- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

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

Path to Quantum Simulations of Topological Phases: (2+1)D Quantum Electrodynamics with Wilson Fermions

Sriram Bharadwaj2, Emil Rosanowski3, Simran Singh3, Alice Di Tucci4, Changnan Peng5, Karl Jansen4,6, Lena Funcke3, and Di Luo1,7,8,*

  • *Contact author: diluo@tsinghua.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 191604 – Published 5 November, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/vd45-l8d5

Abstract

Quantum simulation offers a powerful approach to studying quantum field theories, particularly (2+1)D quantum electrodynamics (QED3) with Wilson fermions, which hosts a rich landscape of physical phenomena. A key challenge in lattice formulations is the proper realization of topological phases and the Chern-Simons terms, where fermion discretization plays a crucial role. In this Letter, we highlight the differences between staggered and Wilson fermions coupled to U(1) gauge fields in the Hamiltonian formulation. We analyze why staggered fermions fail to induce (2+1)D topological phases, while Wilson fermions admit a variety of topological phases including Chern insulator and quantum spin Hall phases. Additionally, we uncover a rich phase diagram for the two-flavor Wilson fermion model in the presence of a chemical potential. Our findings resolve existing ambiguities in Hamiltonian formulations and provide a theoretical foundation for future quantum simulations of lattice field theories with topological phases. We further outline connections to experimental platforms, offering guidance for implementations on near-term quantum computing architectures. A complementary presentation of the analytical calculations, the identification of robust topological structure and response, and extensive numerical results is contained in a joint submission [S. Bharadwaj et al., Phys. Rev. D 114, 094502 (2026)].

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

Hamiltonian lattice QED3 with one and two flavors of Wilson fermions: Topological structure and response

Sriram Bharadwaj, Emil Rosanowski, Simran Singh, Alice Di Tucci, Changnan Peng, Karl Jansen, Lena Funcke, and Di Luo
Phys. Rev. D 114, 094502 (2026)

Article Text

References (50)

  1. C. W. Bauer et al., PRX Quantum 4, 027001 (2023).
  2. A. Di Meglio et al., PRX Quantum 5, 037001 (2024).
  3. M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005).
  4. M. C. Bañuls et al., Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 165 (2020).
  5. L. Funcke, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, and S. Kühn, Proc. Sci. LATTICE2022 (2023) 228 [arXiv:2302.00467].
  6. R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2423 (1984).
  7. A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. 59B, 82 (1975).
  8. A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B120, 429 (1977).
  9. C. Peng, M. C. Diamantini, L. Funcke, S. M. A. Hassan, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, D. Luo, and P. Naredi, Phys. Rev. D 114, 034511 (2026).
  10. D. Paulson et al., PRX Quantum 2, 030334 (2021).
  11. J. F. Haase, L. Dellantonio, A. Celi, D. Paulson, A. Kan, K. Jansen, and C. A. Muschik, Quantum 5, 393 (2021).
  12. A. Crippa, K. Jansen, and E. Rinaldi, Commun. Phys. 9, 46 (2026).
  13. A. Crippa, S. Romiti, L. Funcke, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, P. Stornati, and C. Urbach, Commun. Phys. 8, 367 (2025).
  14. T. A. Cochran et al., Nature (London) 642, 315 (2025).
  15. D. Gonzalez-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjaca, A. Lukin, S. H. Cantu, F. Liu, S.-T. Wang, A. Keesling et al., Nature (London) 642, 321 (2025).
  16. M. Meth et al., Nat. Phys. 21, 570 (2025).
  17. A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111901 (2024).
  18. L. Tagliacozzo, A. Celi, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041024 (2014).
  19. K. Zapp and R. Orus, Phys. Rev. D 95, 114508 (2017).
  20. T. Felser, P. Silvi, M. Collura, and S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041040 (2020).
  21. W.-T. Xu, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 036503 (2025).
  22. D. Luo, G. Carleo, B. K. Clark, and J. Stokes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 276402 (2021).
  23. D. Luo, Z. Chen, K. Hu, Z. Zhao, V. M. Hur, and B. K. Clark, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013216 (2023).
  24. D. Luo, S. Yuan, J. Stokes, and B. K. Clark, arXiv:2211.03198.
  25. Z. Chen, D. Luo, K. Hu, and B. K. Clark, arXiv:2212.06835.
  26. D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B 288, 342 (1992).
  27. M. F. L. Golterman, K. Jansen, and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B 301, 219 (1993).
  28. K. Jansen and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Lett. B 296, 374 (1992).
  29. K. Jansen, Phys. Lett. B 288, 348 (1992).
  30. E. Tirrito, M. Rizzi, G. Sierra, M. Lewenstein, and A. Bermudez, Phys. Rev. B 99, 125106 (2019).
  31. A. Bermudez, L. Mazza, M. Rizzi, N. Goldman, M. Lewenstein, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 190404 (2010).

  32. This Letter is part of a joint submission. A companion paper, Ref. [33], presents complementary results and analyses related to the findings reported here.

  33. See Joint Submission at companion paper S. Bharadwaj, E. Rosanowski, S. Singh, A. Di Tucci, C. Peng, K. Jansen, L. Funcke, and D. Luo, companion paper, Phys. Rev. D 114, 094502 (2026) for details of calculations, derivations, and additional figures.

  34. This is not an anomaly, but rather an explicit breaking. This terminology is simply a convention (see Chap. 8 of Ref. [35]).

  35. D. Tong, Gauge Theory, Lecture notes (Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, 2018).

  36. Hamiltonian and Lorentzian γ-matrix conventions are in [33].

  37. We assume that the mass M=m+2R is chosen so that we are not at a gapless point.

  38. S. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094520 (2020).
  39. L. Mazza, A. Bermudez, N. Goldman, M. Rizzi, M. A. Martin-Delgado, and M. Lewenstein, New J. Phys. 14, 015007 (2012).
  40. D. Luo, J. Shen, M. Highman, B. K. Clark, B. DeMarco, A. X. El-Khadra, and B. Gadway, Phys. Rev. A 102, 032617 (2020).
  41. X. Sun, D. Luo, and S. Choi, arXiv:2306.03905.
  42. T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 1674 (2005).
  43. M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005).
  44. S. Aoki, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2653 (1984).
  45. S. Aoki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 122, 179 (1996).
  46. S. R. Sharpe, R. L. Singleton, and Jr, Phys. Rev. D 58, 074501 (1998).
  47. G. Magnifico, D. Vodola, E. Ercolessi, S. P. Kumar, M. Müller, and A. Bermudez, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014503 (2019).
  48. G. Magnifico, D. Vodola, E. Ercolessi, S. P. Kumar, M. Müller, and A. Bermudez, Phys. Rev. B 100, 115152 (2019).
  49. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017).
  50. A. Y. Kitaev, arXiv:quant-ph/9511026.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 191604– Published 5 November, 2026
  • Received 17 September 2025
  • Revised 25 June 2026
  • Accepted 10 September 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. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation