Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Creation of Wave Packets for Quantum Chromodynamics on Quantum Computers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that wave packets of pions and nucleons can be created from the interacting vacuum of three-dimensional two-flavor QCD using Haag-Ruelle creation operators implemented with LCU, with a success probability that vanishes…

desk verdict A serious theory proposal for hadron wave-packet preparation via Haag-Ruelle and LCU, genuinely new in scope but with the load-bearing overlap assumption unproven; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13069 v2 pith:P2GNUVXD submitted 2025-01-22 quant-ph hep-lathep-th

Matteo Turco , Gonçalo M. Quinta , João Seixas , Yasser Omar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-lathep-th
keywords wavepacketpreparationquantumsimulationofQCDHaag-Ruellescatteringtheorylinearcombinationunitarieslatticegaugestaggeredfermionsinitialstatehadrononcomputers
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

Real-time scattering simulations in quantum field theory need initial states made of two wave packets of stable particles moving on the vacuum, and for confined theories like QCD these states are hard to prepare. This paper extends the Haag-Ruelle scattering-theory approach to lattice gauge theories and, for the first time, to three-dimensional two-flavor QCD, giving explicit creation operators for pions and nucleons. The operators act on the interacting vacuum and are implemented on a digital quantum computer with the linear-combination-of-unitaries technique; the preparation succeeds upon measuring an ancilla with probability that vanishes polynomially, not exponentially, in the lattice spacing, the wave-packet energy, and the momentum narrowness. If the required vacuum preparation and spectral knowledge are available, this supplies the missing initial-state ingredient for simulating hadron collisions step by step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Haag-Ruelle creation operator $\hat a^\dagger_\psi$, a spacetime-smeared interpolating operator $\hat O(x)$ satisfying $\langle \alpha|\hat O|\Omega\rangle \ne 0$ for the one-particle state to be created. The interpolator selects the particle species by symmetry quantum numbers, while the Schwartz function $\psi$, a smooth rapidly decaying function whose Fourier transform has support only on the corresponding mass hyperboloid, cuts off multiparticle contamination. On the lattice the creation operator becomes a finite sum over even lattice translations and time samples, implemented by LCU with an ancillary register; the same LCU decomposition handles the non-unitary interpolators, whose norm constants $C$ enter the success probability. The other essential piece is the continuum-to-staggered-fermion identification of Eqs. (72)--(76), which maps pion and nucleon interpolators into gauge-invariant products of staggered fields and link operators, and the generalized superfast encoding, extended to odd operators, which maps those products to qubit strings.

What would settle it

On a small three-dimensional lattice with two-flavor staggered fermions, compute the overlaps $\langle \alpha|\hat O_\pi(x)|\Omega\rangle$ and $\langle \alpha|\hat O_p(x)|\Omega\rangle$ for the pion and proton interpolators of Section V.B: if the overlap is zero, or decays exponentially in $1/a$ instead of polynomially, then the creation operators cannot prepare the claimed wave packets. A cheaper proxy is to check the two-point correlation function for a one-particle pole with the expected quantum numbers on a modest-size lattice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that wave packets of composite hadrons can be produced directly from the interacting vacuum of lattice QCD, without adiabatically deforming free-theory states. The construction uses Haag-Ruelle creation operators $\hat a^\dagger_\psi = \sum_x a^d \int dt\, \psi(t,x) e^{iHt} \hat O(x) e^{-iHt}$, where $\hat O$ is an interpolating operator carrying the particle's quantum numbers and $\psi$ is smeared to have momentum support only on the one-particle mass hyperboloid. For two-flavor QCD in three dimensions the paper gives explicit interpolators for pions and nucleons, made gauge invariant by inserting link operators, translated from staggered fermions into Dirac spinors through the identification of Eqs. (72)--(76), and encoded as qubit operators using the generalized superfast encoding extended to odd fermionic operators. The resulting success probability is estimated as $\rho \sim Z/(C^2 \delta_p^d \bar E)$ with spin-one-half modifications, vanishing polynomially; the main quantitative cost appears in the constants $C$, with pion interpolators giving $C\sim 432/a^3$ and proton interpolators $C\sim 11500/a^{4.5}$, and the paper notes that particle identification in staggered fermions is reliable only near the continuum limit up to $O(a)$ errors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the lattice operators written down for pions and nucleons really do overlap with the corresponding one-particle states (equation (2)); if that overlap is zero or strongly suppressed after the staggered-fermion mapping, the created wave packets are not the intended hadrons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pion-pion and proton-proton collisions could be simulated step by step, not just as S-matrix amplitudes, once two such wave packets are placed on the vacuum.
  • The success probability vanishes only polynomially in lattice spacing, wave-packet energy, and momentum narrowness, so the preparation cost stays manageable in principle rather than being exponentially suppressed.
  • Preparing $n$ wave packets requires on average $O(1/\rho^n)$ repetitions of vacuum preparation and creation, with $n=2$ the relevant case; amplitude amplification can quadratically improve this.
  • The same construction extends to other particles and other lattice formulations; with Wilson fermions the authors estimate the interpolator constants would be $C_\pi = 12/a^3$ and $C_p = 24/a^{4.5}$, reducing the overhead.
  • The only theoretical limitation stated is the presence of massless particles, since an isolated mass shell is needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the decisive numerical test of the method is to compute $\langle \alpha|\hat O|\Omega\rangle$ for the staggered pion and nucleon interpolators on small lattices; if these overlaps vanish or decay exponentially toward the continuum, the polynomial-success-probability claim fails even though the formalism is intact.
  • Editorial inference: because the cost is dominated by repeated vacuum preparation, the practical feasibility of this initial-state strategy will be set by the quality of vacuum preparation and spectral inputs, so progress on those two problems translates directly into progress on scattering simulation.
  • Editorial inference: the large constants for nucleons ($C\sim 11500/a^{4.5}$) suggest that a first demonstration is more likely with mesons or with the one-dimensional SU(3) toy model, where the same building blocks appear with much smaller $C$ values.
  • Editorial inference: if staggered-fermion spin-isospin mixing proves too severe near current lattice sizes, porting the interpolators to a Wilson-fermion or loop-string-hadron formulation, which the paper says is straightforward, would cut the overhead by orders of magnitude.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a strategy for preparing hadronic wave packets from the interacting vacuum in lattice gauge theories, based on Haag-Ruelle creation operators implemented via linear combinations of unitaries (LCU). It extends the authors' previous work [56] from scalar field theories to particles of general spin, with detailed treatments of U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) gauge theories in one spatial dimension, and a proposal for two-flavor QCD in three dimensions using Kogut-Susskind staggered fermions. The paper gives staggered-to-Dirac field identifications, gauge-invariant interpolating operators for pions and nucleons, qubit encodings (including an extension of generalized superfast encoding to odd fermionic operators), and estimates of LCU norms and success probabilities. The central claim is that wave-packet preparation succeeds with a probability that vanishes only polynomially in the lattice spacing, wave-packet energy, and momentum narrowness.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would supply a concrete initial-state preparation protocol for real-time QCD scattering simulation on digital quantum computers, a genuinely useful step. The paper is commendably explicit about several technical building blocks: the spin-1/2 adaptation of the Haag-Ruelle construction, the LCU decomposition of interpolating operators in one-dimensional gauge theories, and the extension of generalized superfast encoding to odd operators. It also states its limitations honestly, including the staggered-fermion spin-isospin mixing. However, the efficiency claim is conditional on two ingredients that are not established in the manuscript: the nonzero overlap of the lattice interpolating operators with the intended one-particle states, and the exact values of the LCU norms entering the success probability. These are load-bearing for the abstract's polynomial-scaling statement, and they need concrete support before the claimed significance is realized.

major comments (3)
  1. [V.B] Section V.B, Eqs. (90)-(91) and condition (2): the nonzero overlap of the staggered, gauge-link-inserted interpolators with the physical pion and nucleon one-particle states is asserted rather than established. Since the success probability in Eq. (9) is proportional to the squared norm of a†_ψ|Ω⟩, a vanishing or exponentially suppressed overlap would make the preparation fail or become exponentially hard, and the authors' own admission that staggered fermions mix spin and isospin makes this a real possibility. The manuscript should supply a concrete argument or calculation, for example a tree-level or lattice-perturbative evaluation of ⟨α|O_π,p|Ω⟩, or existing spectroscopy results for the exact staggered operators, before the polynomial-efficiency claim can be accepted.
  2. [V.B] The quoted LCU norms, C_π± ∼ 432/a^3 and C_p ∼ 11500/a^4.5, are stated only approximately and without the full coefficient sums required by Eq. (8). These numbers enter α in Eq. (9) and hence the success probability, so the claimed polynomial scaling of ρ in a and Ē is not independently verifiable from the manuscript. In particular, the conclusion that the staggered-fermion overheads are ∼10^4 for pions and ∼10^8 for nucleons does not follow from the displayed C values. A full expansion of the complete gauge-invariant interpolating operators, or a reproducible counting argument, is needed.
  3. [V.A/V.B] The complete gauge-invariant staggered interpolating operators are never written out: Eq. (92) gives only one baryonic link-insertion term, and the text states that the full expressions are 'extremely cumbersome'. Because these operators are the central object of the algorithm and determine both the overlap condition (2) and the LCU norms, the manuscript should provide them explicitly or give a precise constructive algorithm, rather than leaving their structure implicit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (10)] The symbol δ_p is introduced as the linear size of the momentum-space support of ψ̃, but the precise normalization and the dependence of the exponent d on the spatial dimension are not stated; please define δ_p in terms of ψ̃ so that the scaling can be checked.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (18)] The even-site summation with step 2 is introduced for one-dimensional theories, but it is not stated whether the same even-site restriction applies to the three-dimensional interpolators constructed in Section V; please clarify.
  3. [Section IV, Eqs. (65)-(67)] The ζ_αβ(x) strings for SU(3) are said to be 'analogous' to the SU(2) case, but they are not written out; since they are needed to reproduce the C values and to implement the operators, they should be defined explicitly in the text or in an appendix.
  4. [Section V.A, Eqs. (70)-(76)] The phase factors A(y) and D(x,z) are introduced without explanation; a brief derivation of why this particular choice yields the continuum Hamiltonian in Eq. (77) would improve readability and allow readers to assess the O(a) ambiguities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QCD wave-packet protocol extends a published scalar-field method and imports explicit interpolating operators, and the claimed polynomial scaling is an asymptotic estimate, not a quantity fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Haag-Ruelle creation operator in Eq. (1) is the definition of the construction, and the success probability in Eq. (9) is the normalized overlap of the created state, so the abstract's polynomial-vanishing claim is an asymptotic estimate for that overlap, not an input. Equations (6) and (10), giving the number of time samples and the scaling rho ~ Z/(C^2 delta_p^d Ebar), are cited from the authors' earlier PRX Quantum article [56] for scalar theories; because that earlier work's stated assumptions (scalar fields, mass gap) do not include the QCD result claimed here, the citation is independent support rather than a circular self-reference. The QCD interpolators in Eqs. (90)-(91) are imported from conventional lattice literature [77-80] and mapped through the staggered identification in Eqs. (72)-(76), and the constants C_pi ~ 432/a^3 and C_p ~ 11500/a^4.5 are stated as approximate combinatorial estimates of the LCU weight, not fitted to reproduce any target outcome. The main logical gap, namely that the overlap condition (2), <alpha|O|Omega> != 0, is assumed rather than proved for the staggered gauge-link-inserted operators, with Section V.B conceding spin-isospin mixing and O(a) particle-identification errors, is an unverified premise and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to the premise. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the same authors is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no known result is merely relabeled. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data or chosen ad hoc to force the stated results. Physical scales such as lattice spacing, quark mass, coupling, and wave-packet shape are inputs of the problem, and the constants C are derived from the LCU expansion while renormalization factors are left symbolic. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or mediators. Its central assumptions are the mass gap, nonzero interpolator overlaps, efficient vacuum preparation, spectral knowledge, and the imported discretization bounds.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A mass gap and an isolated one-particle mass hyperboloid exist for the stable hadrons.
    The Haag-Ruelle method (Section II) requires a clean one-particle sector separated from the multiparticle continuum; the paper states the only theoretical limitation is the presence of massless particles. For lattice QCD this is standard physics but not rigorously proved in the continuum and only approximate in finite volume.
  • domain assumption The interpolating operators have non-vanishing overlap with the target one-particle states, as in Eq. (2).
    This defines an interpolating operator, but for QCD the operators are imported from continuum lattice literature and mapped to staggered fermions; Section V.B concedes that spin and isospin mix and identification is only valid near the continuum limit up to O(a) corrections.
  • domain assumption An efficient preparation of the interacting vacuum is available.
    Stated in the abstract and Section II as an assumption; the paper does not provide the vacuum-preparation circuit. If vacuum preparation is not efficient, the overall protocol is not efficient.
  • domain assumption The mass spectrum, meaning particle content and masses, is known.
    Section II requires the smearing function to have support only on the one-particle hyperboloid, so masses must be known in advance. This is listed as one of the three required ingredients in Section VI.
  • domain assumption The time-discretization bound in Eq. (6) is valid.
    Eq. (6) is stated without derivation and is imported from Ref. [56]; it controls the LCU circuit depth and hence the resource estimate.
  • domain assumption The continuum-to-staggered identification in Eqs. (72-76) gives the correct two-flavor Dirac theory up to O(a), and gauge-link insertions restore gauge invariance without creating unwanted states.
    The identification is checked only at the free-field level in Section V.A; that the interacting interpolators inherit the correct quantum numbers is assumed. Section V.B notes symmetry mixing and O(a) ambiguities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Creation of Wave Packets for Quantum Chromodynamics on Quantum Computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2GNUVXD

@misc{pith2026250113069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Creation of Wave Packets for Quantum Chromodynamics on Quantum Computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2GNUVXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13069}
}
read the original abstract

One of the most ambitious goals of quantum simulation of quantum field theory is the description of scattering in real time, which would allow not only for computation of scattering amplitudes, but also for studying the collision process step by step. The initial state of such simulation is made of typically two wave packets of stable particles moving on top of the vacuum, whose preparation is difficult. Here we extend a previous work to create wave packets of a general kind of particle from the vacuum in lattice gauge theories in various dimensions, including three-dimensional QCD for the first time. The conceptual foundation of this approach is the Haag-Ruelle scattering theory, and the only theoretical limitation is given by the presence of massless particles. In the context of digital quantum computation, the wave packet creation from the vacuum is implemented with the technique known as LCU (linear combination of unitaries). The preparation is performed successfully upon measuring an ancillary register with a certain probability, which vanishes polynomially in the lattice spacing, the wave-packet energy and the momentum narrowness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Two examples of the joint energy-momentum spectrum in continuum quantum field theory. The blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Identification of the lattice fields with the continuum fields. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Another identification of the lattice fields with the continuum fields. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: GSE graph for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On a trapped-ion quantum computer, the authors prepared multiple meson wave packets and simulated their early-time collisions in a 1+1D Z2 lattice gauge theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [56]

    R. C. Farrell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and J. Preskill, Digital quantum simulations of scattering in quantum field theories using w states (2025), arXiv:2505.03111 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    For a more detailed discussion see also [83]

    F ermions We first introduce some general facts about fermions. For a more detailed discussion see also [83]. Con- sider a system ofN independent fermionic modes with annihilation operatorsa1, . . . , aN satisfying the usual anticommutation relations {aI , aJ } = 0, {aI , a† J } = δIJ . (A.1) It is useful to introduce the Majorana modes as γ+ I = aI + a† ...

  3. [2]

    For example, we could have ⟨α1| ˆO|Ω⟩ ̸= 0, ⟨α2| ˆO|Ω⟩ = 0, (3) 4 m 2m p1 p0 ˜ψ (a) A theory with only one particle of massm

    If m2 is close to m1, close to 2m1, or is larger than2m1, then the operator ˆO must be chosen to be an interpolating operator only for one kind of particle, and not for the other. For example, we could have ⟨α1| ˆO|Ω⟩ ̸= 0, ⟨α2| ˆO|Ω⟩ = 0, (3) 4 m 2m p1 p0 ˜ψ (a) A theory with only one particle of massm. nucleons pions p1 p0 (b) Two-flavoured QCD. FIG. 1:...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    We also require that each vertex be of even degree, and we assign an orientation to each edge

    Even operators in the GSE To describe the GSE, we put theN fermionic modes on a connected graph withN vertices. We also require that each vertex be of even degree, and we assign an orientation to each edge. The graph can be chosen freely to suite a specific problem we want to address. For example, we might consider a HamiltonianH and a graph G = (V, E) su...

  5. [4]

    Given a graph, a specific orientation of the edges gives one of many possible stabilized subspaces

    Odd operators in the GSE In this section we show how to extend the generalized superfast encoding described in the previous section to also represent odd fermionic operators. Given a graph, a specific orientation of the edges gives one of many possible stabilized subspaces. Each of them can be identified either with the even or the odd subspace of the fer...

  6. [5]

    In the one-dimensional case, the GSE essentially reduces to the Jordan-Wigner transformation

    GSE for hypercubic lattices In this work we use the GSE forSU (N ) gauge theories on hypercubic lattices with one flavour of fermions, which means that we haveN independent fermionic modes on each site. In the one-dimensional case, the GSE essentially reduces to the Jordan-Wigner transformation. Ind dimensions we useN + d − 1 qubits per lattice site. As a...

  7. [6]

    Buyens, J

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states for gauge field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 091601 (2014), arXiv:1312.6654 [hep-lat]. 18

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Rigobello, S

    M. Rigobello, S. Notarnicola, G. Magnifico, and S. Montangero, Entanglement generation in(1+1) D QED scattering processes, Physical Review D104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.114501 (2021), arXiv:2105.03445 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 87 references
  1. [8]

    Marshall, R

    K. Marshall, R. Pooser, G. Siopsis, and C. Weedbrook, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory using continuous variables, Physical Review A92, 10.1103/physreva.92.063825 (2015), arXiv:1503.08121 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [9]

    F. M. Surace and A. Lerose, Scattering of mesons in quantum simulators, New Journal of Physics23, 062001 (2021), arXiv:2011.10583 [cond-mat]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    P. I. Karpov, G. Y. Zhu, M. P. Heller, and M. Heyl, Spatiotemporal dynamics of particle collisions in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L032001 (2022), arXiv:2011.11624 [cond-mat]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Vovrosh, R

    J. Vovrosh, R. Mukherjee, A. Bastianello, and J. Knolle, Dynamical hadron formation in long-range interacting quantum spin chains, PRX Quantum3, 10.1103/prxquantum.3.040309 (2022), arXiv:2204.05641 [cond-mat]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Belyansky, S

    R. Belyansky, S. Whitsitt, N. Mueller, A. Fahimniya, E. R. Bennewitz, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, High-energy collision of quarks and mesons in the Schwinger model: From tensor networks to circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091903 (2024), arXiv:2307.02522 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, A. Schuckert, A. Lerose, F. M. Surace, R. Belyansky, W. Morong, D. Luo, A. De, K. S. Collins, O. Katz, C. Monroe, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, Simulating meson scattering on spin quantum simulators (2024), arXiv:2403.07061 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Fauseweh and J.-X

    B. Fauseweh and J.-X. Zhu, Digital quantum simulation of non-equilibrium quantum many-body systems, Quantum Information Processing 20, 10.1007/s11128-021-03079-z (2021), arXiv:2009.07375 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications15, 2123 (2024)

    B. Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications15, 2123 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    M. J. Savage, Quantum computing for nuclear physics (2023), arXiv:2312.07617 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    L. H. Delgado-Granados, T. J. Krogmeier, L. M. Sager-Smith, I. Avdic, Z. Hu, M. Sajjan, M. Abbasi, S. E. Smart, P. Narang, S. Kais, A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum algorithms and applications for open quantum systems, Chem. Rev.125, 1823 (2025), ...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Toshio, Y

    R. Toshio, Y. Akahoshi, J. Fujisaki, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii, Practical quantum advantage on partially fault-tolerant quantum computer, Phys. Rev. X15, 021057 (2025), arXiv:2408.14848 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Lüscher, Volume dependence of the energy spectrum in massive quantum field theories, Communications in Mathematical Physics 105, 153 (1986)

    M. Lüscher, Volume dependence of the energy spectrum in massive quantum field theories, Communications in Mathematical Physics 105, 153 (1986)

    1986

  14. [21]

    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, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Rinaldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Sant...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Avkhadiev, P

    A. Avkhadiev, P. E. Shanahan, and R. D. Young, Accelerating lattice quantum field theory calculations via interpo- lator optimization using noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing, Physical Review Letters124, 080501 (2020), arXiv:1908.04194 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Avkhadiev, P

    A. Avkhadiev, P. E. Shanahan, and R. D. Young, Strategies for quantum-optimized construction of interpolat- ing operators in classical simulations of lattice quantum field theories, Physical Review D 107, 054507 (2023), arXiv:2209.01209 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    N. Klco, M. J. Savage, and J. R. Stryker, SU(2) non-abelian gauge field theory in one dimension on digital quantum computers, Physical Review D101, 074512 (2020), arXiv:1908.06935 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mueller, A

    N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Deeply inelastic scattering structure functions on a hybrid quantum computer, Phys. Rev. D102, 016007 (2020), arXiv:1908.07051 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kreshchuk, W

    M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beauchemin, and P. J. Love, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation, Physical Review A105, 10.1103/physreva.105.032418 (2022), arXiv:2002.04016 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Echevarria, I

    M. Echevarria, I. Egusquiza, E. Rico, and G. Schnell, Quantum simulation of light-front parton correlators, Physical Review D 104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.014512 (2021), arXiv:2011.01275 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    W. Qian, R. Basili, S. Pal, G. Luecke, and J. P. Vary, Solving hadron structures using the basis light-front quan- tization approach on quantum computers, Physical Review Research4, 10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043193 (2022), arXiv:2112.01927 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Davoudi, N

    Z. Davoudi, N. Mueller, and C. Powers, Towards quantum computing phase diagrams of gauge theories with thermal pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 081901 (2023), arXiv:2208.13112 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. Zhang, R. Lewis, A. Jahanpour, J. F. Haase, and C. A. Muschik, SU(2) hadrons on a quantum com- puter via a variational approach, Nature Communications12, 10.1038/s41467-021-26825-4 (2021), arXiv:2102.08920 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M. L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Simulating one- dimensional Quantum Chromodynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033184 (2023), arXiv:2207.03473 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    C. F. Kane, D. M. Grabowska, B. Nachman, and C. W. Bauer, Overcoming exponential volume scaling in quantum simulations of lattice gauge theories (2022), arXiv:2212.04619 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    H.Lamm, S.Lawrence,andY.Yamauchi(NuQS),Partonphysicsonaquantumcomputer,PhysicalReviewResearch 2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013272 (2020), arXiv:1908.10439 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Mariani, S

    A. Mariani, S. Pradhan, and E. Ercolessi, Hamiltonians and gauge-invariant Hilbert space for lattice Yang-Mills-like theories with finite gauge group, Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.114513 (2023), arXiv:2301.12224 [quant-ph]. 19

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Gustafson, Y

    E. Gustafson, Y. Zhu, P. Dreher, N. M. Linke, and Y. Meurice, Real-time quantum calculations of phase shifts using wave packet time delays, Physical Review D104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.054507 (2021), arXiv:2103.06848 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Preparations for quantum simulations of Quantum Chromodynamics in1 + 1dimensions. I. Axial gauge, Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.054512 (2023), arXiv:2207.01731 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Preparations for quantum simulations of Quantum Chromodynamics in1 + 1dimensions. II. Single-baryon β-decay in real time, Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.054513 (2023), ar...

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Schuhmacher, G.-X

    J. Schuhmacher, G.-X. Su, J. J. Osborne, A. Gandon, J. C. Halimeh, and I. Tavernelli, Observation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2505.20387 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [39]

    C. W. Bauer, B. Nachman, and M. Freytsis, Simulating collider physics on quantum computers using effective field theories, Physical Review Letters127, 10.1103/physrevlett.127.212001 (2021), arXiv:2102.05044 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin,...

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lehmann, K

    H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, and W. Zimmermann, Zur formulierung quantisierter feldtheorien, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) 1, 205 (1955)

    1955

  35. [43]

    Haag, Quantum field theories with composite particles and asymptotic conditions, Phys

    R. Haag, Quantum field theories with composite particles and asymptotic conditions, Phys. Rev.112, 669 (1958)

    1958

  36. [44]

    Ruelle, On asymptotic condition in quantum field theory, Helvetica Physica Acta35, 147 (1962)

    D. Ruelle, On asymptotic condition in quantum field theory, Helvetica Physica Acta35, 147 (1962)

    1962

  37. [45]

    Duncan,The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory(Oxford University Press, 2012)

    A. Duncan,The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory(Oxford University Press, 2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    T. Li, W. K. Lai, E. Wang, and H. Xing (QuNu Collaboration), Scattering amplitude from quantum computing with reduction formula, Phys. Rev. D109, 036025 (2024), arXiv:2301.04179 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kreshchuk, J

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

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum computation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories, Quantum Info. Comput.14, 1014–1080 (2014), arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for fermionic quantum field theories (2014), arXiv:1404.7115 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    G. K. Brennen, P. Rohde, B. C. Sanders, and S. Singh, Multiscale quantum simulation of quantum field theory using wavelets, Physical Review A92, 10.1103/physreva.92.032315 (2015), arXiv:1412.0750 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Barata, N

    J. Barata, N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Single-particle digitization strategy for quantum compu- tation of a ϕ4 scalar field theory, Physical Review A103, 10.1103/physreva.103.042410 (2021), arXiv:2012.00020 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. Liu, Z. Li, H. Zheng, X. Yuan, and J. Sun, Towards a variational Jordan–Lee–Preskill quantum algorithm, Machine Learning: Science and Technology3, 045030 (2022), arXiv:2109.05547 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable quantum simulations of scattering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits (2024), arXiv:2411.02486 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    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. D109, 114510 (2024), arXiv:2401.08044 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Davoudi, C.-C

    Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Scattering wave packets of hadrons in gauge theories: Preparation on a quantum computer, Quantum8, 1520 (2024), arXiv:2402.00840v3 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Davoudi, C.-C

    Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory (2025), arXiv:2505.20408 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Y. Chai, Y. Guo, and S. Kühn, Towards quantum simulation of meson scattering in a Z2 lattice gauge theory (2025), arXiv:2505.21240 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Y. Chai, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, V. R. Pascuzzi, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, Entanglement production from scattering of fermionic wave packets: a quantum computing approach (2023), arXiv:2312.02272 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Turco, G

    M. Turco, G. M. Quinta, J. Seixas, and Y. Omar, Quantum simulation of bound state scattering, PRX Quantum 5, 020311 (2024), arXiv:2305.07692 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Raychowdhury and J

    I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Solving Gauss’s law on digital quantum computers with loop-string-hadron digitization, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033039 (2020), arXiv:1812.07554v3 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Raychowdhury and J

    I. Raychowdhury and J. R. Stryker, Loop, string, and hadron dynamics inSU (2) Hamiltonian lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D101, 114502 (2020), arXiv:1912.06133v2 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [64]

    S. V. Kadam, I. Raychowdhury, and J. R. Stryker, Loop-string-hadron formulation of anSU (3) gauge theory with dynamical quarks, Phys. Rev. D107, 094513 (2023), arXiv:2212.04490v2 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Mathew and I

    E. Mathew and I. Raychowdhury, Protecting gauge symmetries in the the dynamics ofSU (3) lattice gauge theories (2024), arXiv:2404.12158 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [66]

    T. V. Zache, F. Hebenstreit, F. Jendrzejewski, M. K. Oberthaler, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, Quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories using Wilson fermions, Quantum Science and Technology3, 034010 (2018), arXiv:1802.06704 [cond-mat]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Bergner, M

    G. Bergner, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi, and A. Schäfer, Toward QCD on quantum computer: orbifold lattice approach, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 234 (2024), arXiv:2408.13687 [quant-ph]. 20

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Hanada, S. Matsuura, F. Nori, E. Rinaldi, and A. Schäfer, A universal framework for the quantum simulation of yang-mills theory (2024), arXiv:2411.13161 [quant-ph]

    2024

  60. [69]

    Bachmann, W

    S. Bachmann, W. Dybalski, and P. Naaijkens, Lieb–Robinson bounds, Arveson spectrum and Haag–Ruelle scattering theory for gapped quantum spin systems, Annales Henri Poincaré17, 1737 (2016), arXiv:1412.2970 [math-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Digitization of scalar fields for quantum computing, Physical Review A99, 10.1103/phys- reva.99.052335 (2019), arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Y. Tong, V. V. Albert, J. R. McClean, J. Preskill, and Y. Su, Provably accurate simulation of gauge theories and bosonic systems, Quantum6, 10.22331/q-2022-09-22-816 (2022), arXiv:2110.06942 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [72]

    A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Quantum algorithm for systems of linear equations with exponentially improved dependence on precision, SIAM Journal on Computing46, 1920 (2017), arXiv:1511.02306 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum amplitude amplification and estimation, inQuantum computation and information (Washington, DC, 2000), Contemp. Math., Vol. 305 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002) pp. 53–74, arXiv:quant-ph/0005055

    2000 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Capitani, Lattice perturbation theory, Physics Reports382, 113–302 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0211036v2

    S. Capitani, Lattice perturbation theory, Physics Reports382, 113–302 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0211036v2

    2003 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Kan and Y

    A. Kan and Y. Nam, Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics and Electrodynamics on a universal quantum computer (2022), arXiv:2107.12769 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Banks, L

    T. Banks, L. Susskind, and J. Kogut, Strong-coupling calculations of lattice gauge theories: (1 + 1)-dimensional exercises, Phys. Rev. D13, 1043 (1976)

    1976

  68. [77]

    Hamer, Lattice model calculations forSU (2) Yang-Mills theory in 1 + 1 dimensions, Nuclear Physics B121, 159 (1977)

    C. Hamer, Lattice model calculations forSU (2) Yang-Mills theory in 1 + 1 dimensions, Nuclear Physics B121, 159 (1977)

    1977

  69. [78]

    Susskind, Lattice fermions, Phys

    L. Susskind, Lattice fermions, Phys. Rev. D16, 3031 (1977)

    1977

  70. [79]

    Banks, S

    T. Banks, S. Raby, L. Susskind, J. Kogut, D. R. T. Jones, P. N. Scharbach, and D. K. Sinclair, Strong-coupling calculations of the hadron spectrum of quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D15, 1111 (1977)

    1977

  71. [80]

    Setia, S

    K. Setia, S. Bravyi, A. Mezzacapo, and J. D. Whitfield, Superfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033033 (2019), arXiv:1810.05274 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Rhodes, M

    M. Rhodes, M. Kreshchuk, and S. Pathak, Exponential improvements in the simulation of lattice gauge theories using near-optimal techniques (2024), arXiv:2405.10416 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Leinweber, W

    D. Leinweber, W. Melnitchouk, D. Richards, A. Williams, and J. Zanotti, Baryon spectroscopy in lattice QCD, in Lattice Hadron Physics(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005) p. 71–112, arXiv:nucl-th/0406032

    2005 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Basak, R

    S. Basak, R. Edwards, R. Fiebig, G. Fleming, U. Heller, C. Morningstar, D. Richards, I. Sato, and S. Wallace, Group-theoretical construction of extended baryon operators, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements140, 287–289 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0409093

    2005 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Burch, C

    T. Burch, C. Gattringer, L. Y. Glozman, C. Hagen, C. B. Lang, and A. Schäfer (BGR [Bern-Graz-Regensburg] Collaboration), Excited hadrons on the lattice: Mesons, Phys. Rev. D73, 094505 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0601026

    2006 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Burch, C

    T. Burch, C. Gattringer, L. Y. Glozman, C. Hagen, D. Hierl, C. B. Lang, and A. Schäfer (BGR [Bern-Graz- Regensburg] Collaboration), Excited hadrons on the lattice: Baryons, Phys. Rev. D74, 014504 (2006), arXiv:hep- lat/0604019

    2006

  77. [86]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Scalable circuits for preparing ground states on digital quan- tum computers: The Schwinger model vacuum on 100 qubits, PRX Quantum5, 020315 (2024), arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [87]

    D’Anna, M

    M. D’Anna, M. K. Marinkovic, and J. C. P. Barros, Adiabatic state preparation for digital quantum simulations of QED in 1 + 1D (2024), arXiv:2411.01079 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [88]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation, Annals of Physics298, 210 (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0003137v1

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.