Quantum algorithms for the simulation of QCD processes in the perturbative regime

Herschel A. Chawdhry; Mathieu Pellen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Quantum algorithms for the simulation of QCD processes in the perturbative regime

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

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

Pith's one-line read Two quantum gates, Q and G, can encode the colour factors of QCD Feynman diagrams in a single reference-state amplitude.

desk verdict A honest proceedings summary of a quantum circuit for QCD colour factors, but the construction itself lives in the authors' SciPost paper, and this text alone does not close that loop. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21177 v1 pith:PIITUFYW submitted 2024-12-30 hep-ph hep-thquant-ph

Herschel A. Chawdhry , Mathieu Pellen This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-thquant-ph

keywords perturbativeQCDcolourfactorsquantumcircuitsFeynmandiagramssimulationquark-gluonvertextriple-gluonunitarisationregister

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

Perturbative QCD predictions for high-energy colliders are hard to push to higher orders, and the colour part of the calculation, though smaller than the kinematics, is a natural testbed for quantum simulation. This paper claims that two unitary gates, $Q$ and $G$, simulate respectively the colour factors of quark-gluon and triple-gluon vertices, and that assembling these gates according to a Feynman diagram lets the diagram's colour factor be read off from the amplitude of a single reference state. The claim is supported by circuits run on a noiseless simulated quantum computer, which reproduce the analytic colour factors for several example diagrams. If correct, the construction is a first step toward quantum-accelerated perturbative QCD calculations, including eventual Monte Carlo event generation with a quadratic speed-up.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two gates $Q$ and $G$, together with the unitarisation register $U$. $Q$ acts on a three-qubit gluon register, a two-qubit quark register, and $U$, with the defining property that its amplitude along $|\Omega\rangle_U$ is $T^a_{jk}$ for a gluon state $|a\rangle_g$ and quark state $|k\rangle_q$; $G$ similarly encodes the structure constant $f^{abc}$ for three gluons. The preparation gates $R_g$ and $R_q$ create the needed superpositions over colour states, and their inverses convert the collected colour sums into the amplitude of the common reference state. Because quantum gates act linearly, any superposition of colour states is processed correctly. The paper states that the size of $U$ is logarithmic in the number of vertices, with the explicit construction deferred to the companion article.

What would settle it

Implement the explicit gate decompositions from the companion article on a noiseless simulator, run the circuit for the Table 1 diagram whose analytic colour factor is $N_c(N_c^2-1)=24$, and compare the colour factor inferred from $10^8$ measurement shots; a deviation beyond sampling error would refute the central claim. Repeating this with diagrams that contain both $Q$ and $G$ gates would test the claimed generalisation to arbitrary Feynman diagrams.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the colour structure of perturbative QCD can be embedded in quantum circuits. A gluon's eight colour states are stored in three qubits, a quark's three colour states in two qubits, and a single auxiliary 'unitarisation' register $U$ is used so that the non-unitary Feynman rules $T^a_{jk}$ and $f^{abc}$ appear as the component of a unitary gate's action along a distinguished reference state $|\Omega\rangle_U$, with all other components orthogonal to it. Starting from a reference state, preparation gates $R_g$ and $R_q$ create superpositions over colours, one $Q$ gate per quark-gluon vertex and one $G$ gate per triple-gluon vertex mirror the diagram, and the inverse preparation gates average over gluon colours and trace over quark colours. The final amplitude of the all-zero reference state equals the diagram's colour factor up to a known normalisation that depends only on the number of quark lines and gluons. The paper validates this on a noiseless simulated quantum computer for the example diagrams in Table 1, matching the analytic colour factors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the companion article actually provides working, explicit circuits for the $Q$ and $G$ gates that behave exactly as assumed: they leave the desired colour factor in the reference state, keep all unwanted terms orthogonal to it, and use a logarithmic auxiliary register; if that construction is flawed, the claimed colour-factor extraction and validation do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any Feynman diagram with specified quark and gluon content, the same fixed recipe of preparation gates, vertex gates, and inverse gates extracts the colour factor, up to a normalisation that depends only on the number of quark lines and gluons.
The noiseless simulation results in Table 1 match the analytic colour factors, including a zero-colour-factor diagram, demonstrating that the circuits implement the intended Feynman rules.
The precision of the colour-factor estimate can be improved quadratically either by modified measurement schemes mentioned in the paper or by quantum amplitude estimation, making the approach more practical than raw sampling.
This colour simulation is designed to be a first module in a larger programme that adds kinematic parts, computes quantum interferences of Feynman diagrams, and eventually targets a quantum-accelerated Monte Carlo calculation of cross-sections.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to apply the same projection-onto-reference-state trick to other non-unitary Feynman rules, such as electroweak or effective-field-theory vertices, whenever a unitary embedding with a small auxiliary register can be constructed.
The stated logarithmic size of the unitarisation register is the resource claim that would determine whether the method scales; testing circuits with many vertices would reveal whether the construction holds as the register grows.
Because the validation covers a finite set of diagrams, additional checks on mixed $Q$ and $G$ topologies with several gluon self-interactions would strengthen confidence in the claimed generalisation to arbitrary diagrams.
The same circuits could be used classically as a way to compute colour factors, but the quantum advantage would appear only in the later stages where superpositions of many diagrams or kinematic degrees of freedom are included.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a conference proceedings based on the authors' SciPost article [1], and it reads honestly as such. What is genuinely new here is the validation: seven Feynman-diagram colour factors reproduced on a noiseless simulated quantum computer via the Q and G gates, with statistical errors quoted and consistent with the analytic values. That is real evidence that the circuit construction works, assuming the construction itself is as claimed.

The paper does well at giving a concrete, step-by-step illustrative example that makes the encoding idea clear. The normalization argument for eq. (12) is straightforward, and the claim that U's size is logarithmic in the number of vertices is plausible and consistent with the construction's purpose. The literature survey is broad and appropriate, and the authors are transparent about what is deferred to [1]. Self-citation here is not a flaw; the cited article is the actual source and the paper says so explicitly.

The soft spots are proportionate. The stress-test concern is real: eqs. (2) and (3) fix the action of Q and G only when the unitarisation register is in |Ω⟩_U. The algorithm applies several such gates all sharing one U register; after the first gate the wavefunction has components with U not in |Ω⟩_U, and the text never states how Q and G act on those components. If later gates map any of them back into |Ω⟩_U, eq. (12) fails. The paper refers to [1] for the explicit construction, so this is not an internal contradiction, but it means the central claim that arbitrary diagrams can be assembled from these gates is not established by this proceedings text alone. A secondary gap: the readout is probability, which gives |C|, not C, and the validation table uses only non-negative colour factors, so sign recovery is untested. No code or data are released, so the validation is not independently reproducible from the paper itself, though the method is described well enough that a determined reader could reimplement from [1].

This is a competent proceedings summary, not a standalone research article. The right venue is exactly what it is: conference proceedings. If a journal were considering it as a regular submission, I would send it to a referee who can consult [1] and check that the deferred construction satisfies the orthogonality condition behind eq. (12). As proceedings, it is fine as is; the authors flag the limits clearly.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes quantum circuits to simulate the colour part of perturbative QCD. It introduces two gates, Q and G, acting on registers for gluon and quark colour states together with a shared unitarisation register U. Equations (2) and (3) specify the action of these gates when U is in a reference state, and Section 3 shows how two Q gates, together with preparation and inverse-preparation gates, encode the colour factor of a simple quark-gluon diagram into the amplitude of the reference state. Section 4 generalises this to arbitrary Feynman diagrams, and Section 5 reports numerical validation on a noiseless Qiskit simulator for seven example diagrams, with results matching analytic colour factors within quoted statistical errors.

Significance. If the underlying gate construction is sound, this is a useful first step toward quantum simulation of perturbative QCD, and the paper explains the core linear-algebra mechanism clearly. The validation is a genuine consistency check: no parameters are fitted, the circuits are implemented in a standard framework, and seven colour factors are reproduced within statistical errors. The main caveat is that the central construction of the Q and G gates is not contained in this proceedings paper but deferred to Ref. [1], and the present text does not specify the action of those gates on orthogonal states of the unitarisation register. The result is therefore conditional, but the presented logic is internally consistent given that construction.

major comments (3)

[§2, Eqs. (2)-(3); §4, Eq. (12)] The gates Q and G are defined only for the case where the unitarisation register U is in |Ω⟩_U. After the first gate is applied, the state contains components with U in states orthogonal to |Ω⟩_U (explicitly visible in Eq. (7)). Since all subsequent Q and G gates act on the same shared U register, their action on those orthogonal components is not specified in the manuscript, and it is not shown that later gates cannot map such components back into |Ω⟩_U. Without that information, the coefficient of |Ω⟩_all in Eq. (12) is not guaranteed to be C/N. This is not a cosmetic issue: it is precisely the content of the explicit unitary construction that is deferred to Ref. [1]. The manuscript should either include the construction or state and prove a lemma that the unwanted components remain orthogonal to |Ω⟩_U under sequential application of Q and G.
[§5, Table 1] The extraction procedure uses the probability of measuring |Ω⟩_all, which yields |C|^2/N^2 and therefore only the absolute value of the colour factor, not its sign. All seven entries in Table 1 are non-negative (including zero), so the validation does not test sign recovery. This is important because the structure constants f^{abc} in Eq. (3) are antisymmetric and colour factors can be negative; the claim that the colour factor of a diagram is extracted from the reference-state amplitude should either be restricted to |C| or accompanied by a scheme for recovering the sign (for example, by measuring a relative phase or using amplitude estimation on a complex amplitude).
[§2, last paragraph] The statement that the size of the unitarisation register U is 'logarithmic in the number of vertices in the Feynman diagram' is asserted without proof or construction. This scaling is load-bearing for the claim that the method extends efficiently to arbitrary diagrams. If the proof appears in Ref. [1], the paper should say so explicitly; as written, the reader cannot verify this central complexity claim from the present text.

minor comments (4)

[§3, title and text] There is a typo: 'Feyman' should be 'Feynman'.
[§2, first paragraph] The phrase 'analogy to the and and or gates' is awkward; it should be 'analogy with the AND and OR gates'.
[§5 and Table 1] The zero colour-factor row reports an uncertainty of '0.0+0.5 -0.0'; the one-sided error bar is unexplained and should be clarified.
[§5] The validation section reports only the final inferred colour factors; reporting the number of qubits, gate counts, and circuit depths for the simulated circuits would improve reproducibility and transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the colour-factor validation is a consistency check against standard SU(3) colour algebra, not a fitted or automatically reproduced prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no quantity that is defined in terms of the output it claims to predict. The gates Q and G are specified by their intended action in eqs. (2) and (3), namely the colour factors T^a_ij and f^{abc} of the standard SU(3) algebra, and the derivation of the final reference-state coefficient in eq. (12) follows algebraically from these specifications together with the averaging/projection gates R_g, R_q and their inverses. The validation in Section 5 and Table 1 compares the measured reference-state probability against the analytic SU(3) colour factors of the chosen diagrams. This is an implementation check: if the circuits were incorrect, the numerical results would not match the analytic values. No parameter is fit to make the table agree, and no colour factor is used as an input to the circuit construction. The main self-reliance is the delegation of the explicit unitary decompositions of Q and G to the authors' earlier article [1]. This is a completeness gap in a short proceedings contribution rather than a circular step: the cited article is a separate peer-reviewed publication containing the construction, and the present paper additionally reports independent numerical verification via Qiskit simulations. The reviewer concern that eqs. (2) and (3) do not specify the action of Q and G on states orthogonal to |Omega>_U is a gap in the present text, not a circularity; the existence of a unitary completion is exactly the content delegated to [1]. The probabilistic measurement recovering |C| rather than the signed C is likewise a limitation of the measurement scheme, not a circular reduction. No renamed known results, no ansatz smuggled by citation, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors are present. The central claim has independent content: it proposes a concrete quantum circuit strategy for extracting colour factors, and the reported agreement with analytic values is genuine evidence for the implementation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard SU(3) colour algebra, on the (deferred) existence of explicit unitary circuits for Q and G, and on the choice to validate via colour traces. No free parameters are fitted; the only invented entity is the auxiliary unitarisation register U.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SU(3) colour Feynman rules: each quark-gluon vertex contributes a generator T^a_ij and each triple-gluon vertex contributes a structure constant f^abc, with summation over repeated colour indices.
Used to define the colour factor in eq (1) and to specify the intended action of the Q and G gates in eqs (2)-(3).
ad hoc to paper The Q and G gates can be realized as explicit unitary circuits using a single unitarisation register U of size logarithmic in the number of diagram vertices.
This is the central construction premise; no explicit circuit is shown in this paper, which refers to [1].
domain assumption Tracing over external quark and gluon colours is a sufficient simplification for extracting a single validation number from each Feynman diagram.
Introduced in Section 3 and generalized in Section 4; the trace is implemented by the inverse preparation gates R_q^-1 and R_g^-1.
domain assumption Finite-shot sampling of the reference-state measurement on a noiseless simulator faithfully estimates the colour factor amplitude.
Section 5 uses 10^8 runs per circuit and reports statistical errors; the readout loses the sign of C, an unaddressed limitation.

invented entities (1)

Unitarisation register U
purpose: Ancilla register that lets non-unitary colour operators T^a_ij and f^abc be embedded in unitary gates Q and G, with the desired action recovered after projection onto the reference state |Ω>_U.
Introduced by the authors as an algorithmic resource; it has no external observable and its logarithmic scaling is asserted via [1] but not demonstrated in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum algorithms for the simulation of QCD processes in the perturbative regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIITUFYW

@misc{pith2026241221177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum algorithms for the simulation of QCD processes in the perturbative regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIITUFYW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21177}
}

read the original abstract

Theoretical predictions for high-energy collision processes at particle colliders, such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), rely on calculations in perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), which are often computationally challenging. In these conference proceedings, we explore the possibility of using quantum computers to simulate QCD processes in the perturbative QCD regime. In particular, as a first step towards that goal, we present quantum circuits to simulate the colour part of perturbative QCD. The circuits are validated by implementing them on a simulated quantum computer and verifying the colour factors for several example Feynman diagrams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.21177 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

H. A. Chawdhry and M. Pellen, Quantum simulation of colour in perturbative quantum chromodynamics. SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) no. 5, 205, arXiv:2303.04818 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023
[2]

H. A. Chawdhry and M. Pellen, Quantum algorithms for the simulation of perturbative QCD processes. PoS RADCOR2023 (2023) 087, arXiv:2309.06182 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[3]

The computer as a physical system: a microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines,

P. Benioff, “The computer as a physical system: a microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines,” CPT-79/P-1082. 2, 1979

work page 1979
[4]

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers . Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21 (1982) 467–488

work page 1982
[5]

Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,

P. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pp. 124–134. 1994

work page 1994
[6]

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC 1996, p. 212–219. 1996

work page 1996
[7]

Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Chemistry in the Age of Quantum Computing . Chemical Reviews 119 (2019) no. 19, 10856–10915

work page 2019
[8]

McArdle, S

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys. 92 (2020) 015003. Table 1: Colour factors for example Feynman diagrams. The first column depicts the Feynman diagrams, with indices on external legs indicating identical colours. The central column states the analytical result for the colour...

work page 2020

Show all 48 references

[9]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86 (2014) 153–185

2014
[10]

Tacchino, A

F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, S. Carretta, and D. Gerace, Quantum Computers as Universal Quantum Simulators: State-of-the-Art and Perspectives . Advanced Quantum Technologies 3 (2020) no. 3, 1900052

2020
[11]

N. Klco, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Standard model physics and the digital quantum revolution: thoughts about the interface . Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022) no. 6, 064301, arXiv:2107.04769 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[12]

C. W. Bauer et al. , Quantum Simulation for High-Energy Physics . PRX Quantum 4 (2023) no. 2, 027001, arXiv:2204.03381 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Bepari, S

K. Bepari, S. Malik, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, Towards a quantum computing algorithm for helicity amplitudes and parton showers . Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no. 7, 076020, arXiv:2010.00046 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[14]

C. W. Bauer, W. A. de Jong, B. Nachman, and D. Provasoli, Quantum Algorithm for High Energy Physics Simulations . Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) no. 6, 062001, arXiv:1904.03196 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[15]

Bepari, S

K. Bepari, S. Malik, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, Quantum walk approach to simulating parton showers. Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no. 5, 056002, arXiv:2109.13975 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Gustafson, S

G. Gustafson, S. Prestel, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, Collider events on a quantum computer. JHEP 11 (2022) 035, arXiv:2207.10694 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Brassard, P

G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation . Quantum Computation and Information 305 (2002) , arXiv:quant-ph/0005055 [quant-ph]

2002 arXiv
[18]

Grinko, J

D. Grinko, J. Gacon, C. Zoufal, and S. Woerner, Iterative Quantum Amplitude Estimation . npj Quantum Inf 7 (2021) no. 52, , arXiv:1912.05559 [quant-ph]

2021 arXiv
[19]

Suzuki, S

Y. Suzuki, S. Uno, R. Raymond, T. Tanaka, T. Onodera, and N. Yamamoto, Amplitude estimation without phase estimation . Quantum Information Processing 19 (2020) no. 75, , arXiv:1904.10246 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[20]

Nakaji, Faster Amplitude Estimation

K. Nakaji, Faster Amplitude Estimation . Quantum Information & Computation 2020 20 (2020) no. 13&14, , arXiv:2003.02417 [quant-ph]

2020 arXiv
[21]

Agliardi, M

G. Agliardi, M. Grossi, M. Pellen, and E. Prati, Quantum integration of elementary particle processes. Phys. Lett. B 832 (2022) 137228, arXiv:2201.01547 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[22]

C. W. Bauer, M. Freytsis, and B. Nachman, Simulating Collider Physics on Quantum Computers Using Effective Field Theories . Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) no. 21, 212001, arXiv:2102.05044 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Bravo-Prieto, J

C. Bravo-Prieto, J. Baglio, M. C` e, A. Francis, D. M. Grabowska, and S. Carrazza, Style-based quantum generative adversarial networks for Monte Carlo events . Quantum 6 (2022) 777, arXiv:2110.06933 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[24]

Cervera-Lierta, J

A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, Maximal Entanglement in High Energy Physics. SciPost Phys. 3 (2017) no. 5, 036, arXiv:1703.02989 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[25]

Clemente, A

G. Clemente, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. Ram ´ ırez-Uribe, A. E. Renter ´ ıa-Olivo, G. Rodrigo, G. F. R. Sborlini, and L. Vale Silva, Variational quantum eigensolver for causal loop Feynman diagrams and directed acyclic graphs. Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no. 9, 096035, arXiv:2210.13...

2023 arXiv
[26]

J. M. Cruz-Martinez, M. Robbiati, and S. Carrazza, Multi-variable integration with a variational quantum circuit. Quantum Sci. Technol. 9 (2024) no. 3, 035053, arXiv:2308.05657 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Fedida and A

S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Tree-level entanglement in quantum electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no. 11, 116007, arXiv:2209.01405 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[28]

O. Kiss, M. Grossi, E. Kajomovitz, and S. Vallecorsa, Conditional Born machine for Monte Carlo event generation. Phys. Rev. A 106 (2022) no. 2, 022612, arXiv:2205.07674 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[29]

QuNu Collaboration, 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 . Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no. 11, L111502, arXiv:2106.03865 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[30]

P´ erez-Salinas, J

A. P´ erez-Salinas, J. Cruz-Martinez, A. A. Alhajri, and S. Carrazza, Determining the proton content with a quantum computer . Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no. 3, 034027, arXiv:2011.13934 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[31]

Ram ´ ırez-Uribe, A

S. Ram ´ ırez-Uribe, A. E. Renter ´ ıa-Olivo, G. Rodrigo, G. F. R. Sborlini, and L. Vale Silva,Quantum algorithm for Feynman loop integrals . JHEP 05 (2022) 100, arXiv:2105.08703 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[32]

Rigobello, G

M. Rigobello, G. Magnifico, P. Silvi, and S. Montangero, Hadrons in (1+1)D Hamiltonian hardcore lattice QCD. arXiv:2308.04488 [hep-lat]

arXiv
[33]

S. J. Williams, Event generation on quantum computers . PhD thesis, Imperial Coll., London, 2023

2023
[34]

Nicotra, M

D. Nicotra, M. Lucio Martinez, J. A. de Vries, M. Merk, K. Driessens, R. L. Westra, D. Dibenedetto, and D. H. C´ ampora P´ erez,A quantum algorithm for track reconstruction in the LHCb vertex detector . JINST 18 (2023) no. 11, P11028, arXiv:2308.00619 [quant-ph]

2023
[35]

Nagano, A

L. Nagano, A. Miessen, T. Onodera, I. Tavernelli, F. Tacchino, and K. Terashi, Quantum data learning for quantum simulations in high-energy physics . Phys. Rev. Res. 5 (2023) no. 4, 043250, arXiv:2306.17214 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[36]

Turco, G

M. Turco, G. M. Quinta, J. a. Seixas, and Y. Omar, Quantum Simulation of Bound State Scattering. PRX Quantum 5 (2024) no. 2, 020311, arXiv:2305.07692 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[37]

S. D. Bass and M. Doser, Quantum sensing for particle physics . Nature Rev. Phys. 6 (2024) no. 5, 329–339, arXiv:2305.11518 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Di Meglio et al

A. Di Meglio et al. , Quantum Computing for High-Energy Physics: State of the Art and Challenges. Summary of the QC4HEP Working Group . arXiv:2307.03236 [quant-ph]

arXiv
[39]

Bermot, C

E. Bermot, C. Zoufal, M. Grossi, J. Schuhmacher, F. Tacchino, S. Vallecorsa, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum Generative Adversarial Networks For Anomaly Detection In High Energy Physics . arXiv:2304.14439 [quant-ph]

arXiv
[40]

G. F. R. Sborlini, Geometrical causality: casting Feynman integrals into quantum algorithms . Rev. Mex. Fis. Suppl. 4 (2023) no. 2, 021103, arXiv:2305.08550 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[41]

T. S. Humble, G. N. Perdue, and M. J. Savage, Snowmass Computational Frontier: Topical Group Report on Quantum Computing . arXiv:2209.06786 [quant-ph]

arXiv
[42]

Hayata and Y

T. Hayata and Y. Hidaka, q deformed formulation of Hamiltonian SU(3) Yang-Mills theory . JHEP 09 (2023) 123, arXiv:2306.12324 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[43]

G. F. R. Sborlini, Tackling Feynman integrals with quantum minimization algorithms . PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 501, arXiv:2309.12739 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Brown, M

C. Brown, M. Spannowsky, A. Tapper, S. Williams, and I. Xiotidis, Quantum pathways for charged track finding in high-energy collisions . Front. Artif. Intell. 7 (2024) 1339785, arXiv:2311.00766 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[45]

Rodrigo, Quantum Algorithms in Particle Physics

G. Rodrigo, Quantum Algorithms in Particle Physics . Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 17 (2024) no. 2, 2–A14, arXiv:2401.16208 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[46]

Ram ´ ırez-Uribe, A

S. Ram ´ ırez-Uribe, A. E. Renter ´ ıa-Olivo, and G. Rodrigo,Quantum querying based on multicontrolled Toffoli gates for causal Feynman loop configurations and directed acyclic graphs . arXiv:2404.03544 [quant-ph]

arXiv
[47]

J. J. G´ alvez-Viruet and F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A dynamical implementation of canonical second quantization on a quantum computer . arXiv:2406.03147 [hep-th]

arXiv
[48]

Anis et al

S. Anis et al. , Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing , 2021

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

H. A. Chawdhry and M. Pellen, Quantum simulation of colour in perturbative quantum chromodynamics. SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) no. 5, 205, arXiv:2303.04818 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

H. A. Chawdhry and M. Pellen, Quantum algorithms for the simulation of perturbative QCD processes. PoS RADCOR2023 (2023) 087, arXiv:2309.06182 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

The computer as a physical system: a microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines,

P. Benioff, “The computer as a physical system: a microscopic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian model of computers as represented by Turing machines,” CPT-79/P-1082. 2, 1979

work page 1979

[4] [4]

R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers . Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21 (1982) 467–488

work page 1982

[5] [5]

Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,

P. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pp. 124–134. 1994

work page 1994

[6] [6]

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC 1996, p. 212–219. 1996

work page 1996

[7] [7]

Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Chemistry in the Age of Quantum Computing . Chemical Reviews 119 (2019) no. 19, 10856–10915

work page 2019

[8] [8]

McArdle, S

S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys. 92 (2020) 015003. Table 1: Colour factors for example Feynman diagrams. The first column depicts the Feynman diagrams, with indices on external legs indicating identical colours. The central column states the analytical result for the colour...

work page 2020