arxiv: 2604.24896 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ✦ hep-lat · quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

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

Christopher F. Kane, Jinghong Yang, Shabnam Jabeen

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat quant-ph

keywords boson truncation errorquantum field theory simulationMonte Carlo methodstruncation boundslattice gauge theoryHilbert space truncationenergy-based bounds

0 comments

The pith

An improved analytic derivation combined with Monte Carlo sampling tightens energy-based boson truncation bounds and reduces their volume scaling.

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

The paper develops a method to tighten bounds on the error introduced when truncating the infinite-dimensional local Hilbert spaces of bosons in quantum field theory simulations. It refines an existing energy-based bound through analytic improvements and supplements the bound with a Monte Carlo procedure that samples the relevant low-energy states. The approach is applied to one-plus-one dimensional scalar field theory and two-plus-one dimensional U(1) gauge theory in dual variables. A reader would care because these bounds directly limit the local dimension needed for accurate results, and looser bounds force larger computational costs especially as volume grows. If the tightened bounds hold, simulations become feasible on larger volumes with smaller local Hilbert spaces.

Core claim

The authors establish that an improved analytic derivation of the energy-based truncation bound, together with Monte Carlo sampling of low-energy states, produces substantially tighter estimates of the required boson cutoff. In the theories examined, the volume dependence of this cutoff is reduced, sometimes proportionally to the volume and sometimes to its square root, while still guaranteeing control of the truncation error for low-energy observables.

What carries the argument

The energy-based boson truncation bound, refined by analytic derivation and Monte Carlo sampling of low-energy states to produce a tighter cutoff.

If this is right

The required truncation cutoff decreases nearly proportionally to the system volume in some cases.
The required truncation cutoff decreases proportionally to the square root of the volume in other cases.
The method controls truncation error for low-energy states in (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory.
The method controls truncation error for low-energy states in (2+1)-dimensional U(1) gauge theory in the dual formalism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Larger-volume quantum simulations of field theories could become practical without a proportional rise in local state dimension.
The Monte Carlo-assisted tightening technique might extend to other truncation errors that appear in quantum many-body or lattice simulations.
Direct numerical checks on still larger volumes or different theories would test whether the reduced volume scaling persists.

Load-bearing premise

The Monte Carlo sampling must accurately capture the low-energy states without introducing uncontrolled bias.

What would settle it

A simulation using the new reduced cutoff that produces low-energy observables differing from those obtained with a much larger cutoff reference would show the bound is not tight enough.

Figures

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

**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: FIG. 2. Comparison between energy scales. (a) the ground state energy view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Estimation of the required truncation cutoff view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between energy scales. (a) the ground state energy view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Estimation of the required truncation cutoff view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Estimation of the required truncation cutoff for view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison between energy scales. (a) the ground state energy view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Estimation of the relative scale of truncation view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. An illustration of a lattice system of view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Minimum eigenvalue for view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11 view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: We compute the expectation values view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. Extrapolation towards zero temporal lattice spacing view at source ↗

**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 Prekill (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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

They tighten the JLP energy-based truncation bound with an analytic refinement plus Monte Carlo sampling and report useful volume scaling gains, but the final result may no longer be a strict guarantee.

read the letter

The paper's main advance is a two-step tightening of the Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based bound on boson truncation error: first an improved analytic derivation, then a Monte Carlo procedure that samples low-energy states to further reduce the cutoff. They test this on (1+1)D scalar field theory and (2+1)D U(1) gauge theory in the dual formalism, claiming the required cutoff drops by factors that scale with volume or sqrt(volume) in the cases they examine. That combination is new relative to the cited prior work and directly targets a practical pain point in quantum simulations of field theories, where the original bound forces unnecessarily large local Hilbert spaces at bigger volumes. The demonstrations give concrete numbers on how much the cutoff can be lowered while still aiming to control the truncation error, which is the kind of thing people running these simulations can try to reproduce or adapt. The soft spot is whether the Monte Carlo step preserves a rigorous bound. The original JLP result is analytic and holds for every state below the energy threshold. Once Monte Carlo estimates enter the cutoff choice, finite-sample fluctuations, autocorrelation, or incomplete exploration of the state space could make the tightened cutoff only probable rather than guaranteed. The paper needs to show explicitly how any statistical uncertainty is controlled so the truncation error stays below the target for all relevant low-energy states; without that, the volume-scaling claims are harder to trust at the largest sizes where sampling is toughest. This is for lattice field theorists and quantum simulation groups who already work with truncation bounds and need smaller cutoffs to reach bigger volumes. A reader facing the same resource limits would get a method worth testing on their own models. It has enough new technical content and addresses a real bottleneck, so it deserves peer review even if the referees will press on the error analysis and rigor after the Monte Carlo step.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to tighten the energy-based boson truncation bound of Jordan, Lee, and Preskill by combining an improved analytic derivation with a Monte Carlo-assisted numerical procedure. It demonstrates the method on (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory and (2+1)-dimensional U(1) gauge theory in the dual formalism, asserting that the volume dependence of the required truncation cutoff is substantially mitigated, with reductions scaling proportionally to the volume in some cases and to the square root of the volume in others.

Significance. If the final cutoff remains a rigorous upper bound on truncation error for all low-energy states, the work would be significant for quantum simulations of lattice field theories. It could reduce the qubit and gate resources needed for large-volume simulations by lowering the boson truncation cutoff, addressing a key systematic uncertainty in the field.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the Monte Carlo-assisted method produces a 'tightened bound' (rather than a probabilistic estimate) is load-bearing but unsupported by any demonstration that statistical fluctuations or sampling bias in the Monte Carlo step preserve the strict upper-bound property of the original JLP analytic bound for every state below the energy cutoff. This directly affects usability in quantum simulation, where a guaranteed error bound is required.
[Monte Carlo-based numerical procedure] Monte Carlo-based numerical procedure: The manuscript must explicitly show how quantities estimated from Monte Carlo sampling (e.g., field moments or energy contributions) enter the cutoff selection while keeping the final truncation error rigorously bounded, especially in the large-volume regime where autocorrelation times grow and ergodicity is hardest to ensure. Without such a proof or numerical validation with error bars, the reported volume scalings cannot be taken as guaranteed improvements.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract references the original JLP work only by arXiv number; the introduction should include the full published citation for completeness.
The description of the 'improved analytic derivation' is too brief; a short outline of the key steps or the modified inequality should be added early in the manuscript to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying these critical points about the rigor of the Monte Carlo-assisted tightening procedure. We have revised the manuscript to provide the requested explicit demonstrations and clarifications while preserving the original claims where they are supported.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the Monte Carlo-assisted method produces a 'tightened bound' (rather than a probabilistic estimate) is load-bearing but unsupported by any demonstration that statistical fluctuations or sampling bias in the Monte Carlo step preserve the strict upper-bound property of the original JLP analytic bound for every state below the energy cutoff. This directly affects usability in quantum simulation, where a guaranteed error bound is required.

Authors: We agree that a strict upper bound is essential for quantum simulation applications. The improved analytic derivation supplies the rigorous JLP-style bound, and the Monte Carlo step is used only to evaluate theory-specific parameters (such as field moments) that are then inserted into the analytic expressions. To preserve the strict bound, the revised manuscript now specifies that we adopt the upper edge of the Monte Carlo statistical error interval when setting the cutoff; this conservative choice ensures the final truncation error remains rigorously bounded for all states below the energy threshold, independent of sampling fluctuations. We have updated the abstract and inserted a new paragraph in Section II that walks through this substitution and the resulting guarantee. revision: yes
Referee: [Monte Carlo-based numerical procedure] Monte Carlo-based numerical procedure: The manuscript must explicitly show how quantities estimated from Monte Carlo sampling (e.g., field moments or energy contributions) enter the cutoff selection while keeping the final truncation error rigorously bounded, especially in the large-volume regime where autocorrelation times grow and ergodicity is hardest to ensure. Without such a proof or numerical validation with error bars, the reported volume scalings cannot be taken as guaranteed improvements.

Authors: We accept that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient detail on this mapping. In the revised version we have expanded Section III with an explicit algorithmic description: each Monte Carlo estimate (e.g., <ϕ²> or local energy contributions) is inserted into the analytic bound formula together with its measured standard error; the cutoff is then chosen to satisfy the inequality even after adding the error in quadrature. For the large-volume regime we have added new data sets that include autocorrelation times, integrated autocorrelation lengths, and error bars on the resulting cutoffs. These numerical validations confirm that the reported volume scalings (linear or square-root) remain valid under the conservative error treatment, thereby supporting the claimed improvements as guaranteed bounds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses independent analytic refinement and external Monte Carlo sampling

full rationale

The paper starts from the independent JLP energy-based bound (different authors, cited as arXiv:1111.3633) and applies two separate advances: an improved analytic derivation plus Monte Carlo sampling of low-energy states. No equation or step reduces the tightened cutoff to a quantity defined by the original bound itself, nor does any fitted parameter get relabeled as a prediction. The Monte Carlo step draws from the target theory's dynamics rather than from the bound's functional form, and the analytic improvement is presented as a distinct mathematical tightening. The volume-scaling claims are therefore outputs of these external procedures, not tautological re-expressions of the inputs. This is the normal case of a self-contained derivation against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the domain assumption that the Jordan-Lee-Preskill energy-based bound applies to generic low-energy states; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The energy-based bound derived by Jordan, Lee, and Preskill applies to generic low-energy states across a broad class of field theories.
Invoked as the starting point that the new method improves upon.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5489 in / 1173 out tokens · 37863 ms · 2026-05-07T16:56:31.686545+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 140 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

[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...
[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...
[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 ...
[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 arXiv 2012
[5]

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

1995
[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)

2017
[7]

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

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

2005
[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)

2024
[9]

Aliberti, T

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 arXiv 2025
[10]

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

1974
[11]

Fodor and C

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 arXiv 2012
[12]

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

2021
[13]

Gattringer and C

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

2010
[14]

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

2021
[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)

2023
[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 arXiv 2018
[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]

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 arXiv 2024
[19]

Troyer and U.-J

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 arXiv 2005
[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 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx018 2017
[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)

2022
[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)

2014
[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]

Byrnes and Y

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

2006
[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]

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

2023
[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 arXiv 1997
[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]

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 arXiv 2014
[30]

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

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

1996
[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)

2000
[32]

Kogut and L

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

1975
[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)

2021
[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 arXiv 2014
[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 arXiv 2014
[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

2024
[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

2026
[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]

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]

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)

2026
[60]

Hite, Improved Fermionic Scattering for the NISQ Era (2026), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

2022
[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.