Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

The Potts-model interaction reduces to a same-state projector, enabling two native qudit gate decompositions whose Trotterized dynamics reproduces the model's dynamical quantum phase transition.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A qudit-native circuit decomposition maps the Potts-model interaction onto a symmetric light-shift gate or an aux-level MS-gate sequence, and Trotterized evolution reproduces DQPT signatures in a q=3 chain.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The ancilla-level MS decomposition is a real, compact contribution, but the LS-gate scheme has a sign error (Eq. 18) that inverts the Potts interaction, and the numerics don't test either circuit. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.13572 v2 pith:33BTPBXT submitted 2025-11-17 quant-ph

Qudit-native simulation of the Potts model

Maksim A. Gavreev , Evgeniy O. Kiktenko , Aleksey K. Fedorov , Anastasiia S. Nikolaeva This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quditPotts modelSuzuki–Trotter decompositionlight-shift gateMølmer–Sørensen gatedynamical quantum phase transitiontrapped-ion quantum computingdigital quantum simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 aims to make the q-state quantum Potts model simulable on qudit-based quantum hardware by building Suzuki–Trotter decompositions directly in the qudit language. Its key observation is that the two-qudit Potts interaction, which couples neighboring sites through clock operators, acts (up to a global phase) as a projector onto pairs of sites in the same internal level. That turns the interaction step of the Trotter circuit into a conditional phase gate that can be implemented either by the symmetrized light-shift gate native to trapped-ion qudits, or, with one auxiliary level per qudit, by q Mølmer–Sørensen gates in two-level subspaces. The single-qudit mixing step reduces to two discrete Fourier transforms with virtual phase gates. Numerical simulations of a three-state chain show that the Trotterized dynamics reproduces the nonanalytic cusps in the rate function of the return probability — the signature of a dynamical quantum phase transition — so the work offers a hardware-oriented recipe for multi-level quantum simulation beyond the qubit limit.

Core claim

The central claim: the two-qudit Potts coupling H_I = Σ_{k} Ω^k⊗Ω^{q−k} equals qΠ_same − I, so the interaction Trotter step is a conditional phase U = exp(iτqJ Π_same). This matches the native symmetrized light-shift gate LS_sym(θ) with θ=τqJ; the paper states this realization costs O(q^2) single-qudit and O(q) two-qudit gates. Alternatively, an auxiliary level per qudit turns Π_same into Σ_k σ^k_z σ^k_z, making U a product of q Mølmer–Sørensen gates with local rotations, costing O(q) of each. The mixer is two Fourier transforms with virtual phases. A q=3, N=6 simulation reproduces the DQPT cusps.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the projector identity H^I = qΠ_same − I, which recasts the two-qudit Potts coupling as a phase-only diagonal operation. On it rest two decompositions: (1) the symmetrized light-shift gate LS_sym(θ), a native trapped-ion qudit gate whose action matches the required conditional phase with θ = τqJ; (2) the auxiliary-level construction where an extra state |q⟩ per qudit lets the same projector be written as a sum of q commuting σ^k_z σ^k_z terms, so the interaction becomes a product of Mølmer–Sørensen gates on two-level manifolds. The single-qudit mixer uses the diagonalization H^L = F† D F, so its evolution is two Fourier transforms with virtual phases.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes the trapped-ion processor can execute the symmetrized light-shift gate (or the ancilla-based MS decomposition) with the continuous phase θ = τqJ and without crosstalk among the two-level manifolds sharing the auxiliary level; if that control cannot be achieved, the claimed hardware efficiency does not transfer to a real device.

What would settle it

Measure the effective two-qudit unitary produced by the LS-based circuit on a trapped-ion processor for q=3 using quantum process tomography and compare it to exp(iτqJ Π_same); any deviation in the conditional phase from τqJ beyond the Trotter error budget would falsify the native-realization claim. Alternatively, run the MS-with-ancilla decomposition for a q=4 chain of at least eight sites and verify that the Trotterized rate-function cusps converge to exact diagonalization as τ → 0.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Potts-model interaction step is a single native gate on trapped-ion qudit hardware, eliminating the need to compile multi-body interactions into qubit circuits.
  • With one auxiliary level, any qudit architecture equipped with Mølmer–Sørensen gates can implement the interaction at cost linear in q.
  • The Trotterized circuit resolves the nonanalytic rate-function cusps of the dynamical quantum phase transition for q=3, indicating that near-term qudit processors can probe critical nonequilibrium dynamics.
  • Both decomposition schemes keep the single-qudit mixer cost fixed at two qudit Fourier transforms, O(q^2) elementary rotations.
  • The construction generalizes to any q-state Potts chain and is not limited to the q=2 Ising case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the symmetrized light-shift phase can be tuned continuously in practice, the per-step interaction depth is independent of q, making high-q Potts simulation particularly attractive on trapped ions; the paper does not analyze the calibration sensitivity of this continuous tuning.
  • The same 'qΠ_same − I' rewriting may transfer to other Z_q-symmetric models, such as chiral clock models, where the interaction projector takes a similar diagonal form but with different symmetry factors.
  • A natural stress test beyond the N=6 qutrit example is to benchmark the MS-with-ancilla scheme for q=4 or q=5 and larger chains against tensor-network results, checking whether the cusp positions remain stable as the Trotter step shrinks.
  • The observed shift of cusps with Trotter step size could double as a diagnostic of gate phase errors on real hardware, since an imperfect θ would systematically displace the rate-function cusps.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes qudit-native circuit decompositions for Suzuki-Trotter simulation of the q-state quantum Potts model. After identifying the nearest-neighbor interaction as H_I = q Π_same − I, the two-qudit evolution reduces to exp(i τ q J Π_same). The authors present two decompositions: one using a symmetrized light-shift (LS) gate, and one using an auxiliary level |q⟩ with q Mølmer–Sørensen gates acting in the manifolds {|k⟩,|q⟩}. The single-qudit mixer is realized through the Fourier transform and virtual phase gates. A numerical simulation of an N=6 qutrit chain is used to compare exact dynamics with second-order Trotterized dynamics, reproducing the cusps in the Loschmidt-echo rate function associated with dynamical quantum phase transitions.

Significance. The underlying algebraic observation—that the Potts interaction is a projector up to the identity—is correct and provides a natural route to qudit-native simulation. The resource estimates (O(q) MS-like two-qudit gates and O(q) single-qudit gates for the ancilla scheme, and a native LS gate for the first scheme) are attractive, and the numerical demonstration that second-order Trotterization resolves DQPT cusps in a qutrit chain is a useful benchmark. However, the paper as written contains sign errors in both two-qudit decompositions, and the numerical section does not test these decompositions. These issues directly affect the paper's central claim of hardware-efficient, native realization of the Potts evolution, so they must be fixed before the manuscript can be considered further.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.B.1, Eqs. (17)–(18)] Eq. (18) is algebraically inconsistent with Eq. (17). From Eq. (17), LSsym(θ) acts as identity on |s,s⟩ and as e^{iθ} on |s,s′⟩ for s≠s′. But e^{iθ} exp(iθ Π_same) acts as e^{2iθ} on |s,s⟩ and as e^{iθ} on |s,s′⟩. The correct identity is LSsym(θ) = e^{iθ} exp(−iθ Π_same). Consequently, the Potts evolution U_I(τ)=exp(iθ Π_same) with θ=τqJ corresponds to e^{iθ} LSsym(−θ), not to LSsym(θ). Using LSsym(θ) as instructed would implement exp(−iθ Π_same) up to a global phase, reversing the sign of the interaction in every Trotter step. This invalidates the claimed native LS realization in §IV.B.1 as written.
  2. [§IV.B.2, Eqs. (23)–(25)] There is a second sign mismatch in the ancilla-level decomposition. With V_k = exp(−iπ/4 σ_y^k), one has V σ_z V† = σ_x, hence σ_z = V† σ_x V. Therefore exp(iθ σ_z σ_z) = (V†⊗V†) exp(iθ σ_x σ_x) (V⊗V), not (V⊗V) MS (V†⊗V†) as printed in Eq. (24). As written, Eq. (24) evaluates to exp(−iθ σ_z σ_z), again implementing the inverse of the desired interaction. The decomposition can be repaired by swapping V and V† in Eq. (24) or by changing the sign in Eq. (23), but as printed the ancilla scheme is not a valid realization of U_I(τ).
  3. [§V] The numerical simulation compares exact diagonalization with the Trotterized product of the exponentials exp(iτJ H_I^{n,n′}) and exp(iτg H_L^n). It does not simulate the LS-based or MS-ancilla circuits introduced in §IV. Thus the observed agreement and the DQPT cusps validate the second-order Suzuki–Trotter splitting itself, but they do not validate the proposed gate decompositions. To support the central hardware-efficiency claim, the manuscript should include an end-to-end check of the decomposed circuits, or at minimum explicitly verify the algebraic identities of Eqs. (17)–(18) and (23)–(24) against exact U_I(τ).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs §IV] The abstract reverses the order and content of the two schemes: it says the first scheme uses Mølmer–Sørensen gates and additional local levels, while the body presents the LS gate as Scheme 1 and the MS+ancilla construction as Scheme 2. Please align the abstract with the body.
  2. [§VI (Conclusion)] The conclusion refers to the “first-order Suzuki–Trotter approximation,” but Eq. (6) and the simulations use the second-order Suzuki–Trotter formula. Please correct this inconsistency.
  3. [Abstract] There is a grammatical error in “an light-shift gate”; it should be “a light-shift gate.”
  4. [Fig. 3 inset] The inset is labeled “Infidelity,” but the definition of the plotted quantity is not given in the text or caption. Please state explicitly how the infidelity is computed (e.g., 1 − |⟨ψ_exact|ψ_ST⟩|²).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the two-qudit decompositions are derived from the Potts Hamiltonian by algebraic identities and validated against exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The interaction operator is diagonalized explicitly: H_I = qΠ_same − I (Eq. 15), giving U_I(τ)=exp(iτqJΠ_same) (Eq. 16). The LS gate action in Eq. 17 is quoted from the independent experimental work [37]; matching θ=τqJ is a direct substitution, not a fitted parameter. The ancilla scheme derives Π_nn' = Π_same on the logical subspace (Eqs. 20–21) and factors exp(iθΠ_nn') into commuting σzσz terms (Eq. 22), then rotates into MS gates; no input is assumed beyond linear algebra. The single-qudit mixer uses the standard Fourier diagonalization Γ=F†ΩF; even though [44] is a self-citation for the F_q gate-count, the identity is shown in the paper and the cost statement is a standard construction. The numerical Sec. V compares exact diagonalization with the Trotterized unitary; no parameter is fitted to reproduce the DQPT cusps, and the cusps are exact/ST outputs rather than calibrated predictions. Self-citations ([8,9,44]) are peripheral support and do not carry the central claim. The algebraic sign of Eq. 18 is questionable (LSsym(θ) as defined in Eq. 17 would equal e^{iθ}exp(−iθΠ_same), not e^{iθ}exp(+iθΠ_same)), but that is a correctness risk, not circularity, since the LS gate action is not defined in terms of the Potts target. Overall, no step reduces the claimed result to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; J=1/4, g=1, and τ are model/algorithm inputs. The auxiliary level |q⟩ is a known hardware resource, not a new physical entity. The listed axioms are standard mathematical tools and plausible hardware capabilities on which the claimed efficiency rests.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Suzuki-Trotter product formula approximates exp(-iHt) as a sequence of local exponentials.
    Section III, Eqs. (5)-(6), basis of the entire simulation method.
  • standard math Clock and shift operators satisfy the Weyl algebra and Γ = F† Ω F.
    Used to diagonalize H_L in Section IV.A, Eqs. (10)-(12).
  • domain assumption The symmetrized light-shift gate LSSym(θ) is experimentally available as in [37] with tunable θ.
    Section IV.B.1 relies on this native gate for the first decomposition.
  • domain assumption An auxiliary level |q⟩ is available on each qudit and the MS gate acts as a two-level entangler in {|k⟩,|q⟩} for each k.
    Section IV.B.2, Eqs. (23)-(25), the second decomposition requires this hardware feature.
  • domain assumption The discrete Fourier transform on q levels can be decomposed into at most q(q-1)/2 two-level rotations (from [44]).
    Used in Section IV.A to count gate cost of the mixer.
  • domain assumption A N=6 q=3 chain after a sudden quench exhibits rate-function cusps representative of the DQPT.
    Section V uses this finite-size simulation as evidence that the method captures DQPT.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Qudit-native simulation of the Potts model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33BTPBXT

@misc{pith2026251113572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Qudit-native simulation of the Potts model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33BTPBXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.13572}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Simulating entangled, many-body quantum systems is notoriously hard, especially in the case of high-dimensional nature of physical underlying objects. In this work, we propose an approach for simulating the Potts model based on the Suzuki-Trotter decomposition that we construct for qudit systems. Specifically, we introduce two qudit-native decomposition schemes: (i) the first utilizes Molmer-Sorensen gate and additional local levels to encode the Potts interactions, while (ii) the second employs an light-shift gate that naturally fits qudit architectures. These decompositions enable a direct and efficient mapping of the Potts model dynamics into hardware-efficient qudit gate sequences for trapped-ion platform. Furthermore, we demonstrate the use of a Suzuki-Trotter approximation with our evolution-into-gates framework, for detecting the dynamical quantum phase transition. Our results establish a pathway toward qudit-based digital quantum simulation of many-body models and provide a new perspective on probing nonanalytic behavior in high-dimensional quantum many-body models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13572 by Aleksey K. Fedorov, Anastasiia S. Nikolaeva, Evgeniy O. Kiktenko, Maksim A. Gavreev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-qudit time-evolution operator implementation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-qudit time-evolution operator implementation using ancilla level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Rate function for the simulated dynamics with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The central object of interest is the interaction operator H I n,n′ = Pq−1 k=1 ΩkΩq−k

    LS-gate-based decomposition We now focus on the decomposition of the two-qudit interaction term arising in the Potts Hamiltonian. The central object of interest is the interaction operator H I n,n′ = Pq−1 k=1 ΩkΩq−k. This operator describes the cou- pling between two qudits mediated through their “clock” operators, and it plays the role of an interaction ...

  2. [2]

    An alternative route is to exploit an extended Hilbert space containing an additional, auxiliary level

    Decomposition based on an additional level In some architectures, direct implementation of the LS- type interaction may not be available. An alternative route is to exploit an extended Hilbert space containing an additional, auxiliary level. This additional level en- ables the realization of the projector Πsame using pairwise interactions between effectiv...

    2030

  3. [3]

    Preskill, Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier (2012), arXiv:1203.5813 [quant-ph]

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier (2012), arXiv:1203.5813 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Brassard, I

    G. Brassard, I. Chuang, S. Lloyd, and C. Monroe, Quan- tum computing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences95, 11032 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Superconducting circuits for quantum information: an outlook, Science 339, 1169 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitiga- tion for short-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Neill, P

    C. Neill, P. Roushan, K. Kechedzhi, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. Smelyanskiy, A. Megrant, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, K. Arya, R. Barends, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Fowler, B. Foxen, M. Giustina, R. Graff, E. Jeffrey, T. Huang, J. Kelly, P. Klimov, E. Lucero, J. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, H. Neven, an...

    2018

  8. [8]

    E. O. Kiktenko, N. O. Pozhar, M. N. Anufriev, A. S. Trushechkin, R. R. Yunusov, Y. V. Kurochkin, A. I. Lvovsky, and A. K. Fedorov, Quantum-secured blockchain, Quantum Science and Technology3, 035004 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    nuclear physics

    E. Rico, M. Dalmonte, P. Zoller, D. Banerjee, M. B¨ ogli, P. Stebler, and U.-J. Wiese, So(3) “nuclear physics” with ultracold gases, Annals of Physics393, 466 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Nikolaeva, and A. K. Fedorov, Colloquium: Qudits for decomposing multiqubit gates and realizing quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 021003 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, E. O. Kiktenko, and A. K. Fedorov, Effi- cient realization of quantum algorithms with qudits, EPJ Quantum Technology11, 1 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Nikolaeva, A. S. Borisenko, A. E. Korolkov, P. L. Sidorov, K. P. Galstyan, N. V. Se- menin, V. N. Smirnov, M. A. Aksenov, K. M. Makushin, E. O. Kiktenko, A. K. Fedorov, I. A. Semerikov, K. Y. Khabarova, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Towards multiqudit quantum processor based on a 171yb+ ion string: Re- alizing basic quantum algorithms, Quan...

    work page doi:10.3390/quantum7020019 2025

  13. [13]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, A universal qudit quan- tum processor with trapped ions, Nature Physics18, 1053–1057 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    A. D. Hill, M. J. Hodson, N. Didier, and M. J. Reagor, Realization of arbitrary doubly-controlled quan- tum phase gates (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, K. Siva, Y. Kim, E. Younis, B. Qing, A. Hashim, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Em- powering a qudit-based quantum processor by travers- ing the dual bosonic ladder, Nature Communications15, 7117 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Y. Chi, J. Huang, Z. Zhang, J. Mao, Z. Zhou, X. Chen, C. Zhai, J. Bao, T. Dai, H. Yuan, M. Zhang, D. Dai, B. Tang, Y. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Ding, L. K. Oxenløwe, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O’Brien, Y. Li, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, A programmable qudit-based quantum processor, Nature Communications13, 1166 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    A. S. Kazmina, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. A. Nemkov, A. S. Nikolaeva, I. A. Simakov, A. V. Kuznetsova, E. Y. Egorova, K. P. Galstyan, N. V. Se- menin, A. E. Korolkov, I. N. Moskalenko, N. N. Abramov, I. S. Besedin, D. A. Kalacheva, V. B. Lubsanov, A. N. Bolgar, E. O. Kiktenko, K. Y. Khabarova, A. Galda, I. A. Semerikov, N. N. Kolachevsky, N. Male...

    2024

  18. [18]

    M. Meth, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. J. Jena, A. Steiner, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, T. Monz, P. Schindler, C. Muschik, and M. Ringbauer, Simulating two-dimensional lattice gauge theories on a qudit quantum computer, Nature Physics21, 570–576 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Chizzini, F

    M. Chizzini, F. Tacchino, A. Chiesa, I. Tavernelli, S. Car- retta, and P. Santini, Qudit-based quantum simulation of fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. A110, 062602 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Chicco, G

    S. Chicco, G. Allodi, A. Chiesa, E. Garlatti, C. D. Buch, P. Santini, R. De Renzi, S. Piligkos, and S. Carretta, Proof-of-concept quantum simulator based on molecular spin qudits, Journal of the American Chemical Society 146, 1053 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Jiang, N

    J. Jiang, N. Klco, and O. Di Matteo, Non-abelian dy- namics on a cube: Improving quantum compilation through qudit-based simulations, Phys. Rev. D112, 074512 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    C. W. Bauer, Z. Davoudi, A. B. Balantekin, T. Bhat- tacharya, 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. Ri- naldi, A. Roggero, D. I. Santiago, M. J. Savage, I. Sid- diqi, G. Siopsis, D. Van Zanten, N. Wiebe, Y. Ya...

    2023

  23. [23]

    A qudit quantum computer for simulation of two- dimensional quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics 21, 518 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Cheng, M

    B. Cheng, M. Lin, G. Huang, Y. Li, B. Ji, G. M. Genin, V. S. Deshpande, T. J. Lu, and F. Xu, Cellu- lar mechanosensing of the biophysical microenvironment: A review of mathematical models of biophysical regula- tion of cell responses, Physics of Life Reviews22-23, 88 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Szab´ o and I

    G. Szab´ o and I. Borsos, Evolutionary potential games on lattices, Physics Reports624, 1 (2016), evolutionary potential games on lattices

    2016

  26. [26]

    Li, R.-R

    M. Li, R.-R. Liu, L. L¨ u, M.-B. Hu, S. Xu, and Y.-C. Zhang, Percolation on complex networks: Theory and application, Physics Reports907, 1 (2021), percolation on complex networks: Theory and application

    2021

  27. [27]

    Samajdar, S

    R. Samajdar, S. Choi, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Numerical study of the chiral𭟋 3 quantum phase transition in one spatial dimension, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023614 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Yoo and B

    Y. Yoo and B. Swingle, Temperature dependence of en- ergy transport in the𭟋 3 chiral clock model, Phys. Rev. B109, 235104 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Mahyaeh and E

    I. Mahyaeh and E. Ardonne, Exact results for a𭟋 3-clock- type model and some close relatives, Phys. Rev. B98, 245104 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579–584 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Keesling, A

    A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum kibble–zurek mechanism and critical dynamics on a programmable rydberg simulator, Nature568, 207–211 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Samajdar, S

    R. Samajdar, S. Choi, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Numerical study of the chiral z3 quantum phase transition in one spatial dimension, Physical Re- view A98, 10.1103/physreva.98.023614 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.023614 2018

  33. [33]

    F. Liu, S. Whitsitt, P. Bienias, R. Lundgren, and A. V. Gorshkov, Realizing and probing baryonic excitations in rydberg atom arrays (2020), arXiv:2007.07258 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    P. P. Martin,Potts models and related problems in sta- tistical mechanics, Vol. 5 (World Scientific, 1991)

    1991

  35. [35]

    A. I. Lotkov, V. Gritsev, A. K. Fedorov, and D. V. Kurlov, Floquet integrability and long-range entan- glement generation in the one-dimensional quantum potts model, Physical Review B105, 10.1103/phys- revb.105.144306 (2022)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2022

  36. [36]

    C. Pan, Monte carlo simulation for the quantum q-state potts model, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materi- als104-107, 773 (1992), proceedings of the International Conference on Magnetism, Part II

    1992

  37. [37]

    and and, Monte carlo simulation of the potts model on a dodecagonal quasiperiodic structure, Chinese Physics Letters28, 046102 (2011)

    2011

  38. [38]

    ´Smierzchalski, A

    T. ´Smierzchalski, A. M. Dziubyna, K. Ja lowiecki, Z. Mza- ouali, Lukasz Pawela, B. Gardas, and M. M. Rams, Sp- inglasspeps.jl: Tensor-network package for ising-like op- timization on quasi-two-dimensional graphs, SoftwareX 31, 102257 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    P. Hrmo, B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Huber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ring- bauer, Native qudit entanglement in a trapped ion quan- tum processor, Nature Communications14, 2242 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    A. S. Kazmina, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. A. Nemkov, A. S. Nikolaeva, I. A. Simakov, A. V. Kuznetsova, E. Y. Egorova, K. P. Galstyan, N. V. Se- menin,et al., Demonstration of a parity-time-symmetry- breaking phase transition using superconducting and trapped-ion qutrits, Physical Review A109, 032619 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    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 quan- tum computers (2025), arXiv:2507.12614 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    P. J. Low, N. C. F. Zutt, G. A. Tathed, and C. Senko, Quantum logic operations and algorithms in a single 25- level atomic qudit (2025), arXiv:2507.15799 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    A. S. Nikolaeva, I. V. Zalivako, A. S. Borisenko, N. V. Semenin, K. P. Galstyan, A. E. Korolkov, E. O. Kik- tenko, K. Y. Khabarova, I. A. Semerikov, A. K. Fedorov, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Scalable improvement of the gen- eralized toffoli gate realization using trapped-ion-based qutrits, Physical Review Letters135, 10.1103/p1z9-6w93 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/p1z9-6w93 2025

  44. [44]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  45. [45]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient Z gates for quantum comput- ing, Physical Review A96, 1 (2017), arXiv:1612.00858

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    D. A. Drozhzhin, E. O. Kiktenko, A. K. Fedorov, and A. S. Nikolaeva, Transition-aware decomposition of single-qudit gates (2025), arXiv:2510.25561 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.