Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Particle Production, Equilibration, and Quantum Recurrences from Classical Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that particle production from highly occupied classical fields in lattice $\lambda\phi^4$ theory can be simulated directly on a quantum computer, and that the produced excitations equilibrate to the diagonal ensemble…

desk verdict Solid proof-of-principle on small lattices; the missing truncation-dependence check keeps the plateau claim from being physics yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11316 v1 pith:AANRYTH6 submitted 2026-08-11 hep-ph hep-latnucl-thquant-ph

classification hep-phhep-latnucl-thquant-ph
keywords latticescalarfieldtheorycoherentstatesparticleproductionequilibrationdiagonalensemblequantumPoincarérecurrencessimulationnonequilibrium
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

The paper argues that quantum computers can simulate, from first principles, particle production from highly occupied classical fields—the regime relevant to the earliest moments of heavy-ion collisions and to reheating after inflation. Using lattice $\lambda\phi^4$ theory (a scalar field on a spatial grid with a quartic self-interaction) with small lattices and truncated bosonic spaces, it shows that a coherent state initially matching a classical field configuration relaxes: the field expectation value decays, the pressure and occupation numbers rise, and all observables settle at the values predicted by the diagonal ensemble. The equilibrated stage lasts several times the initial relaxation time before late-time oscillations set in, which the paper identifies with quantum Poincaré recurrences. A sympathetic reader would take the claim to be that equilibration is an intrinsic quantum, interaction-driven dephasing phenomenon, not a classical or long-time-average effect, and that this can be studied with polynomial quantum resources.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coherent initial state $|\psi(0)\rangle=\bigotimes_p |\alpha_p\rangle$, with Glauber coherent-state parameters fixed so that $\langle\hat\phi\rangle$ and $\langle\hat\pi\rangle$ equal the classical field and momentum configurations; the zero-momentum mode carries all the initial occupation. The mechanism is quantum dephasing: under unitary time evolution, relative phases among energy eigenstates erase off-diagonal contributions to expectation values, so observables settle to the diagonal ensemble $\rho_{\rm eq}=\sum_n |c_n|^2 |E_n\rangle\langle E_n|$ even though the true state stays pure. Numerically, the analysis uses exact Hamiltonian exponentiation in a truncated harmonic-oscillator basis, digital quantum-circuit simulation with $n_Q$ qubits per lattice site and second-order Trotter steps, and, for larger systems, time-dependent variational-principle evolution of matrix-product states with a maximum bond dimension $\chi_{\rm max}=25$. The algorithm's resource count, $\mathrm{CNOT}$ gates $O(N\,n_Q^4\,t^{1+1/p}/\varepsilon^{1/p})$, is what makes the authors' first-principles programme scalable in principle.

What would settle it

Re-run the same protocol at fixed $N=5$ while increasing $n_Q$ from 6 to 8 to 10 (and the harmonic-oscillator cutoff accordingly): if the diagonal-ensemble plateau values shift, shorten, or disappear, the claimed equilibration is an artifact of the truncated spectrum rather than a property of the lattice field theory. The companion check is the $\lambda=0$ control, where the paper itself predicts no relaxation; any observed damping there would signal dephasing from numerical error rather than physical particle production.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a spatially homogeneous coherent state with $\phi_{\rm cl}(0)=5$ and $\pi_{\rm cl}(0)=0$ on a two-site lattice with $a=0.25$, $m=1$, and $\lambda=1$, the field expectation value relaxes to zero, the pressure rises from $-37.78$ to $19.20$, and the occupation numbers grow from $f_{p_0}=6.5$ to $17.03$ and from $f_{p_1}=0$ to $3.3\times10^{-3}$; by $t\approx10\,m^{-1}$ all match the diagonal ensemble $\rho_{\rm eq}=\sum_n |c_n|^2 |E_n\rangle\langle E_n|$, although the underlying many-body state remains pure. Relaxation is sequential in momentum space—the zero mode equilibrates before the higher-momentum mode—and for $\phi_{\rm cl}(0)=2,5,10$ the same pattern holds, with residual oscillations shrinking at larger amplitude. The equilibration interval runs from $t=11.8$ to $18.5\,m^{-1}$ for $\phi_{\rm cl}(0)=5$ and from $14.2$ to $63.2\,m^{-1}$ for $\phi_{\rm cl}(0)=10$; for $\phi_{\rm cl}(0)=2$ a first recurrence is identified at $t\simeq411.6\,m^{-1}$. In larger one-dimensional lattices ($N=5,7,9,11$), the equilibration stage lengthens and recurrence effects move to later times as the Hilbert-space dimension grows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a small, hard-truncated system—up to eleven lattice sites with six qubits per site or a truncated harmonic-oscillator basis—faithfully reproduces the quantum field theory, and the paper does not demonstrate convergence in truncation, continuum, or volume.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Equilibration in this setting is intrinsically quantum and interaction-driven: at $\lambda=0$ a coherent state stays coherent and follows the classical periodic solution, so the observed relaxation and particle production require the quartic interaction and quantum dephasing.
  • Observables relax to diagonal-ensemble values within a finite time window without explicit long-time averaging, and the equilibration plateau lasts several times the initial relaxation time.
  • For more highly occupied initial states the plateau is longer and residuals smaller; for $\phi_{\rm cl}(0)=10$ the 1% equilibration interval is about 4.5 times longer than for $\phi_{\rm cl}(0)=5$.
  • Larger lattices display longer-lived equilibration stages and later recurrences, consistent with recurrence times growing with Hilbert-space dimension, and the plateau values converge as $N$ increases.
  • An effective equation of state can emerge from only a few particles, which is directly relevant to searches for the smallest locally equilibrated quark-gluon droplets at hadron colliders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the plateau persists with increasing truncation and volume, the phenomenon is dephasing in a finite spectrum rather than thermalisation in the thermodynamic sense; the paper's own open questions about the Gibbs ensemble and eigenstate thermalisation point exactly there.
  • Because equilibration proceeds mode by mode from low to high momentum, a testable extension is to measure the droplet-size dependence of momentum-mode equilibration in small collision systems predicted by kinetic theory.
  • Starting from multi-mode or squeezed coherent states would test whether the plateau length and recurrence times depend on the number of initially populated modes, which the single-mode homogeneous initial states do not probe.
  • The pressure plateau suggests a practical observable: if such systems occur in heavy-ion collisions, the early equation of state may be measurable from hadron momentum anisotropies in small systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies particle production and equilibration starting from highly occupied coherent states in lattice λφ^4 theory in 1+1 dimensions. Numerically, it uses exact diagonalization for two- and five-site lattices, ideal quantum-circuit simulation (Qiskit) for two sites, and tensor-network (TDVP) evolution for up to eleven sites. The central observation is that the field expectation value, pressure, and occupation numbers relax to the diagonal-ensemble values on a timescale of order tens of m^{-1}, remain close to these values for an interval several times longer, and then display revivals interpreted as quantum recurrences; with increasing system size the residual oscillations become weaker. The paper also provides a resource estimate for a fault-tolerant quantum algorithm for the same dynamics.

Significance. Taken as statements about the finite truncated models actually simulated, the paper is a clean proof of principle: it benchmarks a quantum-circuit construction against exact evolution, validates TDVP against exact diagonalization at N=5, and makes a parameter-free comparison with the diagonal ensemble. The qualitatively new observation—dephasing to the diagonal ensemble followed by recurrences in a relativistic scalar lattice theory with high occupancy—is potentially interesting for the discussion of thermalization in small systems relevant to heavy-ion physics. However, the extrapolation from these small, fixed-cutoff lattices to lattice λφ^4 quantum field theory proper and to quark-gluon droplets is not yet supported; the missing convergence tests are the main gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Equilibration and quantum recurrences in small systems (Fig. 2)] All quantitative results in Fig. 2—the 1% equilibration windows (t=11.8–18.5 for φ=5, t=14.2–63.2 for φ=10) and the recurrence at t≈411.6 for φ=2—are computed at a single local truncation (n_Q=6 qubits per site for the exact/qubit calculations, and an unspecified fixed N_max in the HO-basis runs), with no convergence study in the truncation level. Any finite closed quantum system dephases to its diagonal ensemble on a timescale set by its discrete spectrum, so the physical statement that this is the dynamics of lattice λφ^4 rather than an artifact of the cutoff requires showing that the plateau boundaries and recurrence time are stable as n_Q (or N_max) is increased. Without such a check, the quoted timescales cannot be claimed as properties of the lattice model.
  2. [Quantum equilibration in larger systems (Fig. 3)] The N=7, 9, and 11 results rely entirely on TDVP with fixed maximal bond dimension χ_max=25, and no bond-dimension convergence test or discarded-weight/truncation-error estimate is reported. Since bond truncation removes Schmidt weight and can mimic dissipation by damping residual oscillations, the reported trend of progressively weaker oscillations and longer-lived equilibration with increasing N could be an artifact of fixed χ_max. The N=5 benchmark in Supplemental Fig. 7 validates only one system size and one parameter set; it does not certify χ_max=25 for N=11, where entanglement is larger. The authors should provide χ_max scans (e.g., 25, 50, 100) and report quantitative equilibration intervals for the larger systems rather than relying on visual inspection.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S16)] The displacement-operator circuit uses the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff approximation e^{A+B} ≈ e^A e^B, and the text states that the omitted commutator terms are 'numerically negligible for the parameters considered' without showing the magnitude. Because the truncated finite-dimensional operators do not satisfy canonical commutation relations exactly, this step should be quantified (e.g., by reporting the fidelity between the approximate and exact displacement operators, or the size of the leading commutator correction as a function of n_Q and α). The exact quantum-circuit benchmark at N=2, n_Q=6 provides some validation, but it does not establish that the approximation remains valid for the larger n_Q values envisioned in the resource estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [After Eq. (9)] The phrase 'values predicted by the diagonal ensemble' could be misread as an independent prediction; since ρ_eq is constructed from the same Hamiltonian and initial state used for the evolution, the late-time agreement is a diagnostic of dephasing in the truncated spectrum rather than a test of a thermal ensemble. Please rephrase to make this distinction explicit and to connect with the Gibbs-ensemble question already listed as open in the Conclusion.
  2. [Fig. 3 and text below it] The statements that residual oscillations 'become progressively weaker' and that the equilibration stage 'persists for longer times' as N increases are made without quantitative definitions. Please provide the same kind of numerical equilibration windows used for the N=2 case, or clearly state the criterion applied to the tensor-network data.
  3. [Setup and Supplemental Material] The local Hilbert-space dimensions used for the N=5 exact diagonalization and for the HO-basis tensor-network runs are not specified; please state the N_max values used per momentum mode (and whether they are mode-dependent) so that the truncation is reproducible.
  4. [Recurrence discussion, paragraph after Fig. 2] What is identified at t≈411.6 for φ=2 is a revival of a single observable (φ_cl) within a 10% window, not a true Poincaré recurrence of the quantum state. Calling it 'the first recurrence' is acceptable if clearly defined, but the text should distinguish this partial observable revival from a full state recurrence to avoid overstatement.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract's phrase 'first-principles framework for nonequilibrium quantum-field dynamics' is stronger than what is demonstrated, given the small lattices and fixed truncations; the Conclusion already appropriately lists larger volumes and the continuum limit as open. Qualifying the claim with 'on small lattices' would better match the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equilibration and recurrence results are direct dynamical simulations with no fitted parameters; the diagonal-ensemble comparison is a standard non-tautological dephasing benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by direct unitary time evolution of the fixed lattice Hamiltonian (Eqs. (1)-(2)) from coherent states (Eq. (4)); no parameter is fitted to the reported observables, and the diagonal ensemble (Eq. (9)) is constructed from the Hamiltonian and initial state independently of the time-dependent expectation values. The observed finite-time relaxation to the diagonal ensemble is therefore a genuine dynamical finding, not an identity. The paper's statement that the diagonal-ensemble values agree with long-time averages is a mathematical consistency check rather than an independent prediction, but it is not load-bearing for the main numerical claim. The Poincaré-recurrence times are direct observations in the same finite truncated model, not derived from a fitted input. The self-citations ([18], [26], [52], [62]) are contextual background or open-question references and are not load-bearing for the central calculation. The lack of convergence checks in the qubit/oscillator truncation and bond dimension is a validity and robustness concern about the model, not a circularity. No specific reduction of a prediction to its own input can be exhibited from the paper's equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on standard lattice regularization, coherent-state initial conditions, and finite truncations. No parameters are fitted to external data, but several physical and numerical settings are chosen by hand, and the convergence of the truncations is not established, so the ledger mainly records unverified numerical assumptions.

free parameters (7)
  • mass m = 1
    Sets the mass scale and the unit of time; chosen by hand, not fitted to external data.
  • quartic coupling lambda = 1
    Interaction strength for the demonstrative regime; no external constraint is used.
  • lattice spacing a = 0.25
    Chosen in the Setup so the ultraviolet lattice momentum pi/a is well separated from the mass scale.
  • initial field amplitude phi_cl(0) = 2, 5, 10
    Defines the overoccupied coherent initial state; controls the occupation numbers and recurrence times.
  • qubits per site n_Q = 6
    Truncates the local field Hilbert space in the Qiskit circuit simulations (Fig. 1); no convergence study in n_Q is reported.
  • MPS bond dimension chi_max = 25
    Truncation parameter in the tensor-network runs for N=7,9,11 (Fig. 3); no bond-dimension convergence scan is shown.
  • time step delta_t = 0.01
    Trotterization and TDVP step size used in the simulations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The lattice Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) with periodic boundary conditions is a valid regularization of lambda phi^4 quantum field theory.
    The entire simulation is defined on a finite lattice; no continuum limit is taken or checked.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-dimensional qubit or harmonic-oscillator truncation preserves the relevant nonequilibrium dynamics.
    n_Q=6 per site or N_max levels truncates the bosonic Hilbert space; the paper does not demonstrate convergence in the truncation.
  • domain assumption Coherent states with only the zero-momentum mode populated represent the classical field initial conditions faithfully.
    Used in Eqs. (4)-(5) to map classical configurations to quantum states; restricts to spatially homogeneous initial data.
  • domain assumption The diagonal ensemble in Eq. (9) describes the late-time values of the observables.
    The relaxation targets are defined by this ensemble, which is dephasing of a finite system rather than a thermal state.
  • ad hoc to paper Tensor-network time evolution with bond dimension 25 is accurate for the N=7,9,11 results.
    Validated only at N=5 against exact diagonalization (Supplemental Fig. 7); the truncation error at larger N is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff commutator terms are negligible in the coherent-state displacement operator.
    Supplemental Eq. (S16) omits them because they are numerically negligible for the chosen parameters, without a published bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle Production, Equilibration, and Quantum Recurrences from Classical Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AANRYTH6

@misc{pith2026260811316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle Production, Equilibration, and Quantum Recurrences from Classical Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AANRYTH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11316}
}
abstract

We investigate particle production from classical fields, a phenomenon central to the pre-equilibrium dynamics of relativistic heavy-ion collisions and the reheating epoch of the early Universe. Using lattice $\lambda\phi^4$ theory as a proof of principle, we show that this problem is naturally amenable to quantum computation, providing a first-principles framework for nonequilibrium quantum-field dynamics beyond existing approximations. We perform simulations on small spatial lattices, exhausting our available classical computational resources while maintaining a direct mapping to future quantum-computing implementations. We find that particle production is accompanied by equilibration of observables, including the field expectation value, occupation-number distribution, and pressure. The observed equilibration persists for timescales several times longer than the initial equilibration time before the observables resume oscillatory behavior associated with quantum Poincar\'e recurrences. Our results establish a route toward first-principles studies of equilibration in nonequilibrium quantum field theory and provide insight into the search for the smallest possible locally equilibrated quark-gluon systems at hadron colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11316 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Particle production and equilibration from clas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equilibration and quantum recurrences for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Equilibration with increasing system size. Shown are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Field operator circuits for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Conjugate momentum operator circuits for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Displacement operator circuit for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Full real-time evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Linear two-local ansatz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Preparation of the coherent state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison between the tensor-network (TN) and direct-exponentiation (exact) results for an initial coherent state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D49, 2233 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309289. 6

  2. [2]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D49, 3352 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9311205

  3. [3]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D55, 5414 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9606337

  4. [4]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B529, 451 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9802440

  5. [5]

    A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B572, 227 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9906322

  6. [6]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 3195 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405187

  7. [7]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D56, 3258 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704452

  8. [8]

    Berges, AIP Conf

    J. Berges, AIP Conf. Proc.739, 3 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0409233

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    E. A. Calzetta and B.-L. B. Hu,Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory(Oxford University Press, 2009)

  2. [10]

    Alexandru, G

    A. Alexandru, G. Basar, P. F. Bedaque, and N. C. Warrington, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015006 (2022), arXiv:2007.05436 [hep-lat]

  3. [11]

    Tranberg and J

    A. Tranberg and J. Smit, JHEP11, 016 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0310342

  4. [12]

    Tranberg and J

    A. Tranberg and J. Smit, JHEP08, 012 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604263

  5. [13]

    Berges and D

    J. Berges and D. Sexty, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 161601 (2012), arXiv:1201.0687 [hep-ph]

  6. [14]

    Berges, S

    J. Berges, S. Schlichting, and D. Sexty, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074006 (2012), arXiv:1203.4646 [hep-ph]

  7. [15]

    Tranberg and B

    A. Tranberg and B. Wu, JHEP07, 087 (2012), arXiv:1203.5012 [hep-ph]

  8. [16]

    Tranberg and B

    A. Tranberg and B. Wu, JHEP01, 046 (2013), arXiv:1210.1779 [hep-ph]

  9. [17]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D89, 074011 (2014), arXiv:1303.5650 [hep-ph]

  10. [18]

    Epelbaum, F

    T. Epelbaum, F. Gelis, N. Tanji, and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. D90, 125032 (2014), arXiv:1409.0701 [hep-ph]

  11. [19]

    A. H. Mueller and D. T. Son, Phys. Lett. B582, 279 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0212198

  12. [20]

    Jeon, Phys

    S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C72, 014907 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0412121

  13. [21]

    Dusling, T

    K. Dusling, T. Epelbaum, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, Nucl. Phys. A850, 69 (2011), arXiv:1009.4363 [hep-ph]

  14. [22]

    Epelbaum and F

    T. Epelbaum and F. Gelis, Nucl. Phys. A872, 210 (2011), arXiv:1107.0668 [hep-ph]

  15. [23]

    Jackiw, Phys

    R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9, 1686 (1974)

  16. [24]

    Epelbaum and F

    T. Epelbaum and F. Gelis, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 232301 (2013), arXiv:1307.2214 [hep-ph]

  17. [25]

    U. W. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826

  18. [26]

    Epelbaum, F

    T. Epelbaum, F. Gelis, and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. D90, 065029 (2014), arXiv:1402.0115 [hep-ph]

  19. [27]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venu- gopalan, JHEP05, 054 (2014), arXiv:1312.5216 [hep-ph]

  20. [28]

    Gelis and S

    F. Gelis and S. Hauksson, JHEP08, 135 (2024), arXiv:2403.11908 [hep-ph]

  21. [29]

    Arrizabalaga and J

    A. Arrizabalaga and J. Smit, Phys. Rev. D66, 065014 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0207044

  22. [30]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Science336, 1130 (2012), arXiv:1111.3633 [quant-ph]

  23. [31]

    S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quant. Inf. Comput.14, 1014 (2014), arXiv:1112.4833 [hep-th]

  24. [32]

    Klco and M

    N. Klco and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. A99, 052335 (2019), arXiv:1808.10378 [quant-ph]

  25. [33]

    Barata, N

    J. Barata, N. Mueller, A. Tarasov, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. A103, 042410 (2021), arXiv:2012.00020 [hep- th]

  26. [34]

    Macridin, A

    A. Macridin, A. C. Y. Li, S. Mrenna, and P. Spentzouris, Phys. Rev. A105, 052405 (2022), arXiv:2108.10793 [quant-ph]

  27. [35]

    A. C. Y. Li, A. Macridin, S. Mrenna, and P. Spentzouris, Phys. Rev. A107, 032603 (2023), arXiv:2210.07985 [quant-ph]

  28. [36]

    Hardyet al., PRX Quantum7, 010343 (2026), arXiv:2407.13819 [quant-ph]

    A. Hardyet al., PRX Quantum7, 010343 (2026), arXiv:2407.13819 [quant-ph]

  29. [37]

    Ingoldby, M

    J. Ingoldby, M. Spannowsky, T. Sypchenko, S. Williams, and M. Wingate, (2025), arXiv:2505.03878 [quant-ph]

  30. [38]

    S. Abel, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, (2025), arXiv:2506.17388 [quant-ph]

  31. [39]

    Cao, Y.-Y

    Q.-H. Cao, Y.-Y. Li, X. Liu, L.-Q. Zhang, and K. Zhao, (2026), arXiv:2604.26226 [hep-ph]

  32. [40]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Phys. Rev. D112, 034502 (2025), arXiv:2411.02486 [quant-ph]

  33. [41]

    R. C. Farrell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and J. Preskill, (2025), arXiv:2505.03111 [quant-ph]

  34. [42]

    C. W. Bauer, M. Freytsis, and B. Nachman, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 212001 (2021), arXiv:2102.05044 [hep-ph]

  35. [43]

    J. C. Halimeh, N. Mueller, J. Knolle, Z. Papic, and Z. Davoudi, (2025), arXiv:2509.03586 [quant-ph]

  36. [44]

    R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963)

  37. [45]

    Kitaev and W

    A. Kitaev and W. A. Webb, (2008), arXiv:0801.0342 [quant-ph]

  38. [46]

    Bagherimehrab, Y

    M. Bagherimehrab, Y. R. Sanders, D. W. Berry, G. K. Brennen, and B. C. Sanders, PRX Quantum3, 020364 (2022), arXiv:2110.05708 [quant-ph]

  39. [47]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 [quant-ph]

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018), arXiv:1801.00862 [quant-ph]

  40. [48]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

  41. [49]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New Journal of Physics18, 023023 (2016)

  42. [50]

    Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,

    Qiskit Community, “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,”https://github.com/Qiskit/ qiskit(2017), official citation available athttps:// github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/blob/master/Qiskit.bib

  43. [51]

    Kurkela and E

    A. Kurkela and E. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 182301 (2014), arXiv:1405.6318 [hep-ph]

  44. [52]

    S. B. Cabodevila, C. A. Salgado, and B. Wu, JHEP06, 145 (2024), arXiv:2311.07450 [hep-ph]

  45. [53]

    Reimann, Phys

    P. Reimann, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 190403 (2008)

  46. [54]

    A. J. Short and T. C. Farrelly, New J. Phys.14, 013063 (2012)

  47. [55]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature452, 854 (2008)

  48. [56]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 863 (2011)

  49. [57]

    Gogolin and J

    C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 056001 (2016), arXiv:1503.07538 [quant-ph]

  50. [58]

    Bocchieri and A

    P. Bocchieri and A. Loinger, Physical Review107, 337 (1957)

  51. [59]

    Or´ us, Ann

    R. Or´ us, Ann. Phys.349, 117 (2014)

  52. [60]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

  53. [61]

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 211 (2018), arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]

  54. [62]

    Cunt´ ın, W

    I. Cunt´ ın, W. Qian, and B. Wu, PoSICHEP2024, 630 (2025), arXiv:2411.19601 [quant-ph]. 7

  55. [63]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

  56. [64]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E50(1994), 10.1103/Phys- RevE.50.888, arXiv:cond-mat/9403051

  57. [65]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

  58. [66]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Commun.5, 4213 (2014), arXiv:1304.3061 [quant-ph]

  59. [67]

    Kohda, R

    M. Kohda, R. Imai, K. Kanno, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033173 (2022)

  60. [68]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Pizorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 070601 (2011), arXiv:1103.0936 [cond-mat.str-el]

  61. [69]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vanderey- cken, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. B94, 165116 (2016), arXiv:1408.5056 [quant-ph]. 1 Simulating particle production from classical fields using quantum computation Supplemental Material Iv´ an Cunt´ ın, Wenyang Qian, and Bin ...

  62. [70]

    Fx exp −iµ2 ˆϕ2 x 2 aδt ! F−1 x # exp

    Digital quantum simulation using field operator basis The real-time evolution for theϕ 4 theory can be implemented on the quantum circuit in the trotterized form by knowing the Pauli term decomposition for the field and conjugate field operators. Here, we demonstrate the circu...

  63. [71]

    Measurement and extraction of expectation values In terms of measurements, sinceσ z matrices are diagonal in the computational basis, repeated measurements of theσ z operator on a state|ψ⟩= P ici|i⟩yield the probability distributions pi = counts(i) shots =|c i|2 =|⟨i|ψ⟩| 2,(S1...

  64. [72]

    The cost is dominated by the 4th power ofn Q due toϕ 4 terms, whereas, the cost of qFT is onlyO(Nn 2 Q)

    Resource estimation and scaling in digital quantum simulation For the real-time evolution, each trotter step simulation ofe −iHδt costsO(Nn 4 Q) CNOT gates, whereNis the number of lattice sites, andn Q is the number of qubits used per lattice site. The cost is dominated by the...

  65. [73]

    Coherent state preparation via variational quantum eigensolver Here, we consider the preparation of the ground state of the free (non-interacting) Hamiltonian [35], before the application of a displacement operator to construct a coherent state. Rather than approximating the g...

  66. [74]

    This provides a controlled and systematically improvable representation of the bosonic Hilbert space

    Matrix product state simulation in harmonic oscillator basis To formulate the latticeϕ 4 theory within a finite-dimensional tensor network framework, we represent the local scalar field degree of freedom at each lattice site in a truncated harmonic oscillator (HO) basis [32, 3...

  67. [75]

    Analytical derivation for initial conditions for fixed energy density Lastly, we provide analytical derivations for initial conditions at fixed initial energy density. In our setup, the initial energy density is ε0 = E0 Na = 1 2 m2⟨ˆϕ2(0)⟩+⟨ˆπ2(0)⟩+ 1 a2⟨∇ˆϕ(0)⟩ + λ 4!⟨ˆϕ4(0)⟩...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.