035114 (2007).
  59. Jutho Haegeman, Spyridon Michalakis, Bruno Nachtergaele, Tobias J. Osborne, Norbert Schuch, and Frank Verstraete, Elementary excitations in gapped quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 080401 (2013).
  60. Nilin Abrahamsen, Yu Tong, Ning Bao, Yuan Su, and Nathan Wiebe, Entanglement area law for one-dimensional gauge theories and bosonic systems, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042422 (2023).
  61. Zohreh Davoudi, Chung-Chun Hsieh, and Saurabh V. Kadam, Scattering wave packets of hadrons in gauge theories: Preparation on a quantum computer, Quantum 8, 1520 (2024).
  62. Stepan Fomichev, Kasra Hejazi, Modjtaba Shokrian Zini, Matthew Kiser, Joana Fraxanet, Pablo Antonio Moreno Casares, Alain Delgado, Joonsuk Huh, Arne-Christian Voigt, Jonathan E. Mueller et al., Initial state preparation for quantum chemistry on quantum computers, PRX Quantum 5, 040339 (2024).
  63. Jessica Lemieux, Matteo Lostaglio, Sam Pallister, William Pol, Karthik Seetharam, Sukin Sim, and Burak Şahinoğlu, Quantum sampling algorithms for quantum state preparation and matrix block-encoding, arXiv:2405.11436.
  64. Shu-Min Wu and Hao-Sheng Zeng, Schwinger effect of Gaussian correlations in constant electric fields, Classical Quantum Gravity 37, 115003 (2020).
  65. Shu-Min Wu and Hao-Sheng Zeng, Optimal estimation of parameters for Schwinger effect, Quantum Inf. Process. 19, 294 (2020).
  66. Tingting Fan, Qianqian Liu, Jiliang Jing, and Jieci Wang, Quantum metrology of Schwinger effect, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 896 (2024).
  67. Vadym Kliuchnikov, Kristin Lauter, Romy Minko, Adam Paetznick, and Christophe Petit, Shorter quantum circuits via single-qubit gate approximation, Quantum 7, 1208 (2023).
  68. Jim Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2020).
  69. Angus Kan and Benjamin C. B. Symons, Resource-optimized fault-tolerant simulation of the Fermi-Hubbard model and high-temperature superconductor models, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 138 (2025).
  70. Qingfeng Wang, Ming Li, Christopher Monroe, and Yunseong Nam, Resource-optimized fermionic local-Hamiltonian simulation on a quantum computer for quantum chemistry, Quantum 5, 509 (2021).
  71. Guoming Wang and Angus Kan, Option pricing under stochastic volatility on a quantum computer, Quantum 8, 1504 (2024).
  72. Craig Gidney, Halving the cost of quantum addition, Quantum 2, 74 (2018).
  73. Kenneth E. Batcher, Sorting networks and their applications, in Proceedings of the April 30–May 2, 1968, Spring Joint Computer Conference (1968), pp. 307–314, 10.1145/1468075.1468121.
  74. David E. Muller and Franco P. Preparata, Bounds to complexities of networks for sorting and for switching, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 22, 195 (1975).
  75. Alessandro Luongo, Antonio Michele Miti, Varun Narasimhachar, and Adithya Sireesh, Measurement-based uncomputation of quantum circuits for modular arithmetic, in 2025 62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) (IEEE, New York, 2025), pp. 1–7, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/11132981.
  76. Abhishek Rajput, Alessandro Roggero, and Nathan Wiebe, Hybridized methods for quantum simulation in the interaction picture, Quantum 6, 780 (2022).
  77. Yuval R. Sanders, Dominic W. Berry, Pedro C. S. Costa, Louis W. Tessler, Nathan Wiebe, Craig Gidney, Hartmut Neven, and Ryan Babbush, Compilation of fault-tolerant quantum heuristics for combinatorial optimization, PRX Quantum 1, 020312 (2020).
  78. Di Fang, Lin Lin, and Yu Tong, Time-marching based quantum solvers for time-dependent linear differential equations, Quantum 7, 955 (2023).
  79. Kasra Hejazi, Modjtaba Shokrian Zini, and Juan Miguel Arrazola, Better bounds for low-energy product formulas, arXiv:2402.10362.
  80. Kaoru Mizuta and Tomotaka Kuwahara, Trotterization is substantially efficient for low-energy states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 130602 (2025).
  81. Alexander Zlokapa and Rolando D. Somma, Hamiltonian simulation for low-energy states with optimal time dependence, Quantum 8, 1449 (2024).
  82. Andrew M. Childs, Dmitri Maslov, Yunseong Nam, Neil J. Ross, and Yuan Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 9456 (2018).
  83. Nhung H. Nguyen, Minh C. Tran, Yingyue Zhu, Alaina M. Green, C. Huerta Alderete, Zohreh Davoudi, and Norbert M. Linke, Digital quantum simulation of the Schwinger model and symmetry protection with trapped ions, PRX Quantum 3, 020324 (2022).
  84. Tyler A. Cochran, Bernhard Jobst, Eliott Rosenberg, Yuri D. Lensky, Gaurav Gyawali, Norhan Eassa, Melissa Will, Dmitry Abanin, Rajeev Acharya, Laleh Aghababaie Beni et al., Visualizing dynamics of charges and strings in (2+1)d lattice gauge theories, Nature (London) 642, 315 (2025).
  85. John Kogut and Leonard Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975).
  86. F. J. Dyson, The S matrix in quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. 75, 1736 (1949).
  87. Ryan Babbush, Craig Gidney, Dominic W. Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Jarrod McClean, Alexandru Paler, Austin Fowler, and Hartmut Neven, Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear T complexity, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041015 (2018).
  88. Yunseong Nam and Dmitri Maslov, Low-cost quantum circuits for classically intractable instances of the Hamiltonian dynamics simulation problem, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 44 (2019).
  89. Daniel Litinski, Quantum schoolbook multiplication with fewer toffoli gates, arXiv:2410.00899.
  90. Yuan Su, Dominic W. Berry, Nathan Wiebe, Nicholas Rubin, and Ryan Babbush, Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization, PRX Quantum 2, 040332 (2021).
  91. Cody Jones, Low-overhead constructions for the fault-tolerant toffoli gate, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022328 (2013).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 114503– Published 5 June, 2026
  • Received 20 October 2025
  • Accepted 13 April 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation