Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

A second-order renormalized Yukawa Hamiltonian in light-front coordinates produces finite bound-state masses and parton distributions, and block-encodes at roughly the same cost as the bare Hamiltonian.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The renormalized light-front Yukawa Hamiltonian gives convergent bound-state masses and parton distributions, with quantum block-encoding costs only about 50% higher than the bare Hamiltonian.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A real step for the RGPEP program, but the headline spectrum fails the paper's own mass-renormalization condition. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.14837 v2 pith:DJLU53FL submitted 2025-08-20 hep-th nucl-thquant-ph

The Renormalized Yukawa Hamiltonian: Spectrum, Parton Distribution Functions, and Resource Estimates for Quantum Simulation

Carter M. Gustin , Kamil Serafin , William A. Simon , Alexis Ralli , Gary R. Goldstein , Peter J. Love This is my paper
classification hep-th nucl-thquant-ph PACS 11.10.Hi11.10.Kk03.67.Ac
keywords light-front quantizationRGPEPYukawa modelmass renormalizationDLCQbound state spectrumparton distribution functionsquantum simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Light-front (front form) Yukawa theory is the simplest relativistic model of nuclear binding, but its canonical Hamiltonian is ill-defined: as the harmonic resolution grows, the bare mass spectrum runs away to negative M². The paper claims this is cured by the Renormalization Group Procedure for Effective Particles carried to second order in the coupling, with counterterms fixed by requiring the single-fermion mass to equal the Lagrangian mass parameter. The renormalized spectrum extrapolates to finite two-fermion bound states — M²_ff = 1.616 m² at g = 1 and 3.628 m² at g = 0.3, both below the 4m² free-particle threshold — and yields parton distribution functions from the same Hamiltonian. On the quantum-computing side, the renormalized Hamiltonian has about 50% more terms asymptotically, but each term is no more expensive to block-encode, so quantum simulation costs stay comparable to the bare theory.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the RGPEP-renormalized Yukawa Hamiltonian — truncated at O(g²) with counterterms fixed by mass renormalization conditions — produces a finite, convergent mass spectrum in the front form, where the bare DLCQ Hamiltonian gives eigenvalues that run away to negative M² as the harmonic resolution K grows. Solving the RGPEP flow perturbatively softens interaction vertices with the form factor exp(−(Q⁻/λ)²) and generates second-order exchange, loop, and counterterm contributions; the regulator Λ is then removable. Extrapolating to K→∞ yields M²_ff = 1.616 m² at g = 1 and 3.628 m² at g = 0.3, both below the free two-fermion threshold 4m², i.e., genuine binding, with

What carries the argument

The engine is the Renormalization Group Procedure for Effective Particles (RGPEP), a unitary similarity flow H(λ) = U†HU generated by G = [H₀, H], solved perturbatively order by order in the coupling g. To O(g) the flow multiplies each interaction vertex by a form factor exp(−(Q⁻/λ)²), exponentially damping large energy transfers; to O(g²) it produces fermion- and boson-exchange terms, loop integrals δm² and δµ², and counterterms Xδm² and Xδµ². The counterterms are fixed by renormalization conditions — the dressed single-fermion and single-boson masses equal the Lagrangian parameters — and this choice of finite parts, not the flow alone, is what cancels the Λ → ∞ divergences and makes the sp

Load-bearing premise

The O(g²) perturbative truncation of the RGPEP expansion is accurate at the couplings studied, including g = 1 — the paper's own numbers show the extrapolated single-fermion mass drifting to 0.33 m² instead of the 1.0 m² it is renormalized to, signaling that the truncation is breaking down at larger coupling.

What would settle it

Compute the O(g³) RGPEP Hamiltonian for the same Yukawa model and re-run the Q = 1 and Q = 2 extrapolations at g = 1: if M²_f moves back toward 1.0 m² and M²_ff = 1.616 m² shifts by more than the fit uncertainty, the second-order truncation — not the renormalization scheme — produced the reported binding. Repeating with a boost-invariant generator would distinguish generator artifacts from truncation effects.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Block-encoding the renormalized Hamiltonian costs, in the worst case, roughly 50% more than the bare one at fixed harmonic resolution, because renormalization adds terms without making individual terms more expensive.
  • The renormalized spectrum extrapolates to finite masses below the 4m² threshold at both couplings studied, so binding survives the K→∞ limit and the model is usable as a testbed for light-front hadronic-structure simulation.
  • The mass renormalization condition fixes counterterms without experimental input, making the procedure predictive for other sectors and observables of the same model, such as the computed parton distribution functions.
  • Parton distribution functions from the lowest Q = 2 bound state show the two fermions sharing momentum near x = 0.5 with a small bosonic tail at low x, computable from the same renormalized Hamiltonian used for the spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the RGPEP expansion were carried to O(g³), the coupling itself would renormalize and the single-fermion sector would likely return toward the M²_f = m² condition; the Q = 1 drift at g = 1 (0.33 m² versus 1.0 m²) is the most direct discriminator between truncation error and scheme error.
  • The counterterm-fixing strategy used here — renormalization conditions on single-particle masses instead of fits to data — is model-agnostic and should transplant directly to gauge models such as the Schwinger model or SU(2) Yang-Mills, where the light-front vacuum is no longer trivial.
  • The roughly 50% overhead is a term-count bound for block-encoding-based simulation; Trotter-style algorithms, whose cost depends on the Hamiltonian norm and locality structure rather than term count, could show a markedly different bare-versus-renormalized cost ratio.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies the Renormalization Group Procedure for Effective Particles (RGPEP) to the front-form Yukawa Hamiltonian in 1+1 dimensions, truncated at O(g^2). The effective Hamiltonian is discretized with DLCQ, counterterms are fixed by mass renormalization conditions m^2(g)=m^2 and mu^2(g)=mu^2(0), and the resulting spectra, parton distribution functions, and LOBE block-encoding resource estimates are computed. The central claim is that the renormalized Hamiltonian yields finite, convergent mass spectra and that the cost of block-encoding the renormalized Hamiltonian is comparable to that of the bare Hamiltonian. The paper provides explicit formulas for the second-order effective vertices, the counterterms, and the discretized Hamiltonian, and it presents extrapolated fermion and fermion-fermion masses at g=1 and g=0.3.

Significance. If the numerical implementation were internally consistent, this would be a useful proof-of-principle: an explicit O(g^2) RGPEP Hamiltonian for a relativistic field theory, carried through to DLCQ spectra, PDFs, and quantum-resource estimates. The analytic expressions for the effective vertices and counterterms, and the LOBE resource comparison, are concrete and potentially reusable. However, the central validation of the renormalization scheme fails: the Q=1 eigenvalue that is supposed to equal the input fermion mass is not close to m^2 at the couplings used for the headline results. The paper's own convergence plot also indicates perturbative breakdown at large g. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether these issues can be corrected or the claims restricted to accurately controlled couplings; as it stands, the quantitative spectrum claims are not supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Fig. 8 and Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The renormalization condition in Eq. (C4) is m^2(g)=m^2, with m=1 throughout. Appendix C explicitly states that this condition 'can be verified in the numerical results in Fig. 8.' But Fig. 8 reports extrapolated Q=1 eigenvalues M^2_f=0.33 m^2 at g=1 and 0.896 m^2 at g=0.3. The g=1 value deviates by 67% from the condition that the counterterms were designed to enforce. This is an internal inconsistency in the central numerical check, not a cosmetic issue. Since the Q=1 sector is the mass-renormalization probe, the failure implies that the O(g^2) truncation and/or the K to infinity extrapolation is not under control at the couplings used. The two-fermion binding energies, including the g=1 result M^2_ff=1.616 m^2, are therefore not supported by the computation as presented. The authors need to show the Q=1 eigenvalue at the same K values and with the same extrapolation used for the Q=2 se
  2. [Section V, Fig. 12] Fig. 12 shows M^2 decreasing as g increases, and the text states that this 'shows the perturbative solution to the RGPEP equation breaking down at higher g.' The largest coupling in that figure is g=1, which is also the coupling used for the primary g=1 spectrum and PDF results. This is a direct admission that the O(g^2) approximation is not reliable at the headline coupling. The paper needs a quantitative convergence test: for example, an estimate of the size of the omitted O(g^3) terms, a comparison of O(g^2) and lower-order predictions, or a clear statement of the maximum g for which the truncation error is controlled. Without such a test, the g=1 bound-state mass and its comparison with the non-relativistic Yukawa result are not justified.
  3. [Sections IV.D, V, VII] The renormalization scale lambda is treated as a free parameter, but no criterion is given for the choices lambda=10^6 in the spectrum calculations (Fig. 8) and lambda=10^{7/2} in the resource estimates (Figs. 15,16). Figs. 9 and 13 show that the spectrum depends strongly on lambda in the range shown, with only an apparent plateau at large lambda. Since physical observables in a fully renormalized theory should be lambda-independent, the residual lambda dependence is a systematic uncertainty of the truncated calculation. The paper should either explain how lambda is chosen (e.g., a plateau criterion), propagate the lambda dependence as an error bar on M^2, or demonstrate that the headline results are insensitive to lambda over a wide range.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 8] The extrapolation M^2 = a + b/K + c/K^2 is used to obtain the quoted infinite-resolution limits, but the figure shows only a handful of points (1/K up to about 0.4, so K as small as 2.5) and the uncertainties from the fit are not propagated into the final quoted binding energies. Given that the Q=1 extrapolation already fails the renormalization condition by a large margin at g=1, the extrapolation ansatz itself needs validation: e.g., a stability study with respect to the number of K values included, or a comparison with a different extrapolation form. This is load-bearing because all quantitative claims in Section V depend on these extrapolations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The author name 'Glazek' is corrupted as 'G/suppress lazek' in several references (e.g., Refs. [50,52,59,61,64,67]).
  2. [Section VII, Figs. 15 and 16] The bosonic cutoff Omega is introduced in the figure captions but is never defined in the body of the paper. Its value (Omega=3) and its role in truncating the Hilbert space or the Hamiltonian should be specified, and the same applies to the spectrum calculations if Omega is used there.
  3. [Section IV.D, Eq. (41)] The notation for the contraction is unclear: the definition appears to identify AB with AB - :AB:, which is circular. A standard notation, e.g., an overline on the contracted pair, would be clearer.
  4. [Section V, Figs. 8 and 9] Fig. 9 uses Kmax=20 while Fig. 8 shows extrapolations to K to infinity. The relationship between Kmax, the smallest K used in the fits, and the reported extrapolated values should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Abstract and Section VII] The abstract says the cost to block-encode the renormalized Hamiltonian is 'comparable' to the bare Hamiltonian, while the body reports a 50% asymptotic increase in the number of terms and correspondingly higher resource counts in all metrics. 'Comparable' should be quantified to avoid overstating the result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: counterterms are fixed by on-shell mass conditions, while the ff binding energies, PDFs, and resource estimates are independent outputs of the fixed renormalized Hamiltonian.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the renormalized Hamiltonian H(λ) is obtained by solving the RGPEP equations order by order; Appendix B states the ODEs and their solutions for f(s;Q−) and F2(s), so the effective Hamiltonian is not imported solely through self-citation. The counterterms Xδm2 and Xδµ2 are fixed by the on-shell renormalization conditions m^2(g)=m^2 and μ^2(g)=μ^2(0) (Appendix C, Eqs. C3–C4 and C12–C13), which is a standard renormalization scheme rather than a hidden fit. The Q=1 eigenvalue is explicitly described in the Fig. 8 caption as a check of the renormalization condition ('to show how well the renormalization condition has been satisfied'), not as a prediction, so no fitted input is renamed a prediction. The headline two-fermion masses (M^2_ff = 1.616 m^2 at g=1 and 3.628 m^2 at g=0.3) and the PDFs come from diagonalizing the same fixed Hamiltonian in the {|ff>,|ffb>} sector; no parameter is tuned to reproduce them, and they are benchmarked against an independent non-relativistic 1D Yukawa calculation. The resource estimates are internal comparisons between the bare and renormalized Hamiltonians using term-count scalings and LOBE circuits. There is heavy use of companion papers [62] and [71], but the load-bearing equations are reproduced in this manuscript, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via those citations. A separate, non-circular concern is that Fig. 8 reports extrapolated Q=1 eigenvalues of 0.33 m^2 (g=1) and 0.896 m^2 (g=0.3), which do not satisfy the imposed renormalization condition m^2(g)=m^2; this indicates that the O(g^2) truncation is not under quantitative control at these couplings. That is a validity/correctness risk, not a circularity of the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on the perturbative truncation at O(g^2), the choice of renormalization scale lambda, counterterms fixed by mass conditions, and the Fock-space truncation. The free parameters are the manually chosen lambda and fit/truncation parameters; no new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Renormalization scale lambda = 10^6 for spectrum and PDFs; 10^{7/2} for block-encoding metrics
    Chosen by hand; Figure 9 shows the spectrum changes with lambda over several orders of magnitude, so the choice is a free parameter affecting the reported masses.
  • 1/K extrapolation coefficients (a,b,c) in M^2 = a + b/K + c/K^2 = g=1: M^2_f=0.33, M^2_ff=1.616; g=0.3: M^2_f=0.896, M^2_ff=3.628
    The reported converged masses are the fitted a coefficients of a quadratic-in-1/K fit to the computed eigenvalues; the fit form is assumed.
  • Fock sector truncation = sectors {|f>,|fb>} and {|ff>,|ffb>} for extrapolation; particle cutoff np=4
    The extrapolated spectrum depends on which Fock sectors are retained; Fig. 10 shows additional sectors change the spectrum at fixed K, and no convergence study over sector count is given for the extrapolated values.
  • Bosonic momentum cutoff Omega = Omega = 3 (Figs. 15 and 16)
    Fixed for resource estimates; affects T gate counts, non-Clifford rotations, and qubit usage.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The RGPEP flow with generator G=[H0,H(s)] defines a unitary transformation that preserves the spectrum of the Hamiltonian.
    Standard RGPEP formalism invoked in Section IV.A, following [50,51,62].
  • domain assumption The effective Hamiltonian may be expanded perturbatively in the coupling and truncated at O(g^2).
    Invoked in Section IV.A and Appendix B; the paper uses this truncation to derive all numerical results.
  • domain assumption With counterterms fixed by the mass renormalization conditions m^2(g)=m^2 and mu^2(g)=mu^2(g=0), the regulator Lambda can be removed and observables become finite.
    Renormalization scheme described in Section IV.C and Appendix C; the numerical results assume this removal works.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-lying spectrum is captured by a small set of Fock sectors and the particle-number cutoff np=4.
    Used in Section V; Fig. 10 shows the spectrum shifts when the basis is enlarged, so this truncation is a non-trivial assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The K to infinity limit can be estimated by fitting M^2 = a + b/K + c/K^2.
    Used for all reported converged masses in Section V; no independent check of the fit form is provided.
  • domain assumption The non-relativistic equal-time eigenvalue E maps to the light-front eigenvalue via E = (M^2-(m1+m2)^2)/(2(m1+m2)).
    Eq. (62) in Section V and Appendix A, cited to thesis [65].

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Renormalized Yukawa Hamiltonian: Spectrum, Parton Distribution Functions, and Resource Estimates for Quantum Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJLU53FL

@misc{pith2026250814837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Renormalized Yukawa Hamiltonian: Spectrum, Parton Distribution Functions, and Resource Estimates for Quantum Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJLU53FL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14837}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We apply the Renormalization Group Procedure for Effective Particles (RGPEP) to the front form Yukawa Hamiltonian, yielding a renormalized (effective) Hamiltonian, accurate up to second order in the coupling strength. Subsequently, we examine the spectrum and parton distribution functions produced by the renormalized Hamiltonian, and show that the addition of counterterms leads to finite results. Resource estimates for quantum simulation are calculated for a single `Ladder Operator Block Encoding' (LOBE), and show that the cost to block encode the renormalized Hamiltonian is comparable to block encoding the bare Hamiltonian.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14837 by Alexis Ralli, Carter M. Gustin, Gary R. Goldstein, Kamil Serafin, Peter J. Love, William A. Simon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows that the lowest eigenvalues in the charge Q = 0, 1, and 2 sectors of the bare Hamiltonian tend to￾wards negative M2 values. This arises because the canon￾ical Hamiltonian is ill-defined. This problem should be solved by a proper renormalization procedure. The discretized effective Hamiltonian in Eq. 60 can be numerically diagonalized in a Fock basis to give the renormalized spectrum, valid up to seco… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The costs for the bare Hamiltonians are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows the eigenvalues at fixed g while varying µ. For larger g, one expects the number of bound states to increase. The limit µ → 0 doesn’t recover the 1D Coulomb potential, as one gets in 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The boson renormalization is slightly different. We define µ 2 (g) ≡ M2 (λ, g) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    O ( g0) Solution AtO ( g0) , the solution to the RGPEP equation is: H(0)(λ) =H0, (34) showing that the free Hamiltonian is unaffected by the RGPEP unitary evolution

  2. [2]

    6, modified by a form factor : f(λ;Q−) =e−(Q−/λ) 2 (35) such that H(1)(λ) = ∫ 1,2,3 4πδ(Q+)f(λ;Q−)r(Λ;Q−) × : ¯ψ(−q1)ψ(q2)ϕ(q3) : ≡H ¯ψψϕ(λ)

    O ( g1) Solution TheO (g) solution of the RGPEP equation is the same as the first order interaction term in the canonical Hamil- tonian, Eq. 6, modified by a form factor : f(λ;Q−) =e−(Q−/λ) 2 (35) such that H(1)(λ) = ∫ 1,2,3 4πδ(Q+)f(λ;Q−)r(Λ;Q−) × : ¯ψ(−q1)ψ(q2)ϕ(q3) : ≡H ¯ψψϕ(λ). (36) For a 3-point vertex, f(λ;Q−) =e−(q− 1 +q− 2 +q− 3 ) 2 /λ2 (37) is th...

  3. [3]

    The second order effective Hamiltonian can be written as: H(2)(λ) =H ¯ψϕϕψ (λ) +Hfe(λ) +Hbe(λ) +Hδm2(λ) +Hδµ2(λ) +Xδm2 +Xδµ2

    O ( g2) Solution AtO ( g2) , the effective Hamiltonian has contributions from terms in the canonical Hamiltonian and new terms. The second order effective Hamiltonian can be written as: H(2)(λ) =H ¯ψϕϕψ (λ) +Hfe(λ) +Hbe(λ) +Hδm2(λ) +Hδµ2(λ) +Xδm2 +Xδµ2. (39) The first term in Eq. 39 is analogous to Eq. 36 in that the H ¯ψϕϕψ terms present in the canonical...

  4. [4]

    Nuclei and Hadrons with Quantum computers (NuHaQ)

    :. (44) R is a function of the relevant momenta in the interaction 8 FIG. 5: Contracted Terms Two example exchange terms arising from solving the RGPEP equation at O ( g2) . (a) An example contraction of two external bo- son legs contributing toHbe(λ). Here,Q− =q− 1 +q− 2 +q− 3 andQ′− =q− 1′+q− 2′+q− 3′. The contraction leads to a Dirac delta δ ( q+ 3 +q+...

  5. [5]

    Gell-Mann and F

    M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Bound states in quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. 84, 350 (1951)

    1951

  6. [6]

    Lin and H

    H.-W. Lin and H. B. Meyer, eds., Lattice QCD for Nu- clear Physics (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  8. [8]

    Lin, Overview of Lattice Results for Hadron Struc- ture, Few Body Syst

    H.-W. Lin, Overview of Lattice Results for Hadron Struc- ture, Few Body Syst. 64, 58 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Davoudi, E

    Z. Davoudi, E. T. Neil, C. W. Bauer, T. Bhattacharya, T. Blum, P. Boyle, R. C. Brower, S. Catterall, N. H. Christ, V. Cirigliano, G. Colangelo, C. DeTar, W. Det- mold, R. G. Edwards, A. X. El-Khadra, S. Gottlieb, R. Gupta, D. C. Hackett, A. Hasenfratz, T. Izubuchi, W. I. Jay, L. Jin, C. Kelly, A. S. Kronfeld, C. Lehner, H.-W. Lin, M. Lin, A. T. Lytle, S. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    A. S. Kronfeld, T. Bhattacharya, T. Blum, N. H. Christ, C. DeTar, W. Detmold, R. Edwards, A. Hasen- fratz, H.-W. Lin, S. Mukherjee, K. Orginos, R. Brower, V. Cirigliano, Z. Davoudi, B. J´ oo, C. Jung, C. Lehner, S. Meinel, E. T. Neil, P. Petreczky, D. G. Richards, A. Bazavov, S. Catterall, J. J. Dudek, A. X. El-Khadra, M. Engelhardt, G. T. Fleming, J. Gie...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Davoudi, W

    Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, P. Shanahan, K. Orginos, A. Parre˜ no, M. J. Savage, and M. L. Wagman, Nuclear matrix elements from lattice qcd for electroweak and beyond-standard-model processes, Physics Reports 900, 1–74 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Forms of relativistic dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392 (1949)

    1949

  13. [13]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Physics Reports 301, 299 (1998)

    1998

  14. [14]

    Pauli and S

    H.-C. Pauli and S. J. Brodsky, Solving field theory in one space and one time dimension, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1993 (1985)

    1993

  15. [15]

    Pauli and S

    H.-C. Pauli and S. J. Brodsky, Discretized light-cone quantization: Solution to a field theory in one space and one time dimension, Physical Review D 32, 2001 (1985)

    2001

  16. [16]

    J. P. Vary, H. Honkanen, J. Li, P. Maris, S. J. Brodsky, A. Harindranath, G. F. de Teramond, P. Sternberg, E. G. Ng, and C. Yang, Hamiltonian light-front field theory in a basis function approach, Phys. Rev. C81, 035205 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    Jia and J

    S. Jia and J. P. Vary, Basis light front quantization for the charged light mesons with color singlet nambu–jona- lasinio interactions, Phys. Rev. C 99, 035206 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    W. Qian, S. Jia, Y. Li, and J. P. Vary, Light mesons within the basis light-front quantization framework, Phys. Rev. C 102, 055207 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Y. Li, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Quarkonium as a rela- tivistic bound state on the light front, Phys. Rev. D 96, 016022 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Wiecki, Y

    P. Wiecki, Y. Li, X. Zhao, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Basis light-front quantization approach to positronium, Phys. Rev. D 91, 105009 (2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

  23. [23]

    R. P. Feynman, Quantum mechanical computers, Foun- dations of Physics 16, 507 (1986)

    work page 1986

  24. [24]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  25. [25]

    D. A. Meyer, From quantum cellular automata to quan- tum lattice gases, Journal of Statistical Physics 85, 551–574 (1996)

    work page 1996

  26. [26]

    B. M. Boghosian and W. Taylor, Quantum lattice-gas models for the many-body schr¨ odinger equation, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics C 08, 705–716 (1997)

    work page 1997

  27. [27]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm pro- viding exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Physical Review Letters 83, 5162–5165 18 (1999)

    work page 1999

  28. [28]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    M. Suzuki, Generalized trotter’s formula and systematic approximants of exponential operators and inner deriva- tions with applications to many-body problems, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 51, 183 (1976)

    1976

  30. [30]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential prod- uct formulas of higher orders, in Quantum annealing and other optimization methods (Springer, 2005) pp. 37–68

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    Lie, Theorie der transformationsgruppen, Vol

    S. Lie, Theorie der transformationsgruppen, Vol. 3 (Teub- ner, 1893)

    work page

  32. [32]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of opera- tors, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  33. [33]

    Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08309 (2022)

    L. Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08309 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Poulin, A

    D. Poulin, A. Kitaev, D. S. Steiger, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Quantum algorithm for spectral measurement with a lower gate count, Physical review letters 121, 010501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian Simulation by Qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies, Science 309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  37. [37]

    Wiese, Towards quantum simulating qcd, Nuclear Physics A 931, 246 (2014)

    U.-J. Wiese, Towards quantum simulating qcd, Nuclear Physics A 931, 246 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum com- puting, Chemical Reviews 119, 10856–10915 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, 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. Ri- naldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Santiago, M. J. Savage, I. Sid- diqi, G. Siopsis, D. Van Zanten, N. Wiebe, Y. Ya...

    2023

  40. [40]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quan- tum field theories, Science 336, 1130 (2012), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1217069

    doi:10.1126/science.1217069 2012

  41. [41]

    P´ erez-Salinas, J

    A. P´ erez-Salinas, J. Cruz-Martinez, A. A. Alhajri, and S. Carrazza, Determining the proton content with a quantum computer, Physical Review D 103, 034027 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Echevarria, I

    M. Echevarria, I. Egusquiza, E. Rico, and G. Schnell, Quantum simulation of light-front parton correlators, Physical Review D 104, 014512 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Mueller, A

    N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Deeply in- elastic scattering structure functions on a hybrid quan- tum computer, Physical Review D 102, 016007 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    Byrnes and Y

    T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 73, 022328 (2006)

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    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, Nature communi- cations 12, 6499 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations of fundamental physics (2025), arXiv:2503.23233 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Kreshchuk, W

    M. Kreshchuk, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, H. Beau- chemin, and P. J. Love, Quantum simulation of quantum field theory in the light-front formulation, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032418 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Light-Front Field Theory on Current Quantum Computers

    M. Kreshchuk, S. Jia, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, J. P. Vary, and P. J. Love, Light-Front Field Theory on Current Quantum Computers, Entropy 23, 597 (2021), arXiv:2009.07885 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Kreshchuk, S

    M. Kreshchuk, S. Jia, W. M. Kirby, G. Goldstein, J. P. Vary, and P. J. Love, Simulating Hadronic Physics on NISQ devices using Basis Light-Front Quantization, Phys. Rev. A 103, 062601 (2021), arXiv:2011.13443 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    K. G. Wilson, Ab initio quantum chemistry: A source of ideas for lattice gauge theorists, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 17, 82 (1990)

    work page 1990

  51. [51]

    W. Qian, R. Basili, S. Pal, G. Luecke, and J. P. Vary, Solving hadron structures using the basis light-front quantization approach on quantum computers, Physical Review Research 4, 043193 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Yukawa, On the Interaction of Elementary Particles I, Proc

    H. Yukawa, On the Interaction of Elementary Particles I, Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jap. 17, 48 (1935)

    work page 1935

  53. [53]

    Machleidt, Phenomenology and Meson Theory of Nu- clear Forces, in Handbook of Nuclear Physics , edited by I

    R. Machleidt, Phenomenology and Meson Theory of Nu- clear Forces, in Handbook of Nuclear Physics , edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (springer, 2022) pp. 1–53

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    S. D. G/suppress lazek, Renormalization group procedure for effec- tive particles in light-front hamiltonian dynamics, Nu- clear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 90, 175 (2000), non-perturbative QCD and Hadron phenomenol- ogy

    work page 2000

  55. [55]

    S. D. Glazek, Perturbative formulae for relativistic in- teractions of effective particles (2012), arXiv:1204.4760 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    S. D. G/suppress lazek and K. G. Wilson, Renormalization of hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. D 48, 5863 (1993)

    work page 1993

  57. [57]

    Szpigel and R

    S. Szpigel and R. J. Perry, The similarity renormalization group, arXiv preprint hep-ph/0009071 (2000)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  58. [58]

    Serafin, M

    K. Serafin, M. G´ omez-Rocha, J. More, and S. D. G/suppress lazek, Approximate Hamiltonian for baryons in heavy-flavor QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 964 (2018), arXiv:1805.03436 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    G´ omez-Rocha, J

    M. G´ omez-Rocha, J. More, and K. Serafin, Baryon Masses Estimate in Heavy Flavor QCD: An Effective Par- ticle Approach to Hadron Spectra, Few Body Syst. 64, 44 (2023), arXiv:2305.06728 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    S. D. G/suppress lazek, M. G´ omez-Rocha, J. More, and K. Serafin, Renormalized quark–antiquark Hamiltonian induced by a gluon mass ansatz in heavy-flavor QCD, Phys. Lett. B 773, 172 (2017), arXiv:1705.07629 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Kuang, K

    Z. Kuang, K. Serafin, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary (BLFQ), All-charm tetraquark in front form dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094028 (2022), arXiv:2201.06428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Serafin, M

    K. Serafin, M. G´ omez-Rocha, J. More, and S. D. G/suppress lazek, Dynamics of heavy quarks in the fock space, Physical Review D 109, 016017 (2024)

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    B. H. Allen and R. J. Perry, Systematic renormalization in hamiltonian light-front field theory, Physical Review D 58, 10.1103/physrevd.58.125017 (1998)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.125017 1998

  64. [64]

    R. D. Kylin, B. H. Allen, and R. J. Perry, System- atic renormalization in hamiltonian light-front field the- 19 ory: The massive generalization, Physical Review D 60, 10.1103/physrevd.60.067704 (1999)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.60.067704 1999

  65. [65]

    B. H. Allen and R. J. Perry, Glueballs in a hamiltonian light-front approach to pure-glue qcd, Physical Review D 62, 10.1103/physrevd.62.025005 (2000)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.025005 2000

  66. [66]

    Serafin, C

    K. Serafin, C. M. Gustin, and P. J. Love, Second- order renormalized hamiltonian of yukawa theory (2025), arXiv:2508.02972 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    K. G. Wilson, Model Hamiltonians for Local Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. 140, B445 (1965)

    work page 1965

  68. [68]

    S. D. G/suppress lazek, Elementary example of exact effective- hamiltonian computation, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014021 (2021)

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Serafin, Bound states of heavy quarks in renormal- ization group procedure for QCD , Ph.D

    K. Serafin, Bound states of heavy quarks in renormal- ization group procedure for QCD , Ph.D. thesis, Ph. D. thesis, University of Warsaw (2019)

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    Qian, Relativistic bound states within Basis Light- Front Quantization, Ph.D

    W. Qian, Relativistic bound states within Basis Light- Front Quantization, Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State U. (main), Iowa State U. (main) (2020)

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    G/suppress lazek, A

    S. G/suppress lazek, A. Harindranath, S. Pinsky, J. Shigemitsu, and K. Wilson, Relativistic bound-state problem in the light-front yukawa model, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1599 (1993)

    work page 1993

  72. [72]

    Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    J. Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    D. E. Soper, Parton distribution functions, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 53, 69–80 (1997)

    work page 1997

  74. [74]

    Hornbostel, S

    K. Hornbostel, S. J. Brodsky, and H.-C. Pauli, Light- cone-quantized qcd in 1+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3814 (1990)

    work page 1990

  75. [75]

    W. A. Simon, C. M. Gustin, K. Serafin, A. Ralli, G. R. Goldstein, and P. J. Love, Ladder operator block- encoding (2025), arXiv:2503.11641 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    A. M. Childs, Universal computation by quantum walk, Physical review letters 102, 180501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  77. [77]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Gily´ en, and S. Jeffery, The power of block-encoded matrix powers: Improved regression techniques via faster hamiltonian simulation, in 46th In- ternational Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2019) (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz- Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, 2019) pp. 33–1

    work page 2019

  78. [78]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, in Pro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (2019) pp. 193–204

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    J. M. Martyn, Z. M. Rossi, A. K. Tan, and I. L. Chuang, Grand unification of quantum algorithms, PRX Quan- tum 2, 040203 (2021)

    2021

  80. [80]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Encoding elec- tronic spectra in quantum circuits with linear t complex- ity, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041015 (2018)

    2018

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.