- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Scalable quantum algorithm for meson scattering in a lattice gauge theory

Yahui Chai*, Yibin Guo, and Stefan Kühn

  • *Contact author: yahui.chai@desy.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033298 – Published 11 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/f93h-rlzy

Abstract

Scattering processes are essential for understanding the structure of matter, yet their real-time dynamics remain challenging to simulate classically. Quantum computers offer a promising path toward efficient simulation of such physical systems. Here, we present a general and scalable framework for simulating meson scattering in lattice gauge theories on digital quantum hardware. Our approach addresses two key challenges: First, we introduce a symmetry-preserving quantum subspace expansion method for constructing high-fidelity meson creation operators across a wide range of coupling and momenta. Second, we design a quantum circuit for meson wave packet preparation using Givens rotations, improving accuracy while reducing circuit depth compared to existing approaches. We demonstrate the method in a (1+1)-dimensional Z2 gauge theory and explore meson scattering dynamics with tensor network simulations. We study both elastic and inelastic scattering and provide a comprehensive characterization of the scattering process in terms of energy transfer, entanglement entropy, and heavier particle production during the dynamics. Our work provides a scalable, nonvariational approach for simulating meson scattering on near-term quantum devices and offers a concrete strategy for probing nonperturbative dynamics in confining gauge theories.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (72)

  1. O. Brüning, H. Burkhardt, and S. Myers, The large hadron collider, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67, 705 (2012).
  2. S. Dürr, Z. Fodor, J. Frison, C. Hoelbling, R. Hoffmann, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, T. Kurth, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, K. K. Szabo, and G. Vulvert, Ab initio determination of light hadron masses, Science 322, 1224 (2008).
  3. C. Alexandrou, Hadron properties from lattice QCD, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 562, 012007 (2014).
  4. Y. Aoki et al., Flag review 2024, Phys. Rev. D 113, 014508 (2026).
  5. Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, P. Shanahan, K. Orginos, A. Parreño, M. J. Savage, and M. L. Wagman, Nuclear matrix elements from lattice QCD for electroweak and beyond-Standard-Model processes, Phys. Rep. 900, 1 (2021).
  6. M. Constantinou et al., Parton distributions and lattice-QCD calculations: Toward 3D structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 121, 103908 (2021).
  7. G. Pan and Z. Y. Meng, The sign problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations, in Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics, edited by T. Chakraborty, 2nd ed. (Academic Press, Oxford, 2024), pp. 879–893.
  8. M. C. Bañuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen, and S. Kühn, Tensor networks and their use for lattice gauge theories, PoS (LATTICE 2018), 022 (2019).
  9. M. C. Bañuls and K. Cichy, Review on novel methods for lattice gauge theories, Rep. Prog. Phys. 83, 024401 (2020).
  10. P. Silvi, E. Rico, M. Dalmonte, F. Tschirsich, and S. Montangero, Finite-density phase diagram of a (1+1)-d non-Abelian lattice gauge theory with tensor networks, Quantum 1, 9 (2017).
  11. G. Magnifico, T. Felser, P. Silvi, and S. Montangero, Lattice quantum electrodynamics in (3+1)-dimensions at finite density with tensor networks, Nat. Commun. 12, 3600 (2021).
  12. T. Angelides, L. Funcke, K. Jansen, and S. Kühn, Computing the mass shift of Wilson and staggered fermions in the lattice Schwinger model with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014516 (2023).
  13. R. G. Jha, A. Milsted, D. Neuenfeld, J. Preskill, and P. Vieira, Real-time scattering in Ising field theory using matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023266 (2025).
  14. I. Papaefstathiou, J. Knolle, and M. C. Bañuls, Real-time scattering in the lattice Schwinger model, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014504 (2025).
  15. J. C. Halimeh, N. Mueller, J. Knolle, Z. Papić, and Z. Davoudi, Quantum simulation of out-of-equilibrium dynamics in gauge theories, arXiv:2509.03586.
  16. P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, J. Stat. Mech. (2005) P04010.
  17. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Entropy scaling and simulability by matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008).
  18. J. Schachenmayer, B. P. Lanyon, C. F. Roos, and A. J. Daley, Entanglement growth in quench dynamics with variable range interactions, Phys. Rev. X 3, 031015 (2013).
  19. M. Rigobello, S. Notarnicola, G. Magnifico, and S. Montangero, Entanglement generation in (1+1)D QED scattering processes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114501 (2021).
  20. E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer, Nature (London) 534, 516 (2016).
  21. N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, Quantum-classical computation of Schwinger model dynamics using quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018).
  22. Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M.-L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Simulating one-dimensional quantum chromodynamics on a quantum computer: Real-time evolutions of tetra- and pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033184 (2023).
  23. F. M. Surace and A. Lerose, Scattering of mesons in quantum simulators, New J. Phys. 23, 062001 (2021).
  24. G.-X. Su, J. J. Osborne, and J. C. Halimeh, Cold-atom particle collider, PRX Quantum 5, 040310 (2024).
  25. R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Quantum simulations of hadron dynamics in the Schwinger model using 112 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114510 (2024).
  26. Y. Chai, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. Kühn, V. R. Pascuzzi, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, Fermionic wave packet scattering: A quantum computing approach, Quantum 9, 1638 (2025).
  27. C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Blekos, G. Polykratis, and S. Kühn, Realizing string breaking dynamics in a Z2 lattice gauge theory on quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. D 112, 114506 (2025).
  28. E. J. Gustafson and H. Lamm, Toward quantum simulations of z2 gauge theory without state preparation, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054507 (2021).
  29. J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Confinement in a Z2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer, Nat. Phys. 21, 312 (2025).
  30. Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator, Science 377, 311 (2022).
  31. R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Scalable circuits for preparing ground states on digital quantum computers: The Schwinger model vacuum on 100 qubits, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024).
  32. R. C. Farrell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and J. Preskill, Digital quantum simulations of scattering in quantum field theories using W states, arXiv:2505.03111.
  33. N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable quantum simulations of scattering in scalar field theory on 120 qubits, Phys. Rev. D 112, 034502 (2025).
  34. Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Scattering wave packets of hadrons in gauge theories: Preparation on a quantum computer, Quantum 8, 1520 (2024).
  35. Z. Davoudi, A. F. Shaw, and J. R. Stryker, General quantum algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation with applications to a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory, Quantum 7, 1213 (2023).
  36. D. Horn, M. Weinstein, and S. Yankielowicz, Hamiltonian approach to Z(N) lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3715 (1979).
  37. J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975).
  38. L. Susskind, Lattice fermions, Phys. Rev. D 16, 3031 (1977).
  39. M. Carena, Y.-Y. Li, T. Ou, and H. Singh, Real-time simulation of asymmetry generation in fermion-bubble collisions, Phys. Rev. D 113, 014502 (2026).
  40. M. Stone, Gamma matrices, Majorana fermions, and discrete symmetries in Minkowski and Euclidean signature, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 205401 (2022).
  41. The operator C used here corresponds to C− in Ref.  [39]. The fermion field ξn differs from χn used in that work by a phase factor, leading to a slightly different form of the transformation in Eq.  (3) compared to Eq. (A11) in Ref.  [39], though the underlying physics is the same.
  42. S. Coleman, More about the massive Schwinger model, Ann. Phys. 101, 239 (1976).
  43. M. C. Bañuls, K. Cichy, J.I. Cirac, and K. Jansen, The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with matrix product states, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2013) 158.
  44. E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps, Nat. Commun. 13, 7760 (2022).
  45. M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Biamonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 174 (2025).
  46. G. Scriva, N. Astrakhantsev, S. Pilati, and G. Mazzola, Challenges of variational quantum optimization with measurement shot noise, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032408 (2024).
  47. J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017).
  48. J. R. McClean, Z. Jiang, N. C. Rubin, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Decoding quantum errors with subspace expansions, Nat. Commun. 11, 636 (2020).
  49. T. Takeshita, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, E. Lee, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, Increasing the representation accuracy of quantum simulations of chemistry without extra quantum resources, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011004 (2020).
  50. N. Yoshioka, T. Sato, Y. O. Nakagawa, Y.-Y. Ohnishi, and W. Mizukami, Variational quantum simulation for periodic materials, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013052 (2022).
  51. Each of the operators in the expectation value can be expressed as matrix product operator with constant bond dimension. Hence, the cost of contracting the resulting network scales linearly in L and the computation is efficient.
  52. M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Codebase release 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases 4-r0.3 (2022).
  53. Including two more excited states for (m,ɛ)=(0.1,0.2) only adds higher scalar excitations rather than higher-momentum vector modes, and thus does not enlarge the relevant momentum window. For consistency, we retain the 28 state basis for (m,ɛ)=(0.1,0.2).
  54. S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum algorithms for quantum field theories, Science 336, 1130 (2012).
  55. S. P. Jordan, K. S. M. Lee, and J. Preskill, Quantum computation of scattering in scalar quantum field theories, Quantum Inf. Comput. 14, 1014 (2014).
  56. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  57. X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019).
  58. J. Gacon, J. Nys, R. Rossi, S. Woerner, and G. Carleo, Variational quantum time evolution without the quantum geometric tensor, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013143 (2024).
  59. D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062318 (2015).
  60. I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 110501 (2018).
  61. Z. Jiang, K. J. Sung, K. Kechedzhi, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and S. Boixo, Quantum algorithms to simulate many-body physics of correlated fermions, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 044036 (2018).
  62. Note that Rnl†(θ,ξ̃) would correspond to V†(rn,l) in the second line of Eq. (44) in Ref.  [26].
  63. For our purposes, the explicit form of ua is not of importance. We are concerned solely with the existence of a unitary matrix ua whose first column has the aforementioned entries. The remaining columns can be constructed to ensure that ua is unitary, for example, by applying the Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization process.
  64. L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998).
  65. P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019).
  66. J. Schuhmacher, G.-X. Su, J. J. Osborne, A. Gandon, J. C. Halimeh, and I. Tavernelli, Observation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer, arXiv:2505.20387.
  67. Z. Davoudi, C.-C. Hsieh, and S. V. Kadam, Quantum computation of hadron scattering in a lattice gauge theory, arXiv:2505.20408.
  68. N. Yoshioka, H. Hakoshima, Y. Matsuzaki, Y. Tokunaga, Y. Suzuki, and S. Endo, Generalized quantum subspace expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 020502 (2022).
  69. W. Ritz, Über eine neue methode zur lösung gewisser variationsprobleme der mathematischen physik, J. Angew. Math. 135, 1 (1909).
  70. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011).
  71. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014).
  72. M. C. Bañuls, Tensor network algorithms: A route map, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 173 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033298– Published 11 September, 2026
  • Received 13 July 2025
  • Revised 28 November 2025
  • Accepted 13 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation