Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Thermodynamic sampling of materials using neutral-atom quantum computers

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a single rescaling factor α_v enables a neutral-atom quantum annealer to sample the grand-canonical thermodynamics of nitrogen-doped graphene, despite an energy-scale mismatch of two orders of magnitude.

desk verdict A genuinely useful rescaling identity for neutral-atom thermodynamics, but the validation leans on a fitted temperature and an unfair uniform-sampling comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.21142 v2 pith:RISGYGPB submitted 2025-12-24 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech

Bruno Camino , Mao Lin , John Buckeridge , Scott M. Woodley This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech
keywords ThermodynamicsamplingNeutral-atomquantumcomputingannealingRydbergHamiltonianBoltzmannNitrogen-dopedgrapheneGrand-canonicalensembleDFTtohardwaremapping
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

Quantum annealers cannot directly implement the interaction strengths that density functional theory yields for a doped material, because the hardware energy scale is about two orders of magnitude smaller. This paper shows that a single rescaling factor, α_v, applied uniformly to both on-site and pairwise terms preserves the Boltzmann structure of the problem: the hardware's samples at temperature T are exactly the grand-canonical ensemble of the original material at temperature T' = α_v T. The same rescaling gives the laser detuning a direct meaning as a chemical-potential difference, so sweeping the detuning sweeps the nitrogen concentration. The authors demonstrate the mapping on a 28-site graphene nanoflake against exhaustive enumeration and on a 78-site system against Monte Carlo sampling, and they show that changing the interatomic spacing tunes the effective temperature. If correct, the result turns a limited neutral-atom device into a thermodynamic sampler for two-dimensional materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rescaling factor α_v ≡ V^DFT_NN / V^{α_v}_NN = (R_min_NN / R^DFT_NN)^6 ≈ 236.7, which uniformly rescales the Rydberg Hamiltonian derived from DFT (on-site term and distance-dependent C_6/R^6 pair interactions). This uniform rescaling leaves the ratio of any two Boltzmann weights invariant up to a global temperature change, producing the exact identity Ξ_annealer(Δg, T) = Ξ_material(Δμ, T' = α_v T). The Hamiltonian itself is the standard Rydberg Hamiltonian with a global detuning, a Rabi drive, and van der Waals interactions.

What would settle it

Measure the full configuration distribution from the device on a small system where exact enumeration is possible, and compare pairwise correlation functions (e.g., nearest-neighbour nitrogen pair probabilities) against the exact Boltzmann weights at T = 41 μK; a systematic deviation beyond the reported average-concentration agreement would falsify the Boltzmann assumption. Alternatively, repeat the annealing with a longer sweep time: if the sampled distribution shifts with anneal duration, the 4 μs output is not an equilibrium sample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mismatch between DFT-derived formation energies and the energy window of a neutral-atom annealer can be cured by one number, α_v = (R_min / R_DFT)^6, the ratio of the hardware's minimum nearest-neighbour distance to the DFT-fitted one, raised to the sixth power. Uniformly dividing both the on-site term and the van der Waals pair couplings by α_v leaves the exponent of every Boltzmann weight proportional to the original energy divided by α_v, which is exactly a Boltzmann factor at temperature T' = α_v T. Under this rescaling the global laser detuning maps to a chemical-potential shift Δμ, so the measured Rydberg-occupation configurations constitute a grand-canoni

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after its fixed 4-microsecond sweep the device outputs a Boltzmann distribution at some effective temperature T, which is fit once on the 28-site system and then assumed to hold for all larger systems and all values of detuning and spacing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DFT-derived formation energies can be sampled on current neutral-atom hardware despite an energy-scale mismatch of about two orders of magnitude, as long as the model is dominated by two-body and on-site terms.
  • The device's global detuning becomes a continuous control for chemical potential, so a single sweep of Δg yields a grand-canonical concentration curve without refitting the Hamiltonian.
  • The effective temperature of the sampled material can be tuned experimentally by changing the interatomic spacing, following T' = α_v T = (R_NN/R^DFT_NN)^6 T.
  • On larger systems, the annealer concentrates probability on low-energy, high-multiplicity configurations that uniform Monte Carlo severely undersamples, offering a complementary sampling strategy.
  • The mapping extends beyond the proof-of-concept system to other two-dimensional materials, and to three-dimensional systems once hardware supports three-dimensional atom arrangements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Boltzmann assumption is valid, the same identity provides a calibration route in reverse: measuring the device output at a known T and detuning could extract effective DFT interaction parameters from hardware data.
  • The paper's temperature-tuning result implies a possible thermodynamic-integration scheme—varying α_v via spacing and integrating the resulting concentration curves would yield free-energy differences, something the paper does not perform.
  • The method's generality depends on the DFT model fitting well into the two-body form; systems with strong many-body interactions, like the phosphorous–nitrogen co-doping case discussed, would need a multi-body capable Hamiltonian or a different mapping.
  • A direct falsification of the central claim would be to check whether the full distribution (not just the average concentration) matches Boltzmann at T = 41 μK; the paper reports good agreement on concentration distributions, but higher-order correlation functions would provide a sharper test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a workflow for mapping DFT-derived formation energies of nitrogen-doped graphene onto a Rydberg-atom Hamiltonian for quantum annealing on the QuEra Aquila device. To cope with hardware constraints (limited detuning range, minimum interatomic spacing), the authors introduce a uniform rescaling factor α_v (Eq. 14) and show analytically (Eqs. 16–19) that a Boltzmann distribution sampled by the annealer at a device temperature T corresponds to the grand-canonical distribution of the material at an effective temperature T' = α_v T and a rescaled chemical potential. The method is benchmarked on a 28-site nanoflake by fitting T to the mean nitrogen concentration and comparing the full concentration distribution (TVD = 0.294), and on a 78-site nanoflake using uniform Monte Carlo sampling. The authors also demonstrate that varying the interatomic spacing tunes the effective temperature.

Significance. The analytical rescaling identity (Eqs. 14–19) is correct and self-contained, and the paper addresses an important practical bottleneck: real DFT-derived energy scales are far outside the accessible parameter range of current neutral-atom hardware. The use of an actual device (QuEra Aquila) and the availability of the mapping code are strengths. However, the central claim that the device output constitutes a Boltzmann sample at a well-defined effective temperature is not convincingly validated. The 28-site benchmark fits only the first moment, and the 78-site comparison is made against a deliberately non-thermal uniform sampler. If the thermalization assumption were established with stronger evidence, the framework would be a valuable tool for solid-solution thermodynamics, but the current evidence is insufficient to support the thermodynamic interpretation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.4 (Eq. 23, Fig. 3)] The effective sampling temperature T is determined by fitting only the mean nitrogen concentration over ten detuning values. The full-distribution comparison yields TVD = 0.294, but no statistical test is provided to determine whether the residual is consistent with finite shot noise. A single fitted moment cannot identify a thermal distribution; for example, a non-thermal distribution with the same mean would produce similar results. I recommend testing the concentration distribution against the Boltzmann prediction with a chi-square or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, including bootstrap uncertainties, and ideally validating against additional independent moments (e.g., variance or pair correlations).
  2. [Sec. 2.5 (Fig. 4)] The 'unbiased Monte Carlo' (UMC) is uniform random sampling of 10^8 configurations from a space of ~3×10^23 configurations. It is not a Boltzmann sampler, and the paper itself acknowledges that the UMC estimates change with sample size, indicating that the UMC results are not converged. Comparing the QPU output to this unconverged uniform-sampling estimator cannot validate the claim that the QPU samples a Boltzmann distribution. The observed discrepancy—QPU concentrating on low-energy configurations—is exactly what one would expect from an approximate optimizer or a low-temperature sampler, regardless of whether the output is thermal. Thus the 78-site results provide no independent confirmation of the thermodynamic interpretation.
  3. [Sec. 2.5, last paragraph] The statement 'If we were to do an exhaustive search of all possible configurations, we would expect to recover the quantum hardware data as we did for the 28-atom system' is a hypothesis, not a demonstrated result. Since exhaustive enumeration is intractable for 78 sites, a rigorous benchmark would require comparing the QPU output to a converged classical Markov-chain Monte Carlo (e.g., Metropolis or Wang-Landau) that is guaranteed to sample the Boltzmann distribution, or performing a finite-size scaling analysis on smaller flakes where exact results are available. Without such a benchmark, the thermodynamic claim on the 78-site system remains unsupported.
  4. [Sec. 2.3] The statement 'V_DFT (3.614×10^-4 eV ≈ 237×Δmax_g)' is numerically incorrect. With Δmax_g = 8.227649×10^-8 eV, V_DFT/Δmax_g ≈ 4.39×10^3, not 237. This error appears twice in the text and misrepresents the energy-scale mismatch that motivates the rescaling. The factor 237 is close to α_v ≈ 236.7, suggesting a conflation between the on-site energy and the rescaling factor. This should be corrected.
  5. [Sec. 2.1 (Eq. 7)] The fitted on-site energy V_DFT = 3.613×10^-4 eV is several orders of magnitude smaller than typical formation energies for nitrogen substitution in graphene (≈1 eV). With this value, a configuration containing ten nitrogen atoms has a total formation energy of only ≈3.6 meV, which appears unphysical. The test-set MSE of 9.84×10^-8 eV is consistent with an energy scale of ~10^-4 eV, but not with formation energies of order 1 eV. Please clarify the reference states and units used in Eq. (1) and Eq. (7), and provide a physical justification for the small energy scale. This is load-bearing because α_v and the effective temperature T' inherit this scale.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The final detuning range is stated as 'decreasing linearly from −8.23×10^-8 eV to 4.11×10^8 eV'—the second value should be 4.11×10^-8 eV (missing minus sign/exponent).
  2. [Throughout] Typos: 'explicitely' (Sec. 2.1) → 'explicitly'; 'Therfore' (Sec. 2.3) → 'Therefore'; 'employes' (Sec. 4.2) → 'employs'; 'phosphorous' (Sec. 4.3) → 'phosphorus'.
  3. [Sec. 2.4 (Fig. 3b)] The fitted T = 41 μK is reported without an uncertainty. Given that the RMSE curve is used, please provide a confidence interval or quantify the sensitivity of the fit.
  4. [Sec. 2.5 (Fig. 4a)] QPU data are shown without error bars. After accounting for the ~60.5% complete-occupancy rate, each point corresponds to roughly 600 shots; statistical uncertainties should be estimated and displayed.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The phosphorous–nitrogen co-doping discussion is interesting but tangential to the main results. Consider moving it to a supplementary section or shortening it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The effective temperature T is fitted from the 28-site QPU mean concentration and then reused as the classical 'validation' on the same 28-site data and in the 78-site UMC benchmark; the α_v rescaling itself is a non-circular algebraic identity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec 2.4–2.5 (Eqs. 19, 22–23)]
    "To determine that, we compare [N]^qa(Δg) against the exact equilibrium prediction from the exhaustive search over the 28-site model across the same set of chemical potentials, and fit for the temperature that best matches the QPU data. ... After extracting the annealer’s effective sampling temperature from the average nitrogen concentration, we further validate the mapping by comparing the full distribution of the nitrogen concentration measured on the QPU with the corresponding classical predictions. ... with probabilities defined in Eq. 23 using T′=αvT where T=41μK as determined in Sec. 2.4."

    The temperature T that defines the expected Boltzmann distribution is not independently determined; it is fitted to the 28-site QPU average-nitrogen-concentration curve. The subsequent 'validation' on the same 28-site system reuses this fitted T to compute the classical full distribution, so the comparison is in-sample and cannot independently confirm the thermalization assumption. The 78-site UMC benchmark likewise reuses T=41 μK, and disagreements are attributed to UMC convergence, so it provides no out-of-sample test of the fitted parameter. The mean is matched by the fit by construction; only the spread is a partially independent check, and its TVD=0.294 is not a tight validation.

full rationale

The central rescaling derivation is not circular. Eq. 14 defines αv as the ratio of the DFT-fitted nearest-neighbour interaction to the hardware interaction at the minimum spacing; Eqs. 16–19 then uniformly divide the exponentials by αv, which is an exact algebraic identity: a uniform energy rescaling H→H/αv at temperature T is equivalent to the original H at temperature αvT. This holds conditional on the device sampling the Rydberg Hamiltonian with Boltzmann weights, which is an assumption rather than a tautology. The DFT→Rydberg fit (Eq. 7), the chemical-potential/detuning correspondence (Eqs. 8–11), and the mapping to hardware constraints (Eqs. 12–18) are derived in the paper rather than imported from a self-citation chain; Ref. [8] is cited for the QUBO/grand-canonical idea, but the present paper rederives the needed relation. The only circularity-like step is the fitted sampling temperature: T=41 μK is obtained from the 28-site QPU mean concentration and then reused both for the 28-site full-distribution 'validation' and for the 78-site UMC expectation, so the later comparisons are not independent predictions. That lowers the evidential value of the validation, but it does not make the αv/T′ relation itself circular. The UMC-vs-QPU discrepancy is also a convergence/correctness concern about the classical reference, not a definitional equivalence. Overall score 3 reflects one fitted-parameter-reused-as-validation issue while the derivation chain itself is independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted DFT-to-Rydberg parameters, a hardware-calibrated effective temperature, and the assumption that annealer output is thermal. No new physical entities or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • V_DFT = 3.613e-4 eV
    On-site nitrogen energy obtained by least-squares fit of DFT formation energies to the Rydberg Hamiltonian (Eq. 7, Sec. 2.1).
  • R_DFT_NN = 1.6122 μm
    Nearest-neighbour interaction distance (pair coupling C6/R^6) fitted in the same regression; determines α_v via Eq. 14.
  • T_eff = 41 μK
    Effective sampling temperature of the annealer, fitted by minimizing RMSE between QPU average nitrogen concentration and exhaustive-search predictions on the 28-site system (Sec 2.4, Fig. 3b).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFT (PBE/pob-TZVP) formation energies for nitrogen-doped graphene are an adequate target model.
    Used as ground truth for the fit in Sec 2.1; no experimental validation of the energies is provided.
  • domain assumption The energy landscape is representable by a lattice-gas Hamiltonian with a single on-site term and C6/R^6 pair interactions truncated at fourth nearest neighbours.
    Eq. 7 assumes all sites equivalent and interactions beyond 4NN negligible (1/343 of V_NN); Sec 2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The QuEra annealer's shot distribution is Boltzmann at an effective temperature T.
    Central assumption of the thermodynamic interpretation; T is fitted in Sec 2.4 but the distribution shape is not independently verified, especially on the 78-site system.
  • domain assumption A finite nanoflake cut from the periodic 2D layer is representative of the bulk (edge effects negligible except for over-represented boundary nitrogen).
    Acknowledged in Sec 4.1; affects concentrations at boundaries.
  • domain assumption Symmetry-equivalent configurations share the same DFT energy.
    Used to expand training/test sets in Sec 4.1; standard crystal-symmetry assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic sampling of materials using neutral-atom quantum computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RISGYGPB

@misc{pith2026251221142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic sampling of materials using neutral-atom quantum computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RISGYGPB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.21142}
}
abstract

Neutral-atom quantum hardware has emerged as a promising platform for programmable many-body physics. In this work, we develop and validate a practical framework for extracting thermodynamic properties of materials using such hardware. As a test case, we consider nitrogen-doped graphene. Starting from Density Functional Theory (DFT) formation energies, we map the material energetics onto a Rydberg-atom Hamiltonian suitable for quantum annealing by fitting an on-site term and distance-dependent pair interactions. The Hamiltonian derived from DFT cannot be implemented directly on current QuEra devices, as the largest energy scale accessible on the hardware is two orders of magnitude smaller than the target two-body interaction in the material. To overcome this limitation, we introduce a rescaling strategy based on a single parameter, $\alpha_v$, which ensures that the distribution sampled by the hardware is well described by Boltzmann-like weights corresponding to those of the material at an effective temperature $T^{\prime} = \alpha_v T$, where $T$ is the device sampling temperature. This rescaling also establishes a direct correspondence between the global laser detuning $\Delta_g$ and the grand-canonical chemical potential $\Delta\mu$. We validate the method on a 28-site graphene nanoflake using exhaustive enumeration, and on a larger 78-site system where Monte Carlo sampling confirms preferential sampling of low-energy configurations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Materials Chemistry and Physics105(2), 179–184 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2007.04.024

    Purton, J.A., Lavrentiev, M.Y., Allan, N.L.: Monte carlo simulation of gan/aln and aln/inn mixtures. Materials Chemistry and Physics105(2), 179–184 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2007.04.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matchemphys.2007.04.024 2007

  2. [2]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter27(42), 425201 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/27/42/425201

    Mohn, C.E., Kob, W.: Predicting complex mineral structures using genetic algo- rithms. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter27(42), 425201 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/27/42/425201

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-8984/27/42/425201 2015

  3. [3]

    Materials and Manufacturing Pro- cesses33(2), 174–179 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2017.1303153 https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2017.1303153

    and, C.E.M.: Predicting cation ordering in mgal2o4 using genetic algo- rithms and density functional theory. Materials and Manufacturing Pro- cesses33(2), 174–179 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2017.1303153 https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2017.1303153

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Physics and Chemistry of Minerals46(2), 193–202 (2019) https://doi.org/10

    Allan, N.L., Thomas, L., Hart, J.N., Freeman, C.L., Mohn, C.E.: Calcite– magnesite solid solutions: using genetic algorithms to understand non-ideality. Physics and Chemistry of Minerals46(2), 193–202 (2019) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00269-018-0997-3

    2019

  5. [5]

    Nature619(7968), 68–72 (2023)

    Gusev, V.V., Adamson, D., Deligkas, A., Antypov, D., Collins, C.M., Krysta, P., Potapov, I., Darling, G.R., Dyer, M.S., Spirakis, P.,et al.: Optimality guarantees for crystal structure prediction. Nature619(7968), 68–72 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Matter 6(2), 605–625 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2022.11.031

    Choubisa, H., Abed, J., Mendoza, D., Matsumura, H., Sugimura, M., Yao, Z., Wang, Z., Sutherland, B.R., Aspuru-Guzik, A., Sargent, E.H.: Accelerated chem- ical space search using a quantum-inspired cluster expansion approach. Matter 6(2), 605–625 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2022.11.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matt.2022.11.031 2023

  7. [7]

    Binninger, T., Ting, Y.-Y., K¨ oster, K., Bruch, N., Kaghazchi, P., Kowalski, P.M., Eikerling, M.H.: Simulating charging characteristics of lithium iron phosphate by electro-ionic optimization on a quantum annealer. Phys. Rev. B112, 174118 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/cpgy-fpvb

    work page doi:10.1103/cpgy-fpvb 2025

  8. [8]

    Science Advances11(23), 7156 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt7156 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adt7156

    Camino, B., Buckeridge, J., Chancellor, N., Catlow, C.R.A., Ferrari, A.M., Warburton, P.A., Sokol, A.A., Woodley, S.M.: Exploring the ther- modynamics of disordered materials with quantum computing. Science Advances11(23), 7156 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt7156 https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adt7156

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adt7156 2025

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    (eds.) QUBO: Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Problem, pp

    Kochenberger, G.A., Glover, F., Wang, H.: In: Pardalos, P.M., Du, D.- Z., Thai, M.T. (eds.) QUBO: Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Problem, pp. 1–26. Springer, New York, NY (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4614-6624-6 15-1 .https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6...

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014) https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 23

    Lucas, A.: Ising formulations of many NP problems. Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014) https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 23

    2014

  3. [11]

    https://www.dwavesys.com/

    D-Wave systems. https://www.dwavesys.com/. https://www.dwavesys.com/

  4. [12]

    Nature Physics16(2), 132–142 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-019-0733-z

    Browaeys, A., Lahaye, T.: Many-body physics with individually controlled ryd- berg atoms. Nature Physics16(2), 132–142 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-019-0733-z

    2020

  5. [13]

    Quantum4, 327 (2020) https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-21-327

    Henriet, L., Beguin, L., Signoles, A., Lahaye, T., Browaeys, A., Reymond, G.-O., Jurczak, C.: Quantum computing with neutral atoms. Quantum4, 327 (2020) https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-09-21-327

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Nature 604(7906), 451–456 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04592-6

    Bluvstein, D., Levine, H., Semeghini, G., Wang, T.T., Ebadi, S., Kalinowski, M., Keesling, A., Maskara, N., Pichler, H., Greiner, M., Vuleti´ c, V., Lukin, M.D.: A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays. Nature 604(7906), 451–456 (2022) https://...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    EPJ Quantum Technology10, 32 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/ s40507-023-00190-1

    Wintersperger, K., Dang, H.-L., Capecci, G., Krinner, S., Scheuer, J., Fedorov, A., Barredo, D., Browaeys, A., Kuhr, S., Monz, T., Schaetz, T., Blatt, R., Bloch, I.: Neutral atom quantum computing hardware: Performance and end-user per- spective. EPJ Quantum Technology10, 32 (...

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Wurtz, J., Bylinskii, A., Braverman, B., Amato-Grill, J., Cantu, S.H., Huber, F., Lukin, A., Liu, F., Weinberg, P., Long, J., Wang, S.-T., Gemelke, N., Keesling, A.: Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer (2023) arXiv:2306.11727 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09920

    Zhao, M., Singh, M., Singh, A., Thoreen, H., DeAngelo, R.J., Dominguez, D., Leenheer, A., Peyskens, F., Lukin, A., Englund, D., Eichenfield, M., Gemelke, N., Wan, N.H.: An integrated photonics platform for high-speed, ultrahigh-extinction, many-channel quantum control (2025). ...

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Physical Review136(3B), 864–871 (1964) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864

    Hohenberg, P., Kohn, W.: Inhomogeneous electron gas. Physical Review136(3B), 864–871 (1964) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864

    1964 doi

  11. [19]

    Physical Review140(A4), 1133–1138 (1965) https://doi.org/10

    Kohn, W., Sham, L.J.: Self-consistent equations including exchange and corre- lation effects. Physical Review140(A4), 1133–1138 (1965) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRev.140.A1133

    1965

  12. [20]

    Nature561(7721), 79–82 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0450-2

    Barredo, D., Lienhard, V., L´ es´ eleuc, S., Lahaye, T., Browaeys, A.: Synthetic three- dimensional atomic structures assembled atom by atom. Nature561(7721), 79–82 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0450-2

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Perdew, J.P., Burke, K., Ernzerhof, M.: Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865–3868 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.77.3865

    1996

  14. [22]

    Journal of Computa- tional Chemistry40(27), 2364–2376 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.26013 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jcc.26013

    Vilela Oliveira, D., Laun, J., Peintinger, M.F., Bredow, T.: Bsse-correction 24 scheme for consistent gaussian basis sets of double- and triple-zeta valence with polarization quality for solid-state calculations. Journal of Computa- tional Chemistry40(27), 2364–2376 (2019) htt...

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Journal of Chemi- cal Theory and Computation0(0), (0) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00958 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00958

    Erba, A., Desmarais, J.K., Casassa, S., Civalleri, B., Don` a, L., Bush, I.J., Searle, B., Maschio, L., Edith-Daga, L., Cossard, A., Ribaldone, C., Ascrizzi, E., Marana, N.L., Flament, J.-P., Kirtman, B.: Crystal23: A pro- gram for computational solid state physics and chemist...

    doi

  16. [24]

    https://github.com/ cmc-ucl/rydberg atoms/blob/main/The final nb.ipynb (2025)

    Camino, B., Lin, M.: Rydberg Atoms: The Final Notebook. https://github.com/ cmc-ucl/rydberg atoms/blob/main/The final nb.ipynb (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Journal of Applied Physics133(22), 221102 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0151346 https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0151346/19847991/221102 1 5.0151346.pdf

    Camino, B., Buckeridge, J., Warburton, P.A., Kendon, V., Wood- ley, S.M.: Quantum computing and materials science: A practical guide to applying quantum annealing to the configurational analy- sis of materials. Journal of Applied Physics133(22), 221102 (2023) https://doi.org/1...

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    PRX Quantum4, 010316 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum

    Nguyen, M.-T., Liu, J.-G., Wurtz, J., Lukin, M.D., Wang, S.-T., Pichler, H.: Quantum optimization with arbitrary connectivity using rydberg atom arrays. PRX Quantum4, 010316 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum. 4.010316 25

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.