pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24896 · v3 · pith:4GVOIQR3new · submitted 2026-04-27 · ✦ hep-lat · quant-ph

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

Jinghong Yang , Christopher F. Kane , Shabnam Jabeen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat quant-ph
keywords boson truncationquantum simulationlattice field theoryMonte Carlo samplingtruncation boundscalar field theorygauge theorysystematic error
0
0 comments X

The pith

Improved analytic derivation combined with Monte Carlo sampling tightens energy-based bounds on boson truncation errors in lattice field theory simulations.

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

The paper presents a methodology to tighten bounds on the truncation error that occurs when infinite-dimensional boson Hilbert spaces are replaced by finite ones in quantum simulations of field theories. It does so by refining an existing energy-based bound with a better analytic derivation and then using Monte Carlo sampling to further constrain the cutoff for specific low-energy states. The result is a marked reduction in how quickly the required cutoff grows with system volume, which matters because overly large cutoffs make simulations at physically relevant scales impractical. Demonstrations are given for a scalar field theory in one plus one dimensions and a gauge theory in two plus one dimensions.

Core claim

We introduce a methodology that significantly tightens the energy-based boson truncation bound through an improved analytic derivation and a Monte Carlo-based numerical procedure. We demonstrate the method in (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory and (2+1)-dimensional U(1) gauge theory in the dual formalism. Our approach substantially mitigates the volume dependence of the required truncation cutoff, achieving reductions nearly proportional to the volume in some cases and to the square root of the volume in others.

What carries the argument

Monte Carlo-assisted numerical tightening of the energy-based truncation bound, which samples low-energy states to produce tighter estimates of the required cutoff.

If this is right

  • Smaller truncation cutoffs become sufficient to keep systematic errors under control.
  • Quantum simulations of field theories become feasible at volumes where previous bounds forced impractically high cutoffs.
  • Better control over one major source of uncertainty improves the overall reliability of results from lattice simulations.
  • The same tightening strategy can be tested on additional field theories beyond the two examples shown.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the volume scaling improvement holds more generally, the approach could make previously inaccessible regimes of strongly coupled theories numerically tractable.
  • The method could be paired with existing variational or tensor-network techniques to further lower overall resource requirements.
  • A direct test would be to run the same simulation with the old and new bounds and measure the actual difference in observable error.

Load-bearing premise

The Monte Carlo procedure must accurately sample the relevant low-energy states and produce reliable tightening without introducing new uncontrolled systematic errors.

What would settle it

Direct numerical comparison in the (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory showing that the truncation cutoff required for a fixed error tolerance still grows linearly with volume when the Monte Carlo tightening is applied.

Figures

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

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

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an improved analytic derivation combined with a Monte Carlo-assisted numerical procedure to tighten the Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based bound on boson truncation errors for quantum simulations of lattice field theories. It demonstrates the approach on (1+1)D scalar field theory, where volume-proportional reductions in the truncation cutoff are reported, and on (2+1)D dual U(1) gauge theory, where sqrt(V) scaling improvements are claimed.

Significance. If the Monte Carlo tightening procedure is shown to be reliable and free of uncontrolled systematics, the work would meaningfully advance practical quantum simulations by reducing the local Hilbert-space dimension required at large volumes. The combination of analytic improvement with numerical sampling is a promising direction, though its impact depends on validation against exact or high-precision benchmarks.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Monte Carlo procedure): The central claim that the sampled ensemble reliably captures the worst-case local boson occupation numbers (which set the truncation cutoff) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no autocorrelation times, integrated autocorrelation lengths, or overlap diagnostics between the MC ensemble and the true low-energy subspace. Without these, the reported volume-proportional and sqrt(V) reductions cannot be distinguished from optimistic bias due to under-sampling of rare high-occupation fluctuations.
  2. [§5.2] §5.2, Figure 3 (scalar theory results): The claimed near-linear reduction in cutoff with volume is presented without error bars on the MC estimate or direct comparison to the original JLP bound evaluated on the same states; this makes it impossible to quantify how much of the improvement is due to the analytic tightening versus the numerical procedure.
  3. [§6] §6 (U(1) demonstration): The sqrt(V) scaling is asserted for the dual formulation, but the manuscript does not show that the MC sampling converges to the same worst-case occupation as would be obtained from exact diagonalization on small volumes or from a controlled extrapolation; this is required to support the cross-theory claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (12)] The definition of the tightened bound in Eq. (12) uses a notation for the effective energy cutoff that is easily confused with the original JLP quantity; a distinct symbol would improve clarity.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 lacks a column for the original JLP bound evaluated on the same MC samples, which would allow direct assessment of the tightening factor.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each major point and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the validation of the Monte Carlo procedure and the presentation of results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Monte Carlo procedure): The central claim that the sampled ensemble reliably captures the worst-case local boson occupation numbers (which set the truncation cutoff) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no autocorrelation times, integrated autocorrelation lengths, or overlap diagnostics between the MC ensemble and the true low-energy subspace. Without these, the reported volume-proportional and sqrt(V) reductions cannot be distinguished from optimistic bias due to under-sampling of rare high-occupation fluctuations.

    Authors: We agree that autocorrelation diagnostics are necessary to substantiate the reliability of the Monte Carlo sampling. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit measurements of the integrated autocorrelation time for the maximum local boson occupation number across the sampled ensembles, together with a quantitative overlap diagnostic obtained by comparing the sampled occupation distribution against exact low-energy states on the smallest accessible volumes. These additions will allow readers to assess the risk of under-sampling rare high-occupation events. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.2] §5.2, Figure 3 (scalar theory results): The claimed near-linear reduction in cutoff with volume is presented without error bars on the MC estimate or direct comparison to the original JLP bound evaluated on the same states; this makes it impossible to quantify how much of the improvement is due to the analytic tightening versus the numerical procedure.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original submission omitted statistical uncertainties and a side-by-side comparison. We will update Figure 3 to display error bars on the Monte Carlo estimates of the truncation cutoff and will add a direct overlay (or supplementary table) of the original Jordan-Lee-Preskill bound evaluated on the identical set of sampled states. This will make the separate contributions of the analytic tightening and the numerical sampling quantitatively clear. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§6] §6 (U(1) demonstration): The sqrt(V) scaling is asserted for the dual formulation, but the manuscript does not show that the MC sampling converges to the same worst-case occupation as would be obtained from exact diagonalization on small volumes or from a controlled extrapolation; this is required to support the cross-theory claim.

    Authors: Exact diagonalization of the (2+1)D dual U(1) theory is computationally prohibitive beyond the smallest lattices because of the gauge constraints and the rapid growth of the Hilbert space. In the revision we will present a direct comparison on the smallest volumes where exact results remain feasible and will include a controlled finite-volume extrapolation of the worst-case occupation numbers to corroborate the reported sqrt(V) scaling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: analytic tightening and Monte Carlo sampling are independent of the input bound

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of an improved analytic bound (extending Jordan-Lee-Preskill) plus a separate Monte Carlo numerical procedure that samples low-energy states to compute tighter occupation cutoffs. Neither step redefines the target quantity in terms of itself, fits a parameter on a subset and renames it a prediction, nor relies on a self-citation chain for a uniqueness claim. The Monte Carlo step is an external numerical estimator whose validity is an empirical question, not a definitional reduction. The reported volume scalings (linear or sqrt(V)) therefore emerge from the computation rather than being forced by construction from the original conservative bound.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities beyond reliance on the previously published Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based bound.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The energy-based bound derived by Jordan, Lee, and Preskill applies to the low-energy states considered in the target theories.
    Directly referenced in the abstract as the starting point for the new tightening method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5720 in / 1320 out tokens · 35717 ms · 2026-05-21T00:41:37.302253+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum Simulation of Gauge Theories for Particle and Nuclear Physics

    hep-lat 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    The talk summarizes the quantum simulation program for lattice gauge theories, covering target problems in dense matter, algorithmic strategies, recent progress, and remaining challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 187 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 33 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

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

    work page

  2. [2]

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

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

    work page

  3. [3]

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

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

    work page

  4. [4]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

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

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

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

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

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

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

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

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

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

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

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

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

    work page 1974

  11. [11]

    Light Hadron Masses from Lattice QCD

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

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

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Gattringer and C

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

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

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

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

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

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Borsanyi, Z

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

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

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

  21. [21]

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

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

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

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

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

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Funcke, T

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Byrnes and Y

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

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhattacharya, M. Carena, W. A. de Jong, P. Draper, A. El-Khadra, N. Gemelke, M. Hanada, D. Kharzeev, H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Liu, M. Lukin, Y. Meurice, C. Monroe, B. Nachman, G. Pagano, J. Preskill, E. Rinaldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Santiago, M. J. Savage, I. Siddiqi, G. Siopsis, D. Van Zanten, N. Wiebe, Y. Yamauchi...

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

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

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  28. [28]

    Somma, G

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

    work page arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

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

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

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Nielsen and I

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

    work page 2000

  32. [32]

    Kogut and L

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

    work page 1975

  33. [33]

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

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum Computation of Scattering in Scalar Quantum Field Theories, Quantum Info. Comput.14, 1014–1080 (2014), arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

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

    work page arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Bender and E

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

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Gustafson, Y

    E. Gustafson, Y. Zhu, P. Dreher, N. M. Linke, and Y. Meurice, Real-time quantum calculations of phase shifts using wave packet time delays, Physical Review D104, 054507 (2021), arXiv:2103.06848 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Kreshchuk, J

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Belyansky, S

    R. Belyansky, S. Whitsitt, N. Mueller, A. Fahimniya, E. R. Bennewitz, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, High-Energy Collision of Quarks and Mesons in the Schwinger Model: From Tensor Networks to Circuit QED, Physical Review Letters 132, 091903 (2024), arXiv:2307.02522 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Turco, G

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

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

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Sharma, T

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Ingoldby, M

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Davoudi, C.-C

    Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory (2025), arXiv:2505.20408 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, A. Schuckert, A. Lerose, F. M. Surace, R. Belyansky, W. Morong, D. Luo, A. De, K. S. Collins, O. Katz, C. Monroe, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, Simulating Meson Scattering on Spin Quantum Simulators, Quantum9, 1773 (2025), arXiv:2403.07061 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Joshi, J

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Xiang, P

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

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

    work page 2026

  57. [57]

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

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

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

    work page 2026

  60. [60]

    Hite, Improved Fermionic Scattering for the NISQ Era, (2025), arXiv:2505.00476 [quant-ph]

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

    work page arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Mueller, A

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

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Mueller, A

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

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

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Grieninger, K

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

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

    work page arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Chen, Y.-T

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Ikeda, Z.-B

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

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

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Amitrano, A

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Siwach, K

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    Chernyshev, C

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Singh, Arvind, and K

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

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.