pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24896 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ✦ hep-lat · quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Tightening energy-based boson truncation bound using Monte Carlo-assisted methods

Jinghong Yang , Christopher F. Kane , Shabnam Jabeen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 06:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat quant-ph
keywords boson truncationenergy-based boundMonte Carlolattice quantum field theoryquantum simulationscalar field theoryU(1) gauge theorytruncation error
0
0 comments X

The pith

New Monte Carlo method tightens energy-based bounds on boson truncation errors in quantum field theory simulations.

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

This paper develops a combined analytic and Monte Carlo approach to tighten the energy-based bound on errors from truncating infinite-dimensional boson Hilbert spaces to finite ones. The original bound is often overly conservative at large lattice volumes, requiring unnecessarily large cutoffs. The new method reduces the volume dependence of the cutoff, achieving improvements linear in volume for some theories and square-root in others. This is shown explicitly for a scalar field in 1+1 dimensions and a U(1) gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions. Controlling these truncation errors more tightly is essential for obtaining reliable results from quantum simulations of field theories without excessive computational overhead.

Core claim

The authors derive an improved analytic form of the energy-based boson truncation bound and supplement it with a Monte Carlo numerical procedure to compute tightened bounds for specific states. When applied to low-energy states in (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory and (2+1)-dimensional U(1) gauge theory, this yields substantially smaller truncation cutoffs whose volume scaling is mitigated, often reducing the required cutoff by a factor proportional to the volume or its square root.

What carries the argument

The Monte Carlo-assisted numerical estimation of tightened energy-based truncation bounds, paired with an improved analytic derivation.

If this is right

  • The required boson truncation cutoff becomes much less sensitive to increasing lattice volume.
  • Quantum simulations can use smaller local Hilbert space dimensions while maintaining controlled errors.
  • The method applies without additional theory-specific tuning beyond the stated procedure.
  • Results are demonstrated for both scalar and gauge theories in low dimensions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach may extend to higher-dimensional or more complex field theories where volume dependence is a major obstacle.
  • Reduced cutoffs could lower the qubit count needed for quantum hardware implementations of these simulations.
  • Comparing the Monte Carlo estimates against exact diagonalization on small volumes would validate the absence of biases.

Load-bearing premise

The Monte Carlo-based numerical procedure accurately estimates the tightened bounds without introducing uncontrolled biases for generic low-energy states.

What would settle it

Exact computation of the truncation error for a known low-energy state on a small lattice and direct comparison to the bound predicted by the new Monte Carlo method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24896 by Christopher F. Kane, Jinghong Yang, Shabnam Jabeen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A schematic representation of the energy scales in the system. The vacuum energy view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison between energy scales. (a) the ground state energy view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Estimation of the required truncation cutoff view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between energy scales. (a) the ground state energy view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Estimation of the required truncation cutoff view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Estimation of the required truncation cutoff for view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison between energy scales. (a) the ground state energy view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Estimation of the relative scale of truncation view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. An illustration of a lattice system of view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Minimum eigenvalue for view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: We compute the expectation values view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Extrapolation towards zero temporal lattice spacing view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Extrapolation towards zero temporal lattice spacing view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum simulation offers a promising framework for quantum field theory calculations. Obtaining reliable results, however, requires careful characterization of systematic uncertainties. One important source is the boson truncation error, which arises from representing infinite-dimensional local Hilbert spaces with finite-dimensional ones. Previous studies have examined this problem from several perspectives. In particular, Jordan, Lee, and Preskill (arXiv:1111.3633) derived an energy-based bound applicable to generic low-energy states across a broad class of field theories. However, this approach often yields overly conservative bounds, especially at large volumes. In this work, we introduce a new methodology that significantly tightens the energy-based boson truncation bound through two complementary advances: an improved analytic derivation and a Monte Carlo-based numerical procedure. We demonstrate the method in (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory and (2+1)-dimensional U(1) gauge theory in the dual formalism. Our approach substantially mitigates the volume dependence of the required truncation cutoff, achieving reductions nearly proportional to the volume in some cases and to the square root of the volume in others.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a methodology to tighten the Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based boson truncation bound via an improved analytic derivation combined with a Monte Carlo-assisted numerical procedure. The approach is demonstrated on (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory and (2+1)-dimensional U(1) gauge theory in the dual formalism, with claims of substantially reduced volume dependence in the required truncation cutoff (nearly proportional to volume in some cases and to sqrt(volume) in others).

Significance. If the Monte Carlo procedure is shown to be unbiased and volume-scalable, the result would meaningfully advance quantum simulation of lattice QFTs by lowering the Hilbert-space dimension needed for controlled truncation errors at large volumes. The dual analytic-plus-numerical strategy and explicit demonstrations in both scalar and gauge theories are concrete strengths that could reduce systematic uncertainties in practical simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Monte Carlo procedure] The Monte Carlo numerical procedure (described in the section on the MC-assisted tightening) must include explicit validation that sampling of low-energy configurations captures the worst-case truncation error without bias from rare events. In gauge theories, finite-sample variance grows with volume and could erase the claimed linear or sqrt(V) reductions; the current presentation does not address this control.
  2. [Analytic derivation and results] The improved analytic derivation is presented as building on the JLP bound, but the manuscript does not quantify how much of the headline volume improvement comes from the analytic step versus the MC step. A direct comparison (e.g., bound tightness with analytic improvement alone versus full MC-assisted result) is needed to establish that the numerical component is load-bearing and not merely confirmatory.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation for the tightened bound (e.g., how the MC estimate enters the final expression) should be defined once and used consistently across sections and figures.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the volume-scaling plots should state the exact observable used to measure truncation error and the number of Monte Carlo samples employed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and validations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Monte Carlo procedure] The Monte Carlo numerical procedure (described in the section on the MC-assisted tightening) must include explicit validation that sampling of low-energy configurations captures the worst-case truncation error without bias from rare events. In gauge theories, finite-sample variance grows with volume and could erase the claimed linear or sqrt(V) reductions; the current presentation does not address this control.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the Monte Carlo sampling procedure is necessary to confirm it captures worst-case truncation errors without bias from rare events. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection with convergence tests, including direct comparisons against exact diagonalization on small volumes and statistical analyses demonstrating that the sampled low-energy configurations reliably bound the truncation error. For the gauge theory, we include explicit scaling of the finite-sample variance with volume and show that it remains sub-dominant to the reported sqrt(V) improvement, preserving the claimed reduction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Analytic derivation and results] The improved analytic derivation is presented as building on the JLP bound, but the manuscript does not quantify how much of the headline volume improvement comes from the analytic step versus the MC step. A direct comparison (e.g., bound tightness with analytic improvement alone versus full MC-assisted result) is needed to establish that the numerical component is load-bearing and not merely confirmatory.

    Authors: We appreciate the request to separate the contributions of the analytic and Monte Carlo steps. The revised manuscript now includes a new figure and accompanying text that directly compares three quantities versus volume: the original JLP bound, the improved analytic bound alone, and the full MC-assisted bound. This comparison shows that the analytic improvement yields a volume-independent tightening, while the Monte Carlo procedure supplies the essential reduction in volume dependence (linear or sqrt(V)), confirming that the numerical component is load-bearing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation builds on external JLP bound via independent analytic and numerical steps

full rationale

The paper starts from the external Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based bound (arXiv:1111.3633) and applies two new, non-self-referential advances—an improved analytic derivation and a Monte Carlo sampling procedure—to tighten truncation cutoffs. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or prior result by construction; the MC step estimates worst-case truncation error over sampled low-energy configurations rather than re-deriving the bound from itself. Self-citations are absent from the load-bearing chain, and the volume-scaling improvements are presented as outcomes of the new procedure rather than definitional. The central claim therefore remains independent of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based bound to the low-energy states considered and on the assumption that Monte Carlo sampling can be performed without new systematic errors that would invalidate the tightening.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based bound applies to generic low-energy states across a broad class of field theories
    Explicitly invoked as the starting point that is being tightened.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5489 in / 1148 out tokens · 54311 ms · 2026-05-15T06:27:14.425106+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 187 canonical work pages · 28 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    As mentioned in Section VB, the maximalλmax such that ˆHU(1) −λ max 1 a g2 2 P p( ˆRp)2 is positive-semidefinite will decrease considerably fast as the lattice size increases

    Property ofM p,q matrix at large lattice size To be able to use the energy-based bound for the dual formalism U(1) gauge theory, the properties of theMp,q matrix needs to be studied. As mentioned in Section VB, the maximalλmax such that ˆHU(1) −λ max 1 a g2 2 P p( ˆRp)2 is positive-semidefinite will decrease considerably fast as the lattice size increases...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To convert this into the form of a path integral, we can insert complete bases of states at different time slices

    Path integral in scalar field theory Here, let’s first considerTr h e− ˆHT i . To convert this into the form of a path integral, we can insert complete bases of states at different time slices. Firstly, supposeT=N a0, wherea 0 can be interpreted as the temporal lattice spacing, then one can writee− ˆHT = (e− ˆHa 0)N. Then, notice that the identity operato...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Here, we will derive a path integral representation ofTr h e− ˆHU(1)T i andTr h ˆOe− ˆHU(1)T i

    Path integral in 2+1D U(1) gauge theory in dual formalism The path integral for the dual formalism of 2+1D U(1) gauge theory can be derived analogously. Here, we will derive a path integral representation ofTr h e− ˆHU(1)T i andTr h ˆOe− ˆHU(1)T i . Once these quantities are derived, the corresponding path integral for the modified HamiltonianˆH ′ B(∞),η ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories, Science336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [hep-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, Mass, 1995)

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Shankar,Quantum Field Theory and Condensed Matter: An Introduction(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017)

    R. Shankar,Quantum Field Theory and Condensed Matter: An Introduction(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)

    V. Mukhanov,Physical Foundations of Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Alibertiet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: An update, Physics Reports 1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    R. Alibertiet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: An update, Physics Reports 1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Physical Review D10, 2445 (1974)

    work page 1974

  11. [11]

    Light Hadron Masses from Lattice QCD

    Z. Fodor and C. Hoelbling, Light Hadron Masses from Lattice QCD, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 449 (2012), 29 arXiv:1203.4789 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    J. N. Guenther, Overview of the QCD phase diagram, The European Physical Journal A57, 136 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Gattringer and C

    C. Gattringer and C. B. Lang,Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice, Vol. 788 (Springer, Berlin, 2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, Y.-S. Liu, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Large-momentum effective theory, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 035005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Lattice Parton Collaboration, F. Yao, L. Walter, J.-W. Chen, J. Hua, X. Ji, L. Jin, S. Lahrtz, L. Ma, P. Mohanta, A. Schäfer, H.-T. Shu, Y. Su, P. Sun, X. Xiong, Y.-B. Yang, and J.-H. Zhang, Nucleon Transversity Distribution in the Continuum and Physical Mass Limit from Lattice QCD, Physical Review Letters131, 261901 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, and R. D. Young, Scattering processes and resonances from lattice QCD, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 025001 (2018), arXiv:1706.06223 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, K. Miura, L. Parato, K. K. Szabo, F. Stokes, B. C. Toth, C. Torok, and L. Varnhorst, Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Y. Aoki, T. Blum, S. Collins, L. D. Debbio, M. D. Morte, P. Dimopoulos, X. Feng, M. Golterman, S. Gottlieb, R. Gupta, G. Herdoíza, P. Hernandez, A. Jüttner, T. Kaneko, E. Lunghi, S. Meinel, C. Monahan, A. Nicholson, T. Onogi, P. Pe- treczky, A. Portelli, A. Ramos, S. R. Sharpe, J. N. Simone, S. Sint, R. Sommer, N. Tantalo, R. V. de Water, A. Vaquero, U. W...

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Physical Review Letters94, 170201 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0408370

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

    V. A. Goy, V. Bornyakov, D. Boyda, A. Molochkov, A. Nakamura, A. Nikolaev, and V. Zakharov, Sign problem in finite density lattice QCD, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2017, 10.1093/ptep/ptx018 (2017), arXiv:1611.08093 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx018 2017

  21. [21]

    Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics127, 103991 (2022)

    K. Nagata, Finite-density lattice QCD and sign problem: Current status and open problems, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics127, 103991 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Wiese, Towards quantum simulating QCD, Nuclear Physics A QUARK MATTER 2014,931, 246 (2014)

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

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Funcke, T

    L. Funcke, T. Hartung, K. Jansen, and S. Kühn, Review on Quantum Computing for Lattice Field Theory, inProceedings of The 39th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory — PoS(LATTICE2022)(2023) p. 228, arXiv:2302.00467 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Byrnes and Y

    T. Byrnes and Y. Yamamoto, Simulating lattice gauge theories on a quantum computer, Physical Review A73, 022328 (2006)

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    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. Santiago, M. J. Savage, I. Siddiqi, G. Siopsis, D. Van Zanten, N. Wiebe, Y. Yamauchi...

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulation of fundamental particles and forces, Nature Reviews Physics5, 420 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of Many-Body Fermi Systems on a Universal Quantum Computer, Physical Review Letters79, 2586 (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9703054

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  28. [28]

    Somma, G

    R. Somma, G. Ortiz, E. Knill, and J. Gubernatis, Quantum Simulations of Physics Problems (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/0304063

    work page arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum Algorithms for Fermionic Quantum Field Theories (2014), arXiv:1404.7115 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal Quantum Simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Nielsen and I

    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge Series on Information and the Natural Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    Kogut and L

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Physical Review D11, 395 (1975)

    work page 1975

  33. [33]

    E. J. Gustafson and H. Lamm, Toward quantum simulations of ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$ gauge theory without state prepa- ration, Physical Review D103, 054507 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    J. S. Pedernales, R. Di Candia, I. L. Egusquiza, J. Casanova, and E. Solano, Efficient Quantum Algorithm for Computing n-time Correlation Functions, Physical Review Letters113, 020505 (2014), arXiv:1401.2430 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi, General Methods for Digital Quantum Simulation of Gauge Theories, Physical Review D100, 034518 (2019), arXiv:1903.08807 [cond-mat, physics:hep-lat, physics:nucl-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Bender and E

    J. Bender and E. Zohar, A gauge redundancy-free formulation of compact QED with dynamical matter for quantum and classical computations, Physical Review D102, 114517 (2020), arXiv:2008.01349 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    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, 054507 (2021), arXiv:2103.06848 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Kreshchuk, J

    M. Kreshchuk, J. P. Vary, and P. J. Love, Simulating Scattering of Composite Particles (2023), arXiv:2310.13742 [hep-th, physics:nucl-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    T. Li, W. K. Lai, E. Wang, and H. Xing, Scattering Amplitude from Quantum Computing with Reduction Formula, 30 Physical Review D109, 036025 (2024), arXiv:2301.04179 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    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, Physical Review Letters 132, 091903 (2024), arXiv:2307.02522 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Turco, G

    M. Turco, G. M. Quinta, J. Seixas, and Y. Omar, Quantum Simulation of Bound State Scattering, PRX Quantum5, 020311 (2024), arXiv:2305.07692 [hep-lat, physics:hep-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    S. Wu, W. Du, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Efficient and precise quantum simulation of ultra-relativistic quark-nucleus scattering, Physical Review D110, 056044 (2024), arXiv:2404.00819 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    R. A. Briceño, R. G. Edwards, M. Eaton, C. González-Arciniegas, O. Pfister, and G. Siopsis, Toward coherent quantum computation of scattering amplitudes with a measurement-based photonic quantum processor, Physical Review Research 6, 043065 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Sharma, T

    S. Sharma, T. Papenbrock, and L. Platter, Scattering phase shifts from a quantum computer, Physical Review C109, L061001 (2024), arXiv:2311.09298 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    G.-X. Su, J. Osborne, and J. C. Halimeh, A Cold-Atom Particle Collider, PRX Quantum5, 040310 (2024), arXiv:2401.05489 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Y. Chai, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, V. R. Pascuzzi, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, Fermionic wave packet scattering: A quantum computing approach, Quantum9, 1638 (2025), arXiv:2312.02272 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Ingoldby, M

    J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, S. Williams, and M. Wingate, Real-Time Scattering on Quantum Computers via Hamiltonian Truncation (2025), arXiv:2505.03878 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    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]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    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, Quantum9, 1773 (2025), arXiv:2403.07061 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    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]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable Quantum Simulations of Scattering in Scalar Field Theory on 120 Qubits, Physical Review D 112, 034502 (2025), arXiv:2411.02486 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Joshi, J

    R. Joshi, J. C. Louw, M. Meth, J. J. Osborne, K. Mato, G.-X. Su, M. Ringbauer, and J. C. Halimeh, Probing Hadron Scattering in Lattice Gauge Theories on Qudit Quantum Computers (2025), arXiv:2507.12614 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Xiang, P

    D.-S. Xiang, P. Zhou, C. Liu, H.-X. Liu, Y.-W. Zhang, D. Yuan, K. Zhang, B. Xu, M. Dalmonte, D.-L. Deng, and L. Li, Real-time scattering and freeze-out dynamics in Rydberg-atom lattice gauge theory (2025), arXiv:2508.06639 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    P. Guo, P. LeVan, F. X. Lee, and Y. Zhao, Scattering phase shift in quantum mechanics on quantum computers, Physical Review D113, 054512 (2026)

    work page 2026

  57. [57]

    P. Guo, P. LeVan, F. X. Lee, and Y. Zhao, Scattering phase shift in quantum mechanics on quantum computers: Non- Hermitian systems and imaginary-time simulations (2026), arXiv:2604.00127 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Quantum simulation of baryon scattering in SU(2) lattice gauge theory

    J. Barata, J. Hormaza, Z.-B. Kang, and W. Qian, Quantum simulation of baryon scattering in SU(2) lattice gauge theory (2026), arXiv:2604.06716 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Y. Chai, Y. Guo, and S. Kühn, Simulating Meson Scattering in (1+1)D Z2Z2 Lattice Gauge Theory: Efficient Operator Construction and Quantum Circuit Implementation, PoSEPS-HEP2025, 627 (2026)

    work page 2026

  60. [60]

    Hite, Improved Fermionic Scattering for the NISQ Era (2026), arXiv:2505.00476 [quant-ph]

    M. Hite, Improved Fermionic Scattering for the NISQ Era (2026), arXiv:2505.00476 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Mueller, A

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

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Mueller, A

    N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Computing real time correlation functions on a hybrid classical/quantum computer, Nuclear Physics A1005, 121889 (2021), arXiv:2001.11145 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    H. Lamm, S. Lawrence, and Y. Yamauchi, Parton Physics on a Quantum Computer, Physical Review Research2, 013272 (2020), arXiv:1908.10439 [hep-lat, physics:hep-ph, physics:nucl-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    M. G. Echevarria, I. L. Egusquiza, E. Rico, and G. Schnell, Quantum Simulation of Light-Front Parton Correlators, Physical Review D104, 014512 (2021), arXiv:2011.01275 [cond-mat, physics:hep-lat, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    T. Li, X. Guo, W. K. Lai, X. Liu, E. Wang, H. Xing, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu, Partonic collinear structure by quantum computing, Physical Review D105, L111502 (2022), arXiv:2106.03865 [hep-ex, physics:hep-ph, physics:nucl-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    T. Li, X. Guo, W. K. Lai, X. Liu, E. Wang, H. Xing, D.-B. Zhang, and S.-L. Zhu, Exploring Light-Cone Distribution Am- plitudes from Quantum Computing, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy66, 281011 (2023), arXiv:2207.13258 [hep-ex, physics:hep-ph, physics:nucl-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    C. M. Gustin and G. Goldstein, Generalized Parton Distribution Functions via Quantum Simulation of Quantum Field Theory in Light-front Coordinates (2023), arXiv:2211.07826 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Grieninger, K

    S. Grieninger, K. Ikeda, and I. Zahed, Quasiparton distributions in massive QED2: Toward quantum computation, Physical Review D110, 076008 (2024), arXiv:2404.05112 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    T. Li, H. Xing, and D.-B. Zhang, Simulating Parton Fragmentation on Quantum Computers (2024), arXiv:2406.05683 [hep-ph, physics:nucl-th, physics:quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    M. C. Bañuls, K. Cichy, C.-J. D. Lin, and M. Schneider, Parton Distribution Functions in the Schwinger model from Tensor Network States, Physical Review D113, L011502 (2026), arXiv:2504.07508 [hep-lat]. 31

    work page arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Z.-B. Kang, N. Moran, P. Nguyen, and W. Qian, Partonic distribution functions and amplitudes using tensor network methods, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 176 (2025), arXiv:2501.09738 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Chen, Y.-T

    J.-W. Chen, Y.-T. Chen, and G. Meher, Parton Distributions on a Quantum Computer (2025), arXiv:2506.16829 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Ikeda, Z.-B

    K. Ikeda, Z.-B. Kang, D. E. Kharzeev, and W. Qian, Quantum simulation of deep inelastic scattering in the Schwinger model (2025), arXiv:2512.18062 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    B. Hall, A. Roggero, A. Baroni, and J. Carlson, Simulation of Collective Neutrino Oscillations on a Quantum Computer, Physical Review D104, 063009 (2021), arXiv:2102.12556 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    A. K. Jha and A. Chatla, Quantum studies of neutrinos on IBMQ processors, The European Physical Journal Special Topics231, 141 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Amitrano, A

    V. Amitrano, A. Roggero, P. Luchi, F. Turro, L. Vespucci, and F. Pederiva, Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulation of Collective Neutrino Oscillations, Physical Review D107, 023007 (2023), arXiv:2207.03189 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, E. Rrapaj, and P. Siwach, Quantum information and quantum simulation of neutrino physics, The European Physical Journal A59, 186 (2023), arXiv:2305.01150 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Siwach, K

    P. Siwach, K. Harrison, and A. B. Balantekin, Collective neutrino oscillations on a quantum computer with hybrid quantum-classical algorithm (2023), arXiv:2308.09123 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Chernyshev, C

    I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Quantum Magic and Computational Complexity in the Neutrino Sector (2024), arXiv:2411.04203 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Singh, Arvind, and K

    G. Singh, Arvind, and K. Dorai, Simulating Three-Flavor Neutrino Oscillations on an NMR Quantum Processor (2024), arXiv:2412.15617 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.