Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Reflected wave packets reveal collision momenta on quantum simulators, using energy-conservation-only injection by a boundary qubit.

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 ↗

A boundary-qubit quench plus boundary-reflection interference patterns can prepare and detect quasiparticle wave packets for scattering simulations on quantum simulators.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, honest protocol paper for analog quantum simulators: the energy-filtered local-quench preparation and boundary-interference detection are credible for elastic single-particle physics, but the inelastic multi-channel readout is not yet quantitatively validated. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26142 v1 pith:NWHLSBMN submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechhep-lat

State preparation and detection for quantum simulation of particle collisions

Federica Maria Surace , Sary Bseiso , John Preskill This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechhep-lat
keywords quantum simulationscatteringwave packet preparationquasiparticlesboundary reflectionRydberg atom arraysIsing chaininelastic scattering
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

To simulate a particle collision on a quantum simulator, one normally has to prepare incoming wave packets with chosen momenta and then read out the momenta of the outgoing particles — both difficult, calibration-sensitive steps. This paper claims that a weakly coupled auxiliary qubit at the edge of the lattice can do the first step using only conservation of energy: if the qubit's energy gap matches the target quasiparticle energy, its decay injects a packet whose momentum is peaked at the desired value with no fine-tuned eigenstate preparation. It then claims that the second step can be done with local measurements alone: when the packet reflects from the far boundary, the incoming and reflected parts interfere, and the spatial Fourier transform of the local density develops a peak at twice the momentum, which identifies the momentum. The protocols are validated numerically in a simple tight-binding model, a Rydberg-atom chain, and a mixed-field Ising chain, including regimes where inelastic collisions (channels that change particle species or number) are allowed. If correct, this gives analog quantum simulators a route to scattering experiments that classical simulation methods find hard, especially at high energy and in more than one dimension.

Core claim

The paper establishes, analytically for a single-particle tight-binding model and numerically for a Rydberg atom chain and a mixed-field Ising chain, that a quasiparticle wave packet with momentum k* can be prepared by starting a weakly coupled auxiliary boundary qubit at energy E(k*) and letting it decay into the lattice; conservation of energy and energy variance selects a narrow momentum window around k*, so no fine-tuned eigenstate construction is needed. It also establishes that momenta of wave packets and collision products can be read from local measurements alone: after boundary reflection, incoming and reflected packets interfere and the spatial Fourier transform of the local densit

What carries the argument

Energy-window filtering: an auxiliary qubit with gap V0=E(k*) weakly coupled to the lattice has initial energy V0 and small variance (δE)^2; as it decays, only lattice modes in that window populate, and the single-particle dispersion turns the window into a narrow momentum band around k*. Detection uses the boundary as a phase-only mirror: the reflected wave packet interferes with the incoming one, so the Fourier transform of the local density develops a peak at 2k*, extracting momentum from local site measurements. The adiabatic ramp carries a packet prepared in an isolated band into a regime where inelastic channels are open, and the quantum slide — a smooth spatial modulation of the Hamil

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the boundary reflects a wave packet as a coherent, phase-only mirror (the interference picture in Sec. II.B); if a boundary or multi-particle final state scrambles the reflected packet, the Fourier peak at q≈2k* no longer identifies a single outgoing momentum — and the paper itself concedes (Sec. IV.B) that a (3+1)-meson channel cannot be excluded because its group velocity is nearly identical to other channels.

What would settle it

Perform a single-particle experiment with a tunable boundary reflectivity (e.g., a variable potential step or disorder at the wall) and monitor the local-density Fourier peak after reflection: if the peak moves away from 2k* or broadens as the boundary becomes non-ideal, while the packet still propagates coherently, the detection protocol's central assumption fails. A numerical check is to compute the exact reflected wavefunction from Appendix A and compare the extracted momentum with the known k* for a disordered wall.

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

If this is right

  • On a programmable analog simulator, a collision experiment reduces to letting two boundary auxiliary qubits decay into the chain and Fourier-transforming the reflected local-density fringes; no momentum-resolved or fine-tuned measurements are required.
  • Elastic scattering observables, including the phase-shift time delay, can be extracted by comparing a scattered wave packet with a freely propagating one at the same momentum.
  • High-energy regimes where particles can change species or number become accessible by preparing the packet where its band is well separated and adiabatically ramping a field into the target regime; final-state momenta appear as peaks at sums and differences of the participating momenta.
  • A quantum slide can make emitted wave packets nearly Gaussian, increasing their peak amplitude and reducing the waiting time before the adiabatic ramp.
  • In two dimensions, corner injection plus reflection from a wall yields momentum-component information, and a focusing potential narrows the emission angle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An implication left implicit by the paper is that the boundary-reflection Fourier diagnostic is a general local probe of quasiparticle content: in any quench experiment with a reflecting wall, the 2k* peak could serve as a time-resolved momentum measurement without momentum-resolved detection.
  • Because the preparation relies only on energy and variance conservation, one could plausibly inject composite or multi-particle excitations by tuning the auxiliary qubit to an isolated multi-particle energy level; the paper does not explore this.
  • The paper reports (Sec. V.B) that the quantum slide suppresses inelastic channels without an understood mechanism; understanding that suppression could turn the slide into a channel-selective control, not just a shaping tool.
  • A natural numerical test of the detection assumption would be to vary the boundary potential and verify that the q≈2k* peak shifts or disappears exactly as a coherent-reflection model predicts; the paper's single-particle appendix provides the exact wavefunction needed for that comparison.
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. The paper proposes a protocol for preparing wave packets and detecting their momenta in quantum simulators of lattice particle collisions. State preparation uses a boundary auxiliary qubit (or local quench) whose excitation energy is matched to a desired quasiparticle energy; conservation of energy and energy variance then selects a narrow momentum window. Detection works by taking the spatial Fourier transform of a local density after reflection from a boundary, where the interference of incoming and reflected components produces a peak at q ≈ 2k*. The protocol is first solved exactly for a single-particle tight-binding model (§II, App. A), then validated numerically with MPS/TDVP in a Rydberg atom chain (§III) and a mixed-field quantum Ising chain (§IV–V), including an adiabatic-ramp extension to access inelastic channels, a 'quantum slide' shaping method, a 2D single-particle extension, and a discussion of resource costs.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a useful and timely contribution: it provides a calibration-robust, energy-conservation-based wave-packet injection method and a local-measurement momentum readout that are well matched to analog quantum simulators. The single-particle analysis in §II and App. A is exact, clean, and parameter-free in its conservation argument; the dispersion relations used to map V0 to k* are computed independently by exact diagonalization/two-fermion methods (App. B), so there is no serious circularity. The paper also gives concrete numerical demonstrations in two interacting many-body models and identifies clear limitations (e.g., the unresolved (3+1) channel, the unexplained slide suppression). These strengths make the proposal credible for elastic single-particle and weakly inelastic regimes. The remaining gap is that the headline inelastic-detection capability is not yet quantitatively validated, which is the main reason the paper needs revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B and Fig. 11] The central inelastic-scattering claim is supported only by visual assignment of outgoing traces to channels (1+1), (1+2), (2+2), and (1+1+1) using predicted group velocities. The text explicitly concedes that the (3+1) channel cannot be excluded because its group velocity is too similar, and Fig. 17(c) shows that several kinematically allowed channels overlap. Without a quantitative estimate of the reflection amplitudes or a measure of channel-separation error, the observed spacetime pattern is consistent with several decompositions and does not demonstrate channel-resolved momentum extraction. A quantitative channel projection or a carefully separated kinematic regime is needed.
  2. [§II.B and §IV.A, Fig. 10] The detection protocol relies on the assumption that boundary reflection is a coherent phase-only event, so that the Fourier peak at q ≈ 2k* is an interference signature. For a single free particle this is justified by the exact solution. For interacting many-body final states, however, reflection can mix channels and the phase acquired per channel is uncontrolled; the inelastic boundary-scattering peaks at q = k* ± ks in Fig. 10 are interpreted as 1-meson → 2-meson conversion without verifying that the reflected 2-meson component is phase-coherent or that other multi-channel decompositions do not produce the same peaks. The paper should provide a direct test of the interference assumption in the inelastic regime, or restrict the detection claim to elastic single-particle channels.
  3. [§III, §IV, §V (MPS simulations)] The many-body numerical results are computed with MPS/TDVP at bond dimensions χ = 200 or 350, but no truncation-error estimates, convergence checks in χ, or time-step convergence data are reported. This matters because the inelastic signals in Figs. 10, 11, and 13 are comparatively weak, and the paper's own analysis shows overlapping channels; the reader cannot tell whether the reported Fourier peaks or group-velocity traces are robust against numerical truncation. At minimum, a convergence study for the key inelastic simulation should be included.
  4. [§V.B and Fig. 13] The quantum-slide protocol is presented as a practical improvement, yet the scattering demonstration in Fig. 13 shows suppressed inelastic channels, and the text states that 'the origin of this suppression is not yet understood.' Because the slide is then used in the paper's proposed route to high-energy inelastic scattering, this unexplained suppression is not a cosmetic issue: it undermines the claim that the shaped wave packets can be used for the same inelastic-detection protocol. The paper should either explain the suppression or clearly mark the slide-based inelastic protocol as preliminary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.A.2 and Eq. (10)] The parameter κ is defined as dimensionless (κ = d/a − 1), but the text then states 'κ = 0.5 Ω'; this is either a typo or a dimensionally inconsistent choice. Please correct.
  2. [§III.A.2, Eq. (14)] The explanation of the q ≈ k* peak relies on a decomposition into ground state, single-particle states, and neglected multi-particle states. In the Rydberg simulation, the multi-particle continuum is kinematically closed (App. B), so the argument is plausible, but the text should state this explicitly, since the same argument is later invoked in regimes where multi-particle states are open.
  3. [§IV.A, Fig. 10] The boundary-scattering analysis would be easier to interpret if the group-velocity lines for the assumed 2-meson channel were overlaid on the Fourier-intensity plot, as is done in Fig. 11 for the two-particle collision. This would help the reader see whether the peaks at q = k* ± ks actually track the predicted dispersion.
  4. [Appendix D] The decay factor γ(E) is obtained by fitting a parabola (R = 0) or a Gaussian (R = 5) to exact-diagonalization data. The choice of fitting function is not derived; a short justification or a statement that the fit is only used for extrapolation would improve clarity.
  5. [Multiple figures] Several figure captions (e.g., Fig. 7) describe boundary scattering as 'elastic scattering with the boundaries'; this wording is confusing because the protocol measures the momentum after boundary reflection, not a physical scattering process between particles. Consider rephrasing to 'reflection at the boundary.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: preparation uses exact conservation laws and independent spectral overlap; detection peaks follow from interference; inelastic ambiguities are acknowledged limitations, not definitional reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Eqs. (3)-(6) and App. A is self-contained: energy and energy-variance conservation are exact identities, and the momentum selectivity is derived from the boundary-condition overlap ψ_k(j=0), which peaks near k* when V0=E(k*) — the momentum is not assumed into the overlap calculation. The detection peak at q≈2k* follows directly from the interference identity |e^{ikj}+e^{-ikj}e^{iφ}|² ∝ cos(2kj−φ), and the many-body version (Eq. (11)) uses the same mechanism. Dispersion relations for both interacting models are computed independently via exact diagonalization and a two-fermion approximation that is explicitly cross-checked against ED in App. B; they are not fitted to the scattering peaks. In the inelastic analysis, the peaks at q=k*±k_s are observed at the kinematically predicted locations, and the paper itself flags the residual channel ambiguity ('the (3+1) channel is also kinematically allowed ... its contribution cannot be resolved') and the unexplained slide suppression ('The origin of this suppression is not yet understood') — these are validity limitations, not circular reductions. App. D fits γ(E) to independently computed spectral overlaps and uses Fermi's golden rule to predict decay rates that are compared with separate MPS evolution; the fitted quantity is not the predicted observable. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [24,55,56,67]) are contextual, experimental, or independently validated, and none is load-bearing for the central derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol's core mechanism is energy filtering and interference readout; it avoids fitting a target result. However, it rests on spectral separation, coherent boundary scattering, adiabaticity, and approximate numerical/analytic methods. The hand-chosen control parameters (V0, w', Δ*, κ, g0/h0, slide shape) are experimental knobs, not fitted outputs, but they do require spectral knowledge to set. The only genuine fits are in Appendix D and do not determine the central claim.

free parameters (8)
  • V0 (single-particle edge potential) = -1.8 w in example
    Sets target energy E(k*) = V0; chosen by hand from dispersion relation, not fitted to output.
  • w' (edge hopping in single-particle model) = 0.1 w
    Controls energy variance and momentum width; chosen small for narrow packet.
  • Δ* (Rydberg auxiliary detuning) = -0.5 Ω
    Sets auxiliary qubit gap V0 = sqrt(Ω²+Δ*²) ≈ 1.12 Ω to target k* ≈ 2.3.
  • κ (dimensionless auxiliary-chain coupling) = 0.5 Ω
    Coupling strength; large energy variance chosen so wave packet fits in O(10) sites.
  • δt (π-pulse duration) = 0.1 Ω^{-1}
    Duration of σz rotation used to prepare the excited auxiliary state.
  • g0, h0 (Ising auxiliary on-site fields after quench) = 0.09, 0.95 (units of J)
    Chosen so initial energy matches 1-meson at k* ≈ 1.28 with small energy variance.
  • Slide profile (R=5 linear field interpolation) = R=5; fields in Eqs. (18)-(19)
    Empirically chosen to smooth the boundary; footnote [62] admits a different choice may be required for other h0.
  • γ(E) fitting functions in App. D = parabolic (R=0) / Gaussian (R=5); linear density-of-states fit
    Fitted to ED overlaps to quantify decay-rate enhancement; used for slide analysis, not the core protocol.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The single-particle band is well separated from the multi-particle continuum near the target energy.
    Sec. III.A states this caveat: otherwise injected energy populates multi-particle states; central to the energy-filter preparation.
  • domain assumption Boundary reflection of a wave packet is phase-coherent and produces a measurable q≈2k* interference peak in the Fourier transform of the local density.
    Sec. II.B and Sec. III.A derive the detection; no explicit verification that boundary scattering does not create additional excitations in interacting systems.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic ramp conserves band index and momentum and avoids gap-closing points.
    Sec. IV.A and Conclusions acknowledge the ramp must avoid phase transitions; adiabaticity limits preparation time.
  • domain assumption The two-fermion approximation accurately describes the meson bands for h=0.1J and is used for kinematic labeling.
    Appendix B; validated against ED for converged regions but breaks where bands overlap the continuum.
  • domain assumption Fermi's golden rule with an approximately constant density of states describes auxiliary-qubit decay.
    Sec. V.A and App. D; density of states is linearly fitted and γ(E) is fitted with parabolic/Gaussian functions, so the analysis is not parameter-free.
  • domain assumption MPS/TDVP simulations with bond dimensions χ=200–350 faithfully capture the few-particle scattering dynamics.
    Numerical sections; no convergence or truncation-error estimates are reported.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of State preparation and detection for quantum simulation of particle collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWHLSBMN

@misc{pith2026260726142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: State preparation and detection for quantum simulation of particle collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWHLSBMN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26142}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Simulating the real-time dynamics of particle collisions is a promising application of quantum simulators, because classical methods such as tensor networks struggle to capture the highly entangled states generated in high-energy scattering. Realizing such simulations requires both the preparation of incoming wave packets and the detection of the outgoing scattering products. In this work, we propose protocols that address both challenges on programmable analog and digital quantum simulation platforms. Our state-preparation scheme uses a weakly coupled auxiliary qubit - or, more generally, a customized local quench - to inject a single quasiparticle with well-defined momentum. Because it relies only on conservation of energy, this scheme requires no fine-tuning or prior knowledge about particle eigenstates, making it robust against errors in calibration and implementation. The momenta of scattering products are then extracted, using only local measurements, from the interference pattern that arises when particles are reflected at the system's boundary. We validate our protocols through numerical simulations, first in a simple single-particle model and subsequently in two interacting many-body systems: a Rydberg atom chain and an Ising chain in a mixed field. We demonstrate how high-energy regimes, necessary to access inelastic scattering processes, can be reached through an adiabatic ramp, and how the wave packet shape can be optimized by spatially modulating the Hamiltonian. Finally, we show how the protocol can be generalized to systems with more than one spatial dimension. Our proposal provides a versatile approach to the quantum simulation of scattering phenomena, and is compatible with several quantum simulation platforms that are already experimentally available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26142 by Federica Maria Surace, John Preskill, Sary Bseiso.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Wave packet preparation protocol in the single-particle model. The particle is initialized in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Real-space probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Absolute value squared of P(q, t), defined in Eq. (7) as the Fourier transform of the real-space probabil￾ity distribution with respect to the spatial coordinate. Since |P(q, t)| 2 = |P(−q, t)| 2 = |P(2π − q, t)| 2 , we restrict to the range q ∈ [0, π]. Right: The same function |P(q, t)| 2 at se￾lected fixed times t, indicated in the left panel by horizon￾tal dashed lines. The function |P(q, t)| 2 de… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wave packet preparation in a Rydberg model. (a) Time dependence of the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: State detection in a Rydberg model. Left: absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two-particle scattering in a Rydberg model. (a) Variation of the local Rydberg occupation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The time delay is extracted by comparing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Preparation of a high-energy (above inelastic threshold) wave packet in the Ising chain using an adiabatic ramp. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Inelastic scattering at the boundary. (a) Fourier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Inelastic two-particle collision. Two wave packets, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Shaping of the wave packet. (a) Preparation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two-particle scattering following wavepacket [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Wave-packet preparation using a focusing po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (a) Dispersion relation of the Rydberg atom chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (a,b) Dispersion relations of the five lowest meson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Probability distribution P(j) for a wavepacket prepared as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Momentum detection in two dimensions. (a) Prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.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

76 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Time modulation of the Hamiltonian parameters Wenowdescribehowtopreparethequbitinitsexcited state by modulating the (global) Rabi frequencyΩ(t)and the local detuning on the auxiliary spin∆0(t). The Rabi frequency is varied only globally, and the time-dependent modulation of the local detuning that we propose is com- patiblewithcurrentexperimentalcapabilit...

  2. [2]

    quantum slide

    Numerical results We now verify, using matrix-product state (MPS) nu- merical simulations [49], that the protocol we propose is preparing the desired wave packet, and that the momen- tum can be efficiently reconstructed with our detection method. In our simulations we choose∆∗ =−0.5 Ω,κ= 0.5 Ω, andδt= 0.1Ω −1 = 0.1(2π)−1 cycles. We definet= 0as the time a...

  3. [3]

    Troyer, and P

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

    2022

  4. [4]

    Eisert andJ

    J. Eisert andJ. Preskill, Mind thegaps: Thefraughtroad to quantum advantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19928 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum computation of scattering in scalar quantum field theo- ries, Quantum Info. Comput.14, 1014–1080 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science336, 1130 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Preskill, Simulating quantum field theory with a quan- tum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10085 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Simulating quantum field theory with a quan- tum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10085 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    P.Wang, W.Du, W.Zuo,andJ.P.Vary,Nuclearscatter- ing via quantum computing, Phys. Rev. C109, 064623 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Di Meglio, K

    A. Di Meglio, K. Jansen, I. Tavernelli, C. Alexandrou, S. Arunachalam, C. W. Bauer, K. Borras, S. Carrazza, A. Crippa, V. Croft, R. de Putter, A. Delgado, V. Dun- jko, D. J. Egger, E. Fernández-Combarro, E. Fuchs, L. Funcke, D. González-Cuadra, M. Grossi, J. C. Hal- imeh, Z. Holmes, S. Kühn, D. Lacroix, R. Lewis, D. Luc- chesi, M. L. Martinez, F. Meloni, ...

    2024

  11. [11]

    C. W. Bauer, Efficient use of quantum computers for col- lider physics, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 108 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    I. M. Burbano, M. A. Carrillo, R. Urek, A. N. Ciavarella, and R. A. Briceño, Real-time estimators for scattering observables: A full account of finite-volume errors for quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. D113, L071502 (2026)

    2026

  13. [13]

    Hardy, P

    A. Hardy, P. Mukhopadhyay, M. S. Alam, R. Konik, L. Hormozi, E. Rieffel, S. Hadfield, J. a. Barata, R. Venu- gopalan, D. E. Kharzeev, and N. Wiebe, Scattering pro- cesses from quantum simulation algorithms for scalar field theories, PRX Quantum7, 010343 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    364, 01020 (2026)

    Barata, Joao, Quantum computing for heavy-ion physics: Near-term status and future prospects, EPJ Web Conf. 364, 01020 (2026)

    2026

  15. [15]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venu- gopalan, QCD thermalization: Ab initio approaches and interdisciplinary connections, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035003 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Heavy ion collisions: The big picture and the big questions, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science68, 339 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Milsted, J

    A. Milsted, J. Liu, J. Preskill, and G. Vidal, Collisions of 17 false-vacuum bubble walls in a quantum spin chain, PRX Quantum3, 020316 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Vanderstraeten, J

    L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete,smatrix from matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 257202 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Van Damme, L

    M. Van Damme, L. Vanderstraeten, J. De Nardis, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Real-time scattering of interacting quasiparticles in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013078 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Rigobello, S

    M. Rigobello, S. Notarnicola, G. Magnifico, and S. Mon- tangero, Entanglement generation in(1 + 1)Dqed scat- tering processes, Phys. Rev. D104, 114501 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    P. I. Karpov, G.-Y. Zhu, M. P. Heller, and M. Heyl, Spa- tiotemporal dynamics of particle collisions in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L032001 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Belyansky, S

    R. Belyansky, S. Whitsitt, N. Mueller, A. Fahimniya, E. R. Bennewitz, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, High- Energy Collision of Quarks and Mesons in the Schwinger Model: From Tensor Networks to Circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091903 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    R. G. Jha, A. Milsted, D. Neuenfeld, J. Preskill, and P. Vieira, Real-time scattering in ising field theory using matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023266 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Papaefstathiou, J

    I. Papaefstathiou, J. Knolle, and M. C. Bañuls, Real-time scattering in the lattice schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014504 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Pavešić, M

    L. Pavešić, M. Di Liberto, and S. Montangero, Scattering and induced false vacuum decay in the two-dimensional quantum ising model, Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  26. [26]

    F. M. Surace and A. Lerose, Scattering of mesons in quantum simulators, New Journal of Physics23, 062001 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Barata, N

    J. Barata, N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Single-particle digitization strategy for quantum compu- tation of aϕ 4 scalar field theory, Phys. Rev. A103, 042410 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Turco, G

    M. Turco, G. Quinta, J. Seixas, and Y. Omar, Quantum simulation of bound state scattering, PRX Quantum5, 020311 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the schwinger model using 112 qubits, Phys. Rev. D109, 114510 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    G.-X. Su, J. J. Osborne, and J. C. Halimeh, Cold-atom particle collider, PRX Quantum5, 040310 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    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. Gor- shkov, Simulating Meson Scattering on Spin Quantum Simulators, Quantum9, 1773 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Turco, G

    M. Turco, G. Quinta, J. Seixas, and Y. Omar, Creation of wave packets for quantum chromodynamics on quantum computers, Phys. Rev. D112, 034506 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    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 quan- tum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12614 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Ingoldby, M

    J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, S. Williams, and M. Wingate, Real-time scattering on quantum computers via hamiltonian truncation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03878 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    S.Abel, M.Spannowsky,andS.Williams,Real-timescat- tering processes with continuous-variable quantum com- puters, Phys. Rev. A112, 012614 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Lee and R

    M. Lee and R. C. Farrell, Studying energy-resolved trans- port with wavepacket dynamics on quantum computers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16180 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Morgavi, P

    M. Morgavi, P. Majcen, M. Rigobello, S. Montangero, and P. Silvi, Preparation and detection of quasiparti- cles for quantum simulations of scattering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16210 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Exclusive scattering channels from entanglement structure in real-time simulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15621 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Davoudi, C.-C

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

    2024

  40. [40]

    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)

    2025

  41. [41]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable quantum simulations of scat- tering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 112, 034502 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    R. C. Farrell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and J. Preskill, Digital quantum simulations of scattering in quan- tum field theories using W states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03111 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Schuhmacher, G.-X

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    D. Roy, C. M. Wilson, and O. Firstenberg, Colloquium: Strongly interacting photons in one-dimensional contin- uum, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 021001 (2017)

    2017

  45. [45]

    In our plots, the time is measured in units of a Rabi cycle, i.e.2π/Ω

  46. [46]

    C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Leclerc, V. S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee,et al., Continuous symmetry breaking in a two-dimensional rydberg array, Nature616, 691 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Manovitz, S

    T. Manovitz, S. H. Li, S. Ebadi, R. Samajdar, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, H. Zhou, N. U. Koylu- oglu, J. Feldmeier,et al., Quantum coarsening and col- lective dynamics on a programmable simulator, Nature 638, 86 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    A. G. de Oliveira, E. Diamond-Hitchcock, D. M. Walker, M. T. Wells-Pestell, G. Pelegrí, C. J. Picken, G. P. A. Malcolm, A. J. Daley, J. Bass, and J. D. Pritchard, Demonstration of weighted-graph optimization on a rydberg-atom array using local light shifts, PRX Quan- tum6, 010301 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Wang, L.-Z

    J.-J. Wang, L.-Z. Tang, Y.-X. Du, and D.-W. Zhang, Dis- crete time crystals enhanced by stark potentials in ryd- berg atom arrays, Physics Letters A558, 130896 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    G. Wang, W. Xu, C. Li, V. Vuletić, and P. Cappellaro, Individual-atom control in an array through phase mod- ulation, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 024072 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Using the TenPy library, we employ, in particular, the two-site density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method to prepare the initial ground state and the two- site time-dependent variational principle (TDVP) for the time evolution. In all the simulations reported in this pa- per, the scattering involves only few particles, and the en- tanglement grow...

  52. [52]

    Simon, W

    J. Simon, W. S. Bakr, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum simulation of antiferromag- netic spin chains in an optical lattice, Nature472, 307 (2011)

    2011

  53. [53]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de Léséleuc, T. Macrì, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models, Nature534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  54. [54]

    de Léséleuc, S

    S. de Léséleuc, S. Weber, V. Lienhard, D. Barredo, H. P. Büchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Accurate mapping of multilevel rydberg atoms on interacting spin-1/2par- ticles for the quantum simulation of ising models, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 113602 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    W. L. Tan, P. Becker, F. Liu, G. Pagano, K. S. Collins, A. De, L. Feng, H. B. Kaplan, A. Kyprianidis, R. Lund- gren, W. Morong, S. Whitsitt, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Domain-wall confinement and dynamics in a quantum simulator, Nat. Phys.17, 742 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. Schuck- ert, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. S. Collins, Z. Davoudi,et al., Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13815 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. De, A. Lerose, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, A. Schuckert, Z. Davoudi, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz,et al., Quantum simulation of bubble nucle- ation across a quantum phase transition, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09607 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    B. M. McCoy and T. T. Wu, Two-dimensional ising field theory in a magnetic field: Breakup of the cut in the two-point function, Phys. Rev. D18, 1259 (1978)

    1978

  60. [60]

    Delfino, G

    G. Delfino, G. Mussardo, and P. Simonetti, Non- integrable quantum field theories as perturbations of certain integrable models, Nuclear Physics B473, 469 (1996)

    1996

  61. [61]

    Kormos, M

    M. Kormos, M. Collura, G. Takács, and P. Calabrese, Real-time confinement following a quantum quench to a non-integrable model, Nat. Phys.13, 246 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    Wang, Z.-W

    Y. Wang, Z.-W. Cui, Y.-H. Lu, X.-M. Zhang, J. Gao, Y.-J. Chang, M.-H. Yung, and X.-M. Jin, Integrated quantum-walk structure and nand tree on a photonic chip, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 160502 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    F. Wang, B. Cheng, Z.-W. Cui, and M.-H. Yung, Quan- tum computing by quantum walk on quantum slide, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.08659 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Explicitly, the Hamiltonian isH=−J PL−1 j=1 σz j σz j+1 +PL j=1(gjσx j +h jσz j )

  65. [65]

    However, one must take into account that the auxiliary site, unlike the sites in the chain, has only a single neighbor rather than two

    It may seem natural to choose a linear interpolation from h0 tohfor the longitudinal field. However, one must take into account that the auxiliary site, unlike the sites in the chain, has only a single neighbor rather than two. Ensur- ing a smooth evolution of the excitation energy along the interpolation therefore requires accounting for this asym- metry...

  66. [66]

    Hauschild, J

    J. Hauschild, J. Unfried, S. Anand, B. Andrews, M. Bintz, U. Borla, S. Divic, M. Drescher, J. Geiger, M. Hefel, K. Hémery, W. Kadow, J. Kemp, N. Kirchner, V. S. Liu, G. Möller, D. Parker, M. Rader, A. Romen, S. Scalet, L. Schoonderwoerd, M. Schulz, T. Soejima, P. Thoma, Y. Wu, P. Zechmann, L. Zweng, R. S. K. Mong, M. P. Zaletel, and F. Pollmann, Tensor ne...

    2024

  67. [67]

    S. B. Rutkevich, Decay of the metastable phase ind= 1 andd= 2ising models, Phys. Rev. B60, 14525 (1999)

    1999

  68. [68]

    S. B. Rutkevich, Large-nexcitations in the ferromagnetic isingfieldtheoryinaweakmagneticfield: Massspectrum and decay widths, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 250601 (2005)

    2005

  69. [69]

    Lagnese, F

    G. Lagnese, F. M. Surace, M. Kormos, and P. Calabrese, False vacuum decay in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B104, L201106 (2021)

    2021

  70. [70]

    Maertens, J

    D. Maertens, J. Haegeman, and K. Van Acoleyen, Real- time bubble nucleation and growth for false vacuum decay on the lattice, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13645 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Johansen, A

    C. Johansen, A. Recati, I. Carusotto, and A. Biella, Many-body theory of false vacuum decay in quan- tum spin chains, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13780 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.13780 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.13780 2025

  72. [72]

    C.Yin, F.M.Surace,andA.Lucas,Theoryofmetastable states in many-body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. X15, 011064 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    Christandl, N

    M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert, and A. J. Landahl, Perfect state transfer in quantum spin networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 187902 (2004). Appendix A: Exact solution for the single-particle model The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) can be obtained using the ansatz ψk(j)≡ ⟨j|ψk⟩= ( Akeikj +B ke−ikj forj >0, Ck forj= 0, (A1) wherek∈[0, π]. Forj >1t...

    2004

  74. [74]

    (8) with periodic boundary conditions

    Rydberg atom chain We used exact diagonalization to compute the momentum-resolved low-energy spectrum of the Hamil- tonian in Eq. (8) with periodic boundary conditions. The results are shown in Fig. 16a for different system sizes L, and appear to be well converged withL, exhibiting no visible finite size effects. We used the single-particle band obtained ...

  75. [75]

    This approach is expected to be reliable in the regime of weak longitudinal field h

    Mixed field quantum Ising chain Together with exact diagonalization, the dispersion re- lations of the meson bands in the mixed-field quantum Ising chain can be computed with high accuracy using a two-fermion approximation. This approach is expected to be reliable in the regime of weak longitudinal field h. Here we briefly summarize the method and refer t...

  76. [76]

    The low-energy excited states exhibiting large overlap with |GS↑⟩(shown as white dots in Fig

    We then evaluate the overlaps between|GS ↑⟩—the ground state ofH−J σ z 1—and the eigenstates|ϵ ↓⟩ofH ↓. The low-energy excited states exhibiting large overlap with |GS↑⟩(shown as white dots in Fig. 19) correspond to thesingle-particleexcitationspopulatedduringthestate- preparation protocol. The energies of these states, displayed in the insets, are used t...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.