Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Quantum Computing Hadron Fragmentation Functions in Light-Front Chromodynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims the first calculation of hadron fragmentation functions from QCD itself, by evolving a charm quark under a truncated light-front Hamiltonian on a simulated quantum computer and projecting onto a model J/psi state.

desk verdict A real proof-of-concept for quantum-simulated fragmentation functions, but the claimed NRQCD agreement is not yet established and the model wavefunction has a dimensional inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.18869 v2 pith:ZWMY6VLX submitted 2025-10-21 hep-ph hep-th

Juan José Gálvez-Viruet , Felipe J. Llanes-Estrada , Nicolás Martínez de Arenaza , María Gómez-Rocha , Timothy J. Hobbs This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords fragmentationfunctionslight-frontquantizationquantumsimulationQCDcharmoniumNRQCDFock-spacetruncationTrotterevolution
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

Fragmentation functions — the probabilities that a quark or gluon turns into a particular hadron carrying a fraction z of its momentum — are usually fitted to data rather than derived from QCD, because lattice QCD cannot evolve along a lightlike direction. This paper claims the first direct computation of one from the QCD Hamiltonian: it evolves a charm quark under a discretized, Fock-truncated light-front Hamiltonian on a classical simulator of a quantum computer, stops at a plateau of Shannon entropy, and projects the evolved state onto a model J/psi wavefunction. The extracted D(z) broadly agrees with the 1993 NRQCD calculation of charm-to-J/psi fragmentation. If the method holds up, it opens a route to calculating fragmentation functions ab initio for hadrons that experiments can reach only through hadronization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the light-front QCD Hamiltonian P^- in light-front gauge, expanded in momentum-space creation and annihilation operators and truncated to at most two quarks, one antiquark and one gluon with N=4 or N=8 longitudinal momentum fractions. It is implemented as Trotterized unitary rotations on a particle-register encoding: each register carries a presence/absence qubit that controls the gate, plus qubits for momentum, spin, color and flavor, with symmetrizer/antisymmetrizer operations enforcing boson/fermion statistics. The extraction protocol has two novel pieces: the entropy-plateau stopping rule, which identifies when the probability spread over active modes has satur

What would settle it

Recompute the same fragmentation function after replacing the model ansatz with the lowest eigenstate of the truncated light-front Hamiltonian, obtained by minimizing P^- in the available Fock space. If D(z) shifts by more than the quoted error bands, the central result is dominated by the input wavefunction rather than the Hamiltonian dynamics. Alternatively, evolve the same truncated system by exact diagonalization and compare plateau-extracted D(z) against the true long-time projection to test the stopping rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the c→J/psi fragmentation function can be obtained from real-time light-front QCD: start from a charm quark, apply Trotterized unitary gates built from the light-front Hamiltonian P^- in A+=0 gauge, use the saturation plateau of Shannon entropy as a proxy for infinite light-front time, and read off D(z) through an annihilation gate that maps the model J/psi state to the vacuum, so an empty quark-antiquark register signals fragmentation. With the Fock space truncated to two quarks, one antiquark and one gluon, and longitudinal momentum on a 4- or 8-point grid, the extracted D(z) broadly agrees with the 1993 NRQCD result. The authors present this as a proof of princip

Load-bearing premise

The extraction relies on a fixed hand-built J/psi wavefunction, with parameters chosen from the charm mass and a spring constant, standing in for the physical J/psi component of the evolved state; if that ansatz is not a good approximation, the extracted D(z) — and the agreement with NRQCD — would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fragmentation functions become targetable from the same light-front Hamiltonian that describes bound states, closing the gap left by Euclidean lattice methods.
  • The particle-register encoding gives a concrete, gate-level blueprint for scaling to larger Fock sectors and finer momentum grids as quantum hardware improves.
  • The entropy-plateau criterion gives a practical stopping rule for extracting light-front-time quantities before decoherence and truncation effects take over.
  • Agreement with the 1993 NRQCD curve at intermediate z provides a quantitative calibration point for a theory that presently has no renormalization scheme.
  • The same pipeline, with a few hundred qubits, could lower the reach in z and eventually include transverse-momentum dependence needed for full collinear fragmentation functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: replacing the hand-built J/psi ansatz with the ground state of the truncated Hamiltonian is the natural decisive test; if D(z) moves outside the quoted bands, the agreement with NRQCD is largely inherited from the input wavefunction rather than from QCD dynamics.
  • My inference: the entropy-plateau rule should be validated against exact diagonalization of the same truncated Hamiltonian, since a finite system under unitary evolution can recur; the plateau may be a practical proxy rather than the true infinite-time limit.
  • My inference: comparing at more than one value of alpha_s, or with a running coupling, would test whether the match to NRQCD is stable or an accident of the single scale chosen.
  • My inference: because the annihilation-gate construction is state-agnostic, gluon-initiated and light-quark fragmentation could be computed with the same machinery once the corresponding hadron model states are supplied.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum-computing framework for computing parton-to-hadron fragmentation functions directly from the light-front QCD Hamiltonian. The authors encode a truncated, discretized LFQCD Hamiltonian in a particle-register qubit architecture, evolve an initial charm quark on a classical simulator, and extract c→J/ψ fragmentation by projecting the time-evolved state onto a model J/ψ longitudinal wavefunction. The extracted D(z) is compared with the 1993 NRQCD calculation of Braaten–Cheung–Yuan, with error bars reflecting the choice of extraction time. The paper includes a full re-derivation of the LFQCD interaction Hamiltonian, a detailed gate-resource scaling analysis, and an analytic check (Eq. 19 of the Supplementary Material) of the simulation for the λ=0 case. The central claim is that this is the first ab-initio-style calculation of fragmentation functions, with the J/ψ result broadly agreeing with NRQCD.

Significance. If the systematic uncertainties were controlled, this would be an important first step toward nonperturbative, real-time calculations of fragmentation functions from light-front QCD, complementing lattice methods and global fits. The paper's strengths are concrete: a complete LF Hamiltonian in light-front gauge, a working qubit encoding for fermions and bosons, a validation of the simulation against an analytic expression, and a resource analysis showing polynomial scaling with the momentum-grid size. However, the central quantitative result — the agreement with NRQCD shown in Fig. 2 — is defined through a hand-input J/ψ wavefunction and a heuristic stop-time criterion, and the paper does not quantify how the result depends on either. The work is therefore best read as a proof-of-principle; the 'ab initio' claim in the abstract is not yet supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Simulating Fragmentation Functions, Eq. (8) and Table IV] The exponents in Eq. (8) are α = 4 m_q^2/κ and β = m_qbar^2/κ. With m_q = 1.27 GeV and κ = 1.34 GeV, m_q^2/κ has mass dimension GeV, so the exponents of the dimensionless ratios x/z and (z−x)/z are dimensionally inconsistent. If the intended convention uses κ^2 in the denominator, or κ in GeV^2, the shape of χ0 changes and the curves in Fig. 2 are not uniquely defined. Since the extracted D(z) is defined by projection onto this state, this inconsistency must be fixed and the resulting sensitivity assessed.
  2. [Eqs. (7)–(8) and Fig. 2] The J/ψ detection state is a hand-input ansatz, not obtained from the truncated P^−. The authors acknowledge this ('Eq. (8) has to be seen as a variational approximation'), but the overlap of χ0 with the actual ground state of the truncated Hamiltonian is never quantified, and no variation of (m_c, κ) or alternative longitudinal wavefunctions is shown. Because D(z) is essentially |⟨ψ(t)|J/ψ_model(z)⟩|^2, the 'broad agreement' with NRQCD in Fig. 2 could be dominated by the choice of χ0 rather than by the Hamiltonian evolution. Please report the overlap ⟨χ0|χ_gs⟩ for the truncated Hamiltonian and show the sensitivity of Fig. 2 to reasonable variations of the ansatz parameters.
  3. [Simulating Fragmentation Functions; Supplementary Sec. V.B] The stop-time criterion identifies a Shannon-entropy plateau in the truncated unitary system with the x^+→∞ limit of the fragmentation function. This identification is asserted rather than demonstrated, and a finite unitary system will recur. There is also an internal inconsistency in the extraction time: the main text says the FF is extracted at times 'up to 1 GeV^{−1}', while Supplementary Sec. V.B says the values are extracted 'around t∼4 GeV^{−1}' (the first minimum of the no-gluon probability). This discrepancy must be resolved, and the dependence of D(z) on the plateau window should be quantified beyond the two times used to set the error bars.
  4. [Abstract and Computational Scaling section] The abstract claims 'for the first time how to calculate fragmentation functions, a problem heretofore untractable in general from ab-initio approaches.' The presented calculation uses a Fock-space truncation to at most four particles, zero transverse momentum, a fixed α_s with no renormalization, and a model wavefunction; none of these cutoffs is controlled by an extrapolation. This is an interesting proof-of-concept, but the 'ab initio' claim is not supported by the evidence in the manuscript. The claim should be softened or the dominant truncations should be controlled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'untractable' should be 'intractable'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption / Ref. [15]] The caption spells the NRQCD authors as 'Braaten, Cheung and Yan' while the reference gives 'Braaten, Cheung and Yuan' (E. Braaten, K. Cheung, T. C. Yuan). The spelling should be consistent.
  3. [Ref. [8]] The entry 'M. G´omez-Rocha and S. D. G/suppress lazek' contains a LaTeX error; it should read 'S. D. Głazek'.
  4. [Supplementary Table XIV] The table refers to 'Fig.(3) of the main text', but the fragmentation function is shown in Fig. 2 of the main text. The cross-reference should be corrected.
  5. [Eq. (7)] The J/ψ state notation uses a spin factor σ⃗_ij without an explicit color-singlet projector. Please clarify the normalization and color structure of the state.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the reported D(z) is defined by projection onto a hand-input model J/ψ wavefunction, so the NRQCD comparison partly inherits the ansatz.

  1. other [Simulating fragmentation functions, Eqs. (7)-(9), Fig. 2; caveat in same section]
    "|J/Ψ⟩ = ∑ δ_{q c q̄ c} χ0(x) σ⃗_{ij}/√(x(z−x)) |x i c q, (z−x) j c q̄⟩ ... χ0(x)=1/√C x^{β/2}(z−x)^{α/2} ... α=4m_q^2/κ, β=m_{q̄}^2/κ ... UQQ(k)|ψ_m^{J/Ψ}(k)⟩=|Ω̃⟩_q|Ω̃_q⟩ ... if we measure the qq registers and find them empty, it will mean that the J/ψ was present at the end of the evolution."

    The observable 'J/ψ present' is defined by the annihilation gate that maps the model state of Eqs. (7)-(8) to vacuum; hence the extracted D(z)=|⟨ψ(t)|J/ψ_model(z)⟩|^2 is the probability of finding the hand-input ansatz, not an eigenstate of the light-front Hamiltonian. The z-shape of that ansatz (x^{β/2}(z−x)^{α/2} with α,β set by m_c=1.27 GeV and κ=1.34 GeV) is an input, and the paper concedes 'Eq. (8) has to be seen as a variational approximation.' The 'broad agreement' with NRQCD in Fig. 2 is therefore partly inherited from the assumed wavefunction. The Hamiltonian evolution does independently determine the overall amplitudes, so the reduction is partial.

full rationale

The paper's core calculation is an independent dynamical simulation: an initial c-quark is evolved with the truncated light-front QCD Hamiltonian (4), stopped at an entropy plateau, and projected onto a quark-antiquark state. This step is self-contained and not a fit; parameters α_s, P^+, m_c, κ are stated and not adjusted to the NRQCD curve. The comparison to Braaten-Cheung-Yuan [15] is an external benchmark. Self-citations ([8],[9],[13],[14]) are methodological or peripheral, and the encoding [9] is reproduced in the Supplementary Material, so they are not load-bearing. The only circularity-adjacent element is the model J/ψ wavefunction: the measured 'fragmentation' is defined by a gate that maps the Eq. (7)-(8) model state to vacuum, so the extracted D(z) is an overlap with an input ansatz whose longitudinal shape is chosen, not solved. The authors explicitly state the wavefunction 'should be extracted from minimization of H_QCD' and that Eq. (8) is a variational approximation. This makes the ab-initio claim and the NRQCD agreement conditional on the ansatz, but because the time evolution independently determines the amplitude, the result is not equivalent to the input by construction. A separate dimensional inconsistency in the exponents of Eq. (8) (m_q^2/κ carries GeV) is a correctness risk, not circularity. Overall partial circularity, score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on three inputs the reader did not pay for upstream: (1) the J/ψ wavefunction ansatz, (2) the uncontrolled Fock/momentum truncation and lack of renormalization, and (3) the entropy-plateau extraction heuristic. The Hamiltonian itself is standard, and the encoding is the authors' own prior work. There are no new physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • κ (J/ψ wavefunction width) = 1.34 GeV
    Appears in Eq. (8): α = 4m_q^2/κ, β = m_q̄^2/κ. Taken from literature (ref. [16]) rather than fitted to the FF data, but it controls the longitudinal shape of the J/ψ model state and thus strongly shapes the extracted D(z).
  • α_s(P^+) = 0.1791 (0.18)
    Coupling constant at the simulation scale P^+ = 10 GeV, used in all runs (Table IV). A standard input chosen to match the NRQCD comparison, not fitted here.
  • Extraction light-front time t = ≈ 4 GeV^{-1} (first minimum / entropy plateau)
    The FF is read off at a time selected by the entropy-plateau criterion (main text and Supplementary Fig. 4). The authors vary the time within the plateau and use the spread as the only uncertainty; the result depends on this choice.
  • Infrared cutoff ε on Hamiltonian matrix elements = 0 or 0.02
    Runs 3 and 5 use ε = 0.02 (Table V) to discard small matrix elements. Supplementary Fig. 6 shows that D(z) changes noticeably with ε, so this hand-chosen cutoff is a source of systematic variation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Truncating the Fock space to at most two quarks, one antiquark, and one gluon, with longitudinal momenta only, is a valid approximation of QCD for computing the c→J/ψ fragmentation function at the claimed accuracy.
    The calculation uses this Nmax=4 truncation and P⊥=0 throughout; no renormalization is applied, and the authors acknowledge the truncation error is uncontrolled (main text and Supplementary Sec. V.A).
  • ad hoc to paper The physical J/ψ state is well approximated by the ansatz wavefunction of Eqs. (7)-(8), with parameters α = 4m_q^2/κ, β = m_q̄^2/κ, m_q=1.27 GeV, κ=1.34 GeV.
    The paper states 'Ideally, the longitudinal wavefunction should be estimated by minimizing the Hamiltonian... but use here a simple ansatz.' The extracted D(z) is the overlap with this input state.
  • ad hoc to paper The Shannon-entropy plateau of the truncated unitary system corresponds to the x^+→∞ limit in which the fragmentation function is defined.
    The extraction protocol stops evolution when S(t) plateaus (Fig. 1 and main text). No rigorous proof links this saturation to the field-theoretic limit of Eq. (1)/(3); the authors call it a practical criterion.
  • domain assumption The annihilation gate U_QQ of Eq. (9) acts as a valid interpolating operator that maps the J/ψ state to the vacuum, so that an empty q-q̄ register indicates the presence of a J/ψ.
    This defines the detection step in the FF extraction. It is analogous to a lattice interpolating operator, but its normalization and overlap with the physical J/ψ are not tested.
  • standard math The light-front QCD Hamiltonian terms quoted in the supplementary (Tables I-XI) are correct, with the minor corrections to Brodsky-Pauli-Pinsky noted there.
    The Hamiltonian is the standard LFQCD Hamiltonian of ref. [7]; the authors report recalculation and three 'very minor' corrections that they say do not affect the present 4-particle sector.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Computing Hadron Fragmentation Functions in Light-Front Chromodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWMY6VLX

@misc{pith2026251018869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Computing Hadron Fragmentation Functions in Light-Front Chromodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWMY6VLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.18869}
}
abstract

We deploy Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in Light-front Quantization (and Gauge), discretized and truncated in both Fock -- and momentum -- spaces with a particle-register encoding suited for quantum simulation; we show for the first time how to calculate fragmentation functions, a problem heretofore untractable in general from \emph{ab-initio} approaches. We provide a classical-simulator based proof-of-concept by computing the charm-to-charmonium fragmentation, $c\to J/\psi$, in a simplified setup, an interesting case where we can (reasonably) compare with the known 1993 perturbative evaluation within Nonrelativistic QCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the extracted fragmentation function for that J/ψ model at various times up to 1 GeV−1 , where entropy has already reached the plateau (proba￾bility spread among several modes). Likewise, the J/ψ already had a reasonable time to form as the charac￾teristic scale is the meson radius, estimated [17] to be 0.321 ± 0.014 fm ≃ 1.63 ± 0.07 GeV−1 . We see that the uncertainty bands due to the choice of extraction tim… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Hadron Structure from the Hierarchy of Quantum Correlations in Deep-Inelastic Scattering

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum-information measures of the DIS final electron-quark state are shown to be sensitive to transversity PDFs and can discriminate between different tensor-charge extractions.

  2. Quantum entanglement within quarkonium

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quark-antiquark entanglement entropy in quarkonium is derived from light-front wave functions, reduces to the Shannon entropy of TMDs, and shows strong polarization dependence for spin-1 mesons.

  3. Quantum simulating multi-particle processes in high energy nuclear physics: dijet production and color (de)coherence

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A framework is developed that encodes leading-order QCD antenna and dipole processes as quantum circuits, with benchmarks against analytic limits in simplified media.

  4. Quantum simulating multi-particle processes in high energy nuclear physics: dijet production and color (de)coherence

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantum-circuit framework maps partonic cross-sections for multi-particle QCD processes in media, benchmarked on dipole formation and antenna radiation at leading order.

  5. Quantum entanglement between partons in a strongly coupled quantum field theory

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    In unquenched scalar Yukawa theory, parton entanglement entropy encodes quantum information that cannot be reduced to Shannon entropy of parton distributions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [6]

    T.Li, H.Xing and D.B.Zhang, arXiv:2406.05683 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Gronau, F

    M. Gronau, F. Ravndal and Y. Zarmi, Nucl. Phys. B 51, 611-627 (1973) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90535-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90535-x 1973

  3. [2]

    Photon-hadron interactions,

    R. P. Feynman, “Photon-hadron interactions,” W.A. Benjamin, Reading, Mass. USA (1972)

    1972

  4. [3]

    Collins and T

    J. Collins and T. C. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 109, 016006 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.016006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.016006 2024

  5. [4]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. [MAP], Phys. Lett. B 834, 137456 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137456

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Bertone et al

    V. Bertone et al. [NNPDF], Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 651 (2018) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 155 (2024)] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6130-4

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6130-4 2018

  7. [7]

    S. J. Brodsky, H. C. Pauli and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept. 301, 299-486 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(97)00089-6

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(97)00089-6 1998

  8. [8]

    G´ omez-Rocha and S

    M. G´ omez-Rocha and S. D. G/suppress lazek, Phys. Rev. D92, 065005 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.065005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.065005 2015

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. G´ alvez-Viruet and F. J. Llanes-Estrada, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116018 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.116018

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Javadi-Abhari et al

    A. Javadi-Abhari et al. arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Barata, X

    J. Barata, X. Du, M. Li, W. Qian and C. A. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D 108, 056023 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.056023

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Carrasco-Codina et al

    M. Carrasco-Codina et al. arXiv:2507.13819 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Benito-Calvi˜ no, J

    G. Benito-Calvi˜ no, J. Garc´ ıa-Olivares and F. J. Llanes- Estrada, Nucl. Phys. A 1036, 122670 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Bloss, B

    H. Bloss, B. Kriesten and T. J. Hobbs, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139814 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139814 [arXiv:2503.15603 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  7. [15]

    Braaten, K

    E. Braaten, K. m. Cheung and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4230-4235 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.4230

    1993 doi

  8. [16]

    Meijian Li et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1045 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10988-5

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Hatton, C

    D. Hatton, C. T. H. Davies and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094514 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.094514

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    N. M. Linke et al. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 114, 3305-3310 (2017) doi:10.1073/pnas.1618020114 Supplementary material to Quantum Computing Hadron fragmentation functions in Light-front Chromodynamics J. J. Gálvez-Viruet, N. A. Martínez de Arenaza, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, M. Gómez-Ro...

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    simultaneous

    (ϵ3ϵ4) f a a1a3 f a a2a4 TABLE VII The Fork interactions 1 → 3 writ- ten down in terms of Dirac spinors. Here, △ = g2P + 4(2π)3 δ ( q+ 1 − q+ 2 − q+ 3 − q+ 4 ) δ(2) (⃗ q⊥1 − ⃗ q⊥2 − ⃗ q⊥3 − ⃗ q⊥4). F1 + 2△(u1T aγ+u2)(v3γ+T au4)√ q+ 1 q+ 2 q+ 3 q+ 4 (q+ 1 −q+ 2 ) 2 F3,1 + △(u1T...

    1998

  12. [20]

    have already been provided in a separate, methodological publication 1. In brief, we first define and code a unitary version of the antisymmetrizer operator ˆA† 2(α, ¬β) that antisym- metrizes the second register only if it stores mode α and the first register does not store mode...

    2024

  13. [21]

    However, for λ ̸= 0 the choice of time to extract the fragmentation function is dominated by the posi- tion of the first turning point

    When λ = 0 — i.e., only V1 is active—the two curves coincide up to a time given approximately by 14 GeV−1, beyond which we would produce a second gluon, but the boundary condi- tion a† p |g⟩ = 0 forced upon us by the limited memory (a second gluon cannot be represented in the ...

  14. [22]

    The only simulation with an ϵ ̸= 0 correspond to configurations 3 and 5 in table V. D. Uncertainty due to scale choice In a comparison with experiment, one should care- fully analyze the scale µ at which αs(µ) is evaluated (in principle, in a full nonperturbative calculation th...

  15. [23]

    The first minimum of the physical λ = 1 curve sets the time at which fragmentation functions are measured

    for the extreme case of λ = 0 . The first minimum of the physical λ = 1 curve sets the time at which fragmentation functions are measured. This is of interest for the systematic uncertainty induced by the truncation of the Fock space to a finite number of particles. FIG. 5 Shann...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.