Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Physics inspired quantum algorithm for QCD splitting functions

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A two-qubit circuit encodes the helicity entanglement and momentum sharing produced by gluon splitting in QCD.

desk verdict The paper delivers a concrete two-qubit circuit for gluon splitting with an analytic concurrence derivation and a hardware run, but the momentum fractions rest on data calibration rather than an independent QCD mapping. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.06789 v2 pith:JN5YQ6BA submitted 2026-05-07 quant-ph hep-phhep-th

Gabriel Rouxinol , Yacine Haddad , Cenk Tüysüz , Sofia Vallecorsa , Michele Grossi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-phhep-th
keywords quantumcircuitQCDsplittingpartonshowerhelicityentanglementconcurrencegluonjetsubstructuresimulation
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

The paper builds a modular quantum circuit primitive that simulates the splitting of gluons while preserving the quantum entanglement between their helicity states. For the pure-gluon channel an exact formula for the concurrence is derived and turned into a shallow two-qubit circuit whose measurement probabilities simultaneously reproduce both the QCD entanglement and the momentum fractions between the daughter gluons. Circuit angles are fixed by fitting to LHC jet-substructure data so that the same parameters that set the concurrence also set the momentum sharing; stacking several such primitives then generates three- and four-prong momentum distributions that match experimental measurements. The three-prong circuit is executed on superconducting hardware and yields results consistent with classical simulation after standard quality cuts.

What carries the argument

Two-qubit circuit primitive for the pure-gluon splitting vertex, with rotation angles calibrated to LHC data so that measurement statistics encode both concurrence and momentum fractions.

What would settle it

A statistically significant mismatch between the three-prong momentum-fraction distribution generated by the calibrated circuit and the corresponding LHC jet-substructure measurements would show that the model fails to reproduce QCD splitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the pure-gluon channel, an analytic expression is derived for the helicity entanglement generated at the splitting vertex, quantified via the concurrence. A two-qubit circuit is constructed whose measurement outcomes encode the momentum shared between outgoing gluons while reproducing the QCD-predicted entanglement structure. Calibrating the circuit parameters to LHC jet substructure data maps reconstructed momentum-sharing fractions directly to circuit rotation angles. Composing multiple splitting primitives yields multi-prong momentum-fraction distributions validated against experimental data, and the three-prong case is executed on superconducting quantum hardware with results that, a

Load-bearing premise

The momentum-sharing fractions produced by composing multiple calibrated splitting primitives remain physics-consistent with QCD without additional corrections or artifacts introduced by the circuit approximation or the data-driven calibration step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Composing the calibrated primitives produces three- and four-prong momentum-fraction distributions that agree with experimental data.
  • The shallow three-prong circuit runs on superconducting hardware and matches simulation after standard quality cuts.
  • The framework supplies quantum-native parton-shower modules that encode quantum correlations directly at the splitting level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same primitive could be extended to quark-gluon channels while retaining the entanglement encoding.
  • Hybrid calibration against data offers a route to embed experimental constraints inside quantum simulations of QCD processes.
  • Low qubit count suggests the method may scale to more complex parton showers on near-term devices.
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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a modular quantum circuit primitive to model entanglement in QCD parton splitting, derives an analytic expression for helicity entanglement (via concurrence) in the pure-gluon channel, constructs a two-qubit circuit whose measurement outcomes encode momentum-sharing fractions, calibrates rotation angles to LHC jet substructure data, composes the primitives to generate three- and four-prong momentum-fraction distributions validated against experimental data, and executes the three-prong circuit on superconducting hardware.

Significance. If the composition of calibrated primitives preserves QCD dynamics without introducing non-QCD artifacts, the work could provide a concrete framework for quantum-native parton-shower modules that encode quantum correlations at splitting vertices. The analytic concurrence derivation and shallow-circuit hardware demonstration are notable strengths that could inform future quantum algorithms for QCD.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central mapping from circuit rotation angles to physical momentum fractions z/(1-z) is obtained by calibration to LHC jet substructure data, after which the three- and four-prong distributions are validated against data of the same type; this creates a circularity risk because agreement may reflect the fitted parameters rather than independent emergence from the QCD-predicted entanglement structure.
  2. [Hardware implementation paragraph] Hardware implementation paragraph: the superconducting-hardware run for the three-prong case confirms circuit fidelity after standard quality cuts but does not test whether repeated composition of the calibrated primitives yields physics-consistent multi-prong fractions without spurious correlations from the ansatz or calibration step.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract provides no error budgets or discussion of post-selection effects in the hardware results.
  2. Clarify the precise functional relation between measured bit-string probabilities and the momentum-sharing variable z in the two-qubit circuit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central mapping from circuit rotation angles to physical momentum fractions z/(1-z) is obtained by calibration to LHC jet substructure data, after which the three- and four-prong distributions are validated against data of the same type; this creates a circularity risk because agreement may reflect the fitted parameters rather than independent emergence from the QCD-predicted entanglement structure.

    Authors: We acknowledge the potential for circularity if calibration and validation rely on identical observables. The calibration determines rotation angles by matching the single-splitting momentum fractions z to LHC two-prong jet data, thereby anchoring the circuit to the QCD splitting functions. The subsequent validation checks whether composing multiple calibrated primitives reproduces the distinct three- and four-prong momentum-fraction distributions measured in data. This constitutes an independent test of composability and of whether the entanglement structure encoded in the circuit is preserved under repeated application. To remove ambiguity we will revise the abstract and the methods section to state explicitly that calibration uses two-prong observables while validation uses three- and four-prong observables. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Hardware implementation paragraph] Hardware implementation paragraph: the superconducting-hardware run for the three-prong case confirms circuit fidelity after standard quality cuts but does not test whether repeated composition of the calibrated primitives yields physics-consistent multi-prong fractions without spurious correlations from the ansatz or calibration step.

    Authors: The hardware execution of the three-prong circuit (already a composition of two primitives) demonstrates that the shallow circuit remains executable on present-day superconducting hardware and reproduces the classically simulated outcome distribution after standard mitigation. The test that the composed distributions remain free of spurious correlations introduced by the ansatz or calibration is performed in the classical simulation step, where the multi-prong results are compared directly to experimental data. We agree that an on-hardware verification of higher-multiplicity compositions would be desirable; however, the current demonstration is limited by available qubit count and coherence. We will add a clarifying sentence in the hardware paragraph acknowledging this scope and reiterating that physics consistency of the composition is established by the simulation-to-data comparison. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Calibration of circuit angles to LHC data makes multi-prong validation dependent on the fit

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Calibrating the circuit parameters to LHC jet substructure data maps, reconstructed momentum-sharing fractions are directly related to circuit rotation angles. Composing multiple splitting primitives yields multi-prong momentum-fraction distributions; we validate the three- and four-prong cases against experimental data and find good agreement."

    Parameters are explicitly fitted so that single-splitting momentum fractions reproduce the calibration data; the multi-prong distributions are then checked against closely related experimental data of the same type. Agreement is therefore statistically forced by the calibration step rather than emerging from the QCD-derived entanglement structure alone.

full rationale

The analytic derivation of concurrence for the gluon splitting vertex and the construction of the two-qubit circuit to reproduce it are presented as independent steps. However, the central claim that composed primitives remain physics-consistent with QCD rests on fitting rotation angles directly to jet substructure data so that measured momentum fractions match the data by construction; subsequent validation of three- and four-prong distributions against the same class of experimental data therefore tests the calibration rather than an independent prediction. This matches the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern but does not extend to the initial analytic or circuit-construction steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that a two-qubit circuit can faithfully reproduce the QCD entanglement structure once its parameters are fitted to data, and that the primitives remain composable without introducing uncontrolled errors.

free parameters (1)
  • circuit rotation angles
    Explicitly calibrated to LHC jet substructure data to map measured momentum-sharing fractions onto the circuit parameters
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The helicity entanglement structure predicted by QCD for gluon splitting can be exactly reproduced by the measurement statistics of a two-qubit quantum circuit
    Invoked when the authors state that the circuit reproduces the QCD-predicted entanglement structure

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics inspired quantum algorithm for QCD splitting functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JN5YQ6BA

@misc{pith2026260506789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics inspired quantum algorithm for QCD splitting functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JN5YQ6BA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.06789}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a modular quantum circuit primitive to model entanglement dynamics in QCD parton splitting and use it as a composable building block for data-driven, physics-consistent event generation. For the pure-gluon channel, we derive an analytic expression for the helicity entanglement generated at the splitting vertex, quantified via the concurrence, and construct a two-qubit circuit whose measurement outcomes encode the momentum shared between outgoing gluons while reproducing the QCD-predicted entanglement structure. Calibrating the circuit parameters to LHC jet substructure data maps, reconstructed momentum-sharing fractions are directly related to circuit rotation angles. Composing multiple splitting primitives yields multi-prong momentum-fraction distributions; we validate the three- and four-prong cases against experimental data and find good agreement. For the three-prong configuration, we execute the circuit on superconducting quantum hardware and obtain results consistent with simulation after standard quality cuts, enabled by the low qubit count and shallow circuit depth. This work provides a concrete framework for quantum-native parton-shower modules that encode quantum correlations at the level of splitting dynamics, and offers physics-informed ans\"atze for future quantum algorithms for QCD.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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.

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. Overview of Applications of Quantum Computing in QCD

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    A concise literature overview of quantum algorithms for QCD and collider tasks, stressing possible advantages over classical methods and NISQ hardware limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Preskill,Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,Quantum2(2018) 79

    J. Preskill,Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,Quantum2(2018) 79

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C.W. Bauer et al., Quantum Computing for High-Energy Physics: State of the Art and Challenges,PRX Quantum 5(2024) 037001

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Nachman, D

    B. Nachman, D. Provasoli, W.A. de Jong and C.W. Bauer,Quantum Algorithm for High Energy Physics Simulations,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 062001

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Bepari, S

    K. Bepari, S. Malik, M. Spannowsky and S. Williams,Towards a Quantum Computing Algorithm for Helicity Amplitudes and Parton Showers,Physical Review D103(2021) 076020

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Bepari, S

    K. Bepari, S. Malik, M. Spannowsky and S. Williams,Quantum walk approach to simulating parton showers,Physical Review D106(2022) 056002

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Bauer, S

    C.W. Bauer, S. Chigusa and M. Yamazaki,Quantum Parton Shower with Kinematics,Physical Review A109(2024) 032432

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chawdhry and M

    H.A. Chawdhry and M. Pellen,Quantum simulation of colour in perturbative quantum chromodynamics,SciPost Phys.15(2023) 205

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Jordan, K.S.M

    S.P. Jordan, K.S.M. Lee and J. Preskill,Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Field Theories, Science336(2012) 1130–1133

    work page 2012

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    García-Álvarez, J

    L. García-Álvarez, J. Casanova, A. Mezzacapo, I. Egusquiza, L. Lamata, G. Romero et al., Fermion-Fermion Scattering in Quantum Field Theory with Superconducting Circuits,Physical Review Letters114(2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Halimeh, M

    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,Communications Physics9 (2026) 67

    2026

  3. [11]

    Tagliacozzo, A

    L. Tagliacozzo, A. Celi, P. Orland, M.W. Mitchell and M. Lewenstein,Simulation of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories with Optical Lattices,Nature Communications4(2013) 2615

    2013

  4. [12]

    Silvi, E

    P. Silvi, E. Rico, M. Dalmonte, F. Tschirsich and S. Montangero,Finite-Density Phase Diagram of a(1 + 1)D Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory with Tensor Networks,Quantum1(2017) 9

    2017

  5. [13]

    Klco, J.R

    N. Klco, J.R. Stryker and M.J. Savage,SU(2)Non-Abelian Gauge Field Theory in One Dimension on Digital Quantum Computers,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 074512

    2020

  6. [14]

    Fromm, L

    M. Fromm, L. Katschke, O. Philipsen and W. Unger,Quantum computational resources for lattice QCD in the strong-coupling limit,EPJ Quant. Technol.12(2025) 92 [2406.18721]. – 17 –

    2025

  7. [15]

    Schuhmacher, L

    J. Schuhmacher, L. Boggia, V. Belis, E. Puljak, M. Grossi, M. Pierini et al.,Unravelling physics beyond the standard model with classical and quantum anomaly detection,Machine Learning: Science and Technology4(2023) 045031

    2023

  8. [16]

    Tüysüz, C

    C. Tüysüz, C. Rieger, K. Novotny, B. Demirköz, D. Dobos, K. Potamianos et al.,Hybrid Quantum Classical Graph Neural Networks for Particle Track Reconstruction,Quantum Machine Intelligence3(2021) 29

    2021

  9. [17]

    Funcke, T

    L. Funcke, T. Hartung, B. Heinemann, K. Jansen, A. Kropf, S. Kühn et al.,Studying quantum algorithms for particle track reconstruction in the LUXE experiment,Journal of Physics: Conference Series2438(2023) 012127

    2023

  10. [18]

    Crippa, L

    A. Crippa, L. Funcke, T. Hartung, B. Heinemann, K. Jansen, A. Kropf et al.,Quantum Algorithms for Charged Particle Track Reconstruction in the LUXE Experiment,Computing and Software for Big Science7(2023) 14

    2023

  11. [19]

    A.Y. Wei, P. Naik, A.W. Harrow and J. Thaler,Quantum Algorithms for Jet Clustering, Physical Review D101(2020) 094015

    2020

  12. [20]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han and M. Low,Quantum tomography at colliders: With or without decays, Phys. Lett. B868(2025) 139675 [2410.08303]

    2025

  13. [21]

    Magano, A

    D. Magano, A. Kumar, M. K¯ alis, A. Loc¯ ans, A. Glos, S. Pratapsi et al.,Quantum speedup for track reconstruction in particle accelerators,Physical Review D105(2022) 076012

    2022

  14. [22]

    Valassi, E

    A. Valassi, E. Yazgan, J. McFayden, S. Amoroso, J. Bendavid, A. Buckley et al.,Challenges in Monte Carlo Event Generator Software for High-Luminosity LHC,Computing and Software for Big Science5(2021) 12

    2021

  15. [23]

    Albrecht, A.A

    J. Albrecht, A.A. Alves, G. Amadio, G. Andronico, N. Anh-Ky, L. Aphecetche et al.,A Roadmap for HEP Software and Computing R&D for the 2020s,Computing and Software for Big Science3(2019) 7

    2019

  16. [24]

    P. Azzi, S. Farry, P. Nason, A. Tricoli, D. Zeppenfeld, R.A. Khalek et al.,Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, Dec., 2019. 10.48550/arXiv.1902.04070

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Buckley, C

    A. Buckley, C. White and M. White,Practical Collider Physics, IOP Publishing (2021), 10.1088/978-0-7503-2444-1

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and T. Sjöstrand,Parton fragmentation and string dynamics,Physics Reports97(1983) 31

    1983

  19. [27]

    Field and S

    R.D. Field and S. Wolfram,A QCD model fore+e− annihilation,Nuclear Physics B213 (1983) 65

    1983

  20. [28]

    Mildenberger, W

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J.C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang and P. Hauke,Confinement in aZ Lattice Gauge Theory on a Quantum Computer,Nature Physics21(2025) 312

    2025

  21. [29]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Blekos, G. Polykratis and S. Kühn,Realizing String Breaking Dynamics in aZ2 Lattice Gauge Theory on Quantum Hardware,Physical Review D 112(2025) 114506

    2025

  22. [30]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159 [1410.3012]. – 18 –

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. Bähr, S. Gieseke, M.A. Gigg, D. Grellscheid, K. Hamilton, O. Latunde-Dada et al., Herwig++ physics and manual,The European Physical Journal C58(2008) 639–707

    2008

  24. [32]

    Gleisberg, S

    T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, A. Schaelicke, S. Schumann and J. Winter,SHERPA 1., a proof-of-concept version,Journal of High Energy Physics2004(2004) 056–056

    2004

  25. [33]

    Ellis, W.J

    R.K. Ellis, W.J. Stirling and B.R. Webber,QCD and Collider Physics, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    Low and T

    I. Low and T. Mehen,Symmetry from entanglement suppression,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 074014

    2021

  27. [35]

    Beane, D.B

    S.R. Beane, D.B. Kaplan, N. Klco and M.J. Savage,Entanglement Suppression and Emergent Symmetries of Strong Interactions,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 102001

    2019

  28. [36]

    Collaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector,Nature633(2024) 542

    A. Collaboration,Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector,Nature633(2024) 542

    2024

  29. [37]

    E. Yazgan,Measurements of Top Quark Properties in CMS:t¯tSpin Density Matrix, Quantum Entanglement and Quantum Magic, inProceedings of The European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics — PoS(EPS-HEP2025), p. 273, Jan., 2026, DOI [2510.13743]

    2026

  30. [38]

    Florio, D

    A. Florio, D. Frenklakh, K. Ikeda, D. Kharzeev, V. Korepin, S. Shi et al.,Quantum real-time evolution of entanglement and hadronization in jet production: Lessons from the massive Schwinger model,Physical Review D110(2024) 094029

    2024

  31. [39]

    Florio, D

    A. Florio, D. Frenklakh, S. Grieninger, D.E. Kharzeev, A. Palermo and S. Shi,Thermalization from quantum entanglement: Jet simulations in the massive Schwinger model,Physical Review D112(2025) 094502

    2025

  32. [40]

    Y. Afik, F. Fabbri, M. Low, L. Marzola, J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, M.M. Altakach et al.,Quantum Information Meets High-Energy Physics: Input to the Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics,The European Physical Journal Plus140(2025) 855

    2025

  33. [41]

    Aoude, A.J

    R. Aoude, A.J. Barr, F. Maltoni and L. Satrioni,Decoherence Effects in Entangled Fermion Pairs at Colliders,Physical Review D113(2026) 076007

    2026

  34. [42]

    McGinnis,Symmetry, Entanglement, and the S-matrix,

    N. McGinnis,Symmetry, Entanglement, and the S-matrix,

  35. [43]

    McGinnis,Quantum Computational Structure ofSU(N)Scattering, Nov., 2025

    N. McGinnis,Quantum Computational Structure ofSU(N)Scattering, Nov., 2025. 10.48550/arXiv.2511.10550

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Amram, L

    O. Amram, L. Anzalone, J. Birk, D.A. Faroughy, A. Hallin, G. Kasieczka et al.,Aspen Open Jets: unlocking LHC data for foundation models in particle physics,Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.6 (2025) 030601 [2412.10504]

    2025

  37. [46]

    Guest, K

    D. Guest, K. Cranmer and D. Whiteson,Deep learning and its application to lhc physics, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science(2018) [1806.11484]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [47]

    de Oliveira, M

    L. de Oliveira, M. Kagan, L. Mackey, B. Nachman and A. Schwartzman,Jet-Images — Deep Learning Edition,Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016) 69

    2016

  39. [48]

    Qu and L

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos,Jet tagging via particle clouds,Physical Review D101(2020) . – 19 –

    2020

  40. [49]

    Komiske, E.M

    P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev and J. Thaler,Energy Flow Networks: Deep Sets for Particle Jets,Journal of High Energy Physics2019(2019) 121

    2019

  41. [50]

    Monk,Deep Learning as a Parton Shower,Journal of High Energy Physics2018(2018) 21

    J.W. Monk,Deep Learning as a Parton Shower,Journal of High Energy Physics2018(2018) 21

    2018

  42. [51]

    Y.S. Lai, D. Neill, M. Płoskoń and F. Ringer,Explainable machine learning of the underlying physics of high-energy particle collisions,Phys. Lett. B829(2022) 137055 [2012.06582]

    2022

  43. [52]

    Ghosh, X

    A. Ghosh, X. Ju, B. Nachman and A. Siodmok,Towards a deep learning model for hadronization,Physical Review D106(2022) 096020

    2022

  44. [53]

    J. Chan, X. Ju, A. Kania, B. Nachman, V. Sangli and A. Siodmok,Integrating Particle Flavor into Deep Learning Models for Hadronization,Physical Review D111(2025) 116015

    2025

  45. [54]

    J. Chan, X. Ju, A. Kania, B. Nachman, V. Sangli and A. Siodmok,Fitting a deep generative hadronization model,Journal of High Energy Physics(2023) [2305.17169]

    2023

  46. [55]

    Lloyd, M

    S. Lloyd, M. Mohseni and P. Rebentrost,Quantum algorithms for supervised and unsupervised machine learning,1307.0411

    arXiv

  47. [56]

    X.-D. Cai, D. Wu, Z.-E. Su, M.-C. Chen, X.-L. Wang, L. Li et al.,Entanglement-Based Machine Learning on a Quantum Computer,Physical Review Letters114(2015) 110504

    2015

  48. [57]

    Schuld, I

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy and F. Petruccione,Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer,Physical Review A94(2016)

    2016

  49. [58]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione,Supervised Learning with Quantum Computers, vol. 17 of Quantum Science and Technology, Springer (2018)

    2018

  50. [59]

    Gibbs, Z

    J. Gibbs, Z. Holmes, M.C. Caro, N. Ezzell, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio et al.,Dynamical simulation via quantum machine learning with provable generalization,Physical Review Research6(2024) 013241

    2024

  51. [60]

    Belis, P

    V. Belis, P. Odagiu, M. Grossi, F. Reiter, G. Dissertori and S. Vallecorsa,Guided quantum compression for high dimensional data classification,Machine Learning: Science and Technology5(2024) 035010

    2024

  52. [61]

    Tüysüz,Quantum machine learning with near and future term quantum computers, Ph.D

    C. Tüysüz,Quantum machine learning with near and future term quantum computers, Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt U., Berlin, 2025. 10.18452/33365

    2025 doi

  53. [62]

    Meyer, M

    J.J. Meyer, M. Mularski, E. Gil-Fuster, A.A. Mele, F. Arzani, A. Wilms et al.,Exploiting symmetry in variational quantum machine learning,PRX Quantum4(2023) 010328

    2023

  54. [63]

    Park and N

    C.-Y. Park and N. Killoran,Hamiltonian variational ansatz without barren plateaus,Quantum 8(2024) 1239

    2024

  55. [64]

    M.T. West, J. Heredge, M. Sevior and M. Usman,Provably Trainable Rotationally Equivariant Quantum Machine Learning,PRX Quantum5(2024) 030320

    2024

  56. [65]

    Marrero, B

    C.O. Marrero, B. Kiani and P.J. Coles,Expressivity of quantum neural networks through entanglement,PRX Quantum2(2021) 040316

    2021

  57. [66]

    X. Wang, Y. Chai, M. Demidik, X. Feng, K. Jansen and C. Tüysüz,Symmetry enhanced variational quantum imaginary time evolution, 2023. – 20 –

    2023

  58. [67]

    Campbell, M

    J.M. Campbell, M. Diefenthaler, T.J. Hobbs, S. Höche, J. Isaacson, F. Kling et al.,Event Generators for High-Energy Physics Experiments,SciPost Physics16(2024) 130

    2024

  59. [68]

    Khalek, S

    R.A. Khalek, S. Bailey, J. Gao, L. Harland-Lang and J. Rojo,Towards ultimate parton distributions at the high-luminosity LHC,The European Physical Journal C78(2018) 962

    2018

  60. [69]

    Abreu, W

    P. Abreu, W. Adam, T. Adye, E. Agasi, R. Aleksan, G.D. Alekseev et al.,Measurement of the Triple-Gluon Vertex from 4-Jet Events at LEP,Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields59 (1993) 357

    1993

  61. [70]

    Campbell, J.W

    J.M. Campbell, J.W. Huston and W.J. Stirling,Hard Interactions of Quarks and Gluons: A Primer for LHC Physics,Reports on Progress in Physics70(2006) 89

    2006

  62. [71]

    Collins, D.E

    J.C. Collins, D.E. Soper and G. Sterman,Soft gluons and factorization,Nucl. Phys. B308 (1988) 833

    1988

  63. [72]

    Peskin and D.V

    M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Westview Press, Boulder, CO (1995)

    1995

  64. [73]

    Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2014)

    M.D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2014)

    2014

  65. [74]

    Afik and J.R

    Y. Afik and J.R. Muñoz de Nova,Quantum Information with Top Quarks in QCD,Quantum6 (2022) 820

    2022

  66. [75]

    Cheng, T

    K. Cheng, T. Han and M. Low,Quantum Tomography at Colliders: With or Without Decays,

  67. [76]

    10.48550/arXiv.2410.08303

    doi

  68. [77]

    Wootters,Entanglement of Formation of an Arbitrary State of Two Qubits,Phys

    W.K. Wootters,Entanglement of Formation of an Arbitrary State of Two Qubits,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 2245

    1998

  69. [78]

    Vidal,Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations,Physical Review Letters91(2003) 147902

    G. Vidal,Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly Entangled Quantum Computations,Physical Review Letters91(2003) 147902

    2003

  70. [79]

    10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.1KTG.X0W4

    CMS Collaboration,/JetHT/Run2016G-UL2016_MiniAODv2-v2/MINIAOD, 2024. 10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.1KTG.X0W4

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.LT9E.T7RQ

    CMS Collaboration,/JetHT/Run2016H-UL2016_MiniAODv2-v2/MINIAOD, 2024. 10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.LT9E.T7RQ

    2024 doi

  72. [81]

    Larkoski, S

    A.J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, J. Thaler, A. Tripathee and W. Xue,Exposing the QCD Splitting Function with CMS Open Data,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 132003

    2017

  73. [82]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm,JHEP04(2008) 063 [0802.1189]

    2008 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Dokshitzer, G.D

    Y.L. Dokshitzer, G.D. Leder, S. Moretti and B.R. Webber,Better jet clustering algorithms, JHEP08(1997) 001 [hep-ph/9707323]

    1997 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Wobisch and T

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler,Hadronization Corrections to Jet Cross Sections in Deep-Inelastic Scattering,hep-ph/9907280

    arXiv

  76. [85]

    Bergholm, J

    V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin and N. Killoran,PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,Computing in Science & Engineering 24(2022) 51

    2022

  77. [86]

    Neill and W.J

    D. Neill and W.J. Waalewijn,Entropy of a Jet,Physical Review Letters123(2019) 142001. – 21 –

    2019

  78. [87]

    Tüysüz, A

    C. Tüysüz, A. Jayakumar, C. Coffrin, M. Vuffray and A.Y. Lokhov,Learning response functions of analog quantum computers: analysis of neutral-atom and superconducting platforms,2503.12520

  79. [88]

    Borras, S.Y

    K. Borras, S.Y. Chang, L. Funcke, M. Grossi, T. Hartung, K. Jansen et al.,Impact of quantum noise on the training of quantum Generative Adversarial Networks,Journal of Physics: Conference Series2438(2023) 012093. – 22 – A Parton Shower Fundamentals and the Splitting Function I...

    2023

  80. [89]

    Similarly, the reduced state for the second qubit is ˆρB = TrA(ˆρAB) = =   1 2 1 + z 2[1−(sec(γ ′ 1)−2) cos(γ ′ 3)] ξ(γ ′ 1, π−γ ′ 3) ξ(γ ′ 1, π−γ ′

    1 2 1− z 2[1 + (sec(γ′ 1)−2) cos(γ ′ 3)]   , (C.5) wherez≡z(γ 1, γ3)andz ′ ≡z(γ ′ 1, γ′ 3). Similarly, the reduced state for the second qubit is ˆρB = TrA(ˆρAB) = =   1 2 1 + z 2[1−(sec(γ ′ 1)−2) cos(γ ′ 3)] ξ(γ ′ 1, π−γ ′ 3) ξ(γ ′ 1, π−γ ′

  81. [90]

    (C.6) From the AspenOpenJets data set, we obtained the following parameter distribution for γ1 andγ 3, respectively – 26 – Figure 13

    1 2 1− z 2[1−(sec(γ ′ 1)−2) cos(γ ′ 3)]   . (C.6) From the AspenOpenJets data set, we obtained the following parameter distribution for γ1 andγ 3, respectively – 26 – Figure 13. Analytically obtained distribution of γ1 Figure 14. Analytically obtained distribution of γ3 Figu...

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.