Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

A geometrically 1D Rydberg chain folded onto a 2D plane does not behave like a uniform 1D Ising magnet: corners and vacancies pin domain walls and break the up/down symmetry.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:51 UTC pith:52GTAG4I

load-bearing objection A useful experimental characterization of geometry-induced domain-wall pinning in Rydberg chains, but missing error bars and a straight-chain control keep the quantitative claims looser than they could be. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27358 v1 pith:52GTAG4I submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechphysics.atom-ph

Geometry-Induced Domain-Wall Pinning and mathbb{Z}₂ Asymmetry in Nominally One-Dimensional Rydberg Arrays

Elijah Pelofske , Frank Barrows , Cristiano Nisoli This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechphysics.atom-ph
keywords Rydberg atom arraysdomain wall pinningZ2 symmetry breakingRydberg blockadeparity-biased binomial distributionPXP modelantiferromagnetic Ising modelanalog 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 paper reports neutral-atom experiments on two nominally one-dimensional Rydberg chains—a closed 33-atom triangular ring and a 47-atom square outline with one atom removed—with uniform nearest-neighbor spacing and net magnetization tuned near zero. It claims that the 2D embedding nevertheless breaks the behavior of a uniform 1D Ising model: corners enhance next-nearest-neighbor interactions (by a factor of about 2.4 in the triangle) and the vacancy removes the Rydberg blockade between its two flanking atoms, so the spins around the vacancy and at the vertices strongly prefer the Rydberg state. The result is pinning of antiferromagnetic domain walls at (triangle) or away from (square) the corners, suppression of odd numbers of domain walls in the square, and a Z2-asymmetric defect population in which ground-state–ground-state walls outnumber Rydberg–Rydberg walls by about 3:1. A sympathetic reader would care because analog Rydberg simulators are routinely used as Ising magnets; the claim is that geometry, not just the Hamiltonian written on paper, sets the spin texture and defect statistics.

Core claim

The paper shows that a 1D spin chain realized by Rydberg atoms on a 2D grid is not described by a uniform nearest-neighbor Ising model once site-resolved quantities are examined. In quasi-adiabatic runs tuned to ~50.8% global up/down proportion, site-resolved magnetization is strongly nonuniform. In the square, the two atoms flanking the intentional vacancy and the four corner atoms preferentially occupy the Rydberg state; the vacancy acts as an effective ferromagnetic bond across a gap a pure Ising picture would treat as antiferromagnetic. In the closed triangle, the next-nearest-neighbor interaction across each 60° corner is about 2.4 times stronger than along an edge, lifting translationa

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing mechanisms are the Rydberg interaction Vjk = C6/r^6 with its blockade of close pairs, and the geometry-dependent next-nearest-neighbor interaction: across a 60° corner the NNN separation is √3 a instead of 2a, making the coupling about 2.4 times stronger than along an edge (and even larger at 90° square corners). The analysis frames the dynamics through the constrained PXP Hamiltonian H_PXP = (Ω/2) Σ_j P_{j−1} σ^x_j P_{j+1} − Δ Σ_j n_j, where a spin flip at site j is permitted only when both neighbors are in the ground state. That constraint supplies the measured asymmetry between down-down and up-up walls. Domain-wall-count statistics are captured by parity-biased binom

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured site-resolved asymmetries and domain-wall pinning are caused by deterministic geometry-modified interactions—stronger next-nearest-neighbor couplings at corners and missing blockade at the vacancy—rather than by the hardware's measurement error, the chosen detuning calibration, or atom-filling failures that were removed by post-selection.

What would settle it

Repeat the square experiment with the vacancy filled, keeping the same lattice spacing, atom count, and schedule: the vacancy-pinning claim predicts the flanking-site Rydberg preference and the odd-parity suppression should disappear; if they persist, geometry is not the unique explanation.

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

If this is right

  • Site-resolved measurements on nominally 1D Rydberg arrays cannot be interpreted through a uniform nearest-neighbor Ising Hamiltonian; corners and vacancies are first-order effects in the spatial statistics, even when global magnetization is balanced.
  • Domain-wall number distributions in closed odd chains follow a parity-biased binomial (p△≈0.14), while open boundary systems with a vacancy acquire a parity bias parameter (r≈0.19) that suppresses odd numbers of walls.
  • Vacancies act as effective ferromagnetic bonds in an antiferromagnetic background, so deliberately removing atoms can engineer local symmetry-breaking textures in Rydberg arrays.
  • The Rydberg blockade's PXP constraint imprints a measurable asymmetry on defects: ground-state–ground-state walls occur roughly three times as often as Rydberg–Rydberg walls, despite near-degenerate classical energies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The factor of ~2.4 (triangle) and ~8 (square) between corner and edge next-nearest-neighbor couplings suggests the corner angle itself is a control knob; one could map domain-wall pinning strength as a function of bend angle and verify quantitatively that pinning tracks V_NNN(corner)/V_NNN(edge).
  • Editorial inference: Because the vacancy creates a local ferromagnetic bond in an antiferromagnetic background, patterned vacancies could serve as a deliberate source of symmetry-breaking boundary conditions, potentially to test Kibble-Zurek defect statistics with designed pinning sites.
  • Editorial inference: Since global parity was enforced by tuning the detuning schedule, a natural follow-up is to vary the final detuning at fixed geometry: the claim that geometry drives site-resolved asymmetry predicts the corner/vacancy texture should persist across schedules, while overall wall density should shift.
  • Editorial inference: The ~3:1 wall-type asymmetry, argued to be a dynamical PXP effect rather than an energetic one, implies the quasi-adiabatic ramp is sampling a constrained Hilbert space; a direct test would compare against a true thermal Gibbs ensemble of the same Hamiltonian, where the asymmetry should be much weaker.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments on QuEra's Aquila neutral-atom Rydberg processor for two nominally one-dimensional atomic arrays: a closed 33-atom triangular outline and a 47-atom square outline with one engineered vacancy. Using a quasi-adiabatic detuning ramp on equal nearest-neighbor spacing (6 µm), the authors measure site-resolved ground-state/Rydberg fractions and domain-wall statistics. They find that domain walls are non-uniformly distributed, with enhanced density near the triangle corners and suppressed density near the square corners, and that the two atoms flanking the square vacancy prefer the Rydberg state. The domain-wall number distributions are fit to parity-biased binomial distributions, and a ~3:1 excess of ↓↓ over ↑↑ single-domain-wall configurations is reported. The central claim is that the 2D embedding geometry—specifically corners and vacancies—breaks the uniformity and Z2 symmetry of the effective 1D Ising model, pinning domain walls and biasing spin textures.

Significance. If established, these results would be a valuable characterization of how the planar embedding of ostensibly 1D Rydberg chains introduces quantitative and qualitative corrections to the TFIM/PXP description, with implications for analog quantum simulation and for interpreting defect statistics in Rydberg arrays. The paper reports a substantial experimental dataset (100,000 shots per geometry, with ~84k and ~66k retained), clear qualitative effects (corner and vacancy Rydberg preference, non-uniform DW density), and explicit SI estimates of the next-nearest-neighbor interaction modifications at corners. These are genuine strengths. However, the central claim currently rests on fits with parameters that partly encode the asymmetry being explained, and on qualitative comparisons without control measurements or zero-free-parameter predictions. The work is a useful experimental observation, but the evidence as presented does not yet uniquely identify the geometric mechanism against calibration and post-selection biases.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections II and III] The per-geometry calibration and post-selection confound the attribution of site-resolved asymmetries to geometry. Section II states that Δ and Ω are independently tuned for each layout to bring aggregate Rydberg fraction near 50%, and Section III reports post-selection discarding ~16% of triangle shots and ~34% of square shots. If calibration drifts or atom-loss-dependent post-selection correlate with position, the observed corner/vacancy enhancements in Fig. 2 could arise without any geometric interaction effect. No straight 1D chain is run under the same protocol, and Fig. 2 reports no error bars. To make the geometric mechanism load-bearing, the authors should provide a control (e.g., a straight chain with identical spacing and calibration) or compute the predicted site-resolved P(r_j) and DW density directly from Eq. (1) using the quoted C6 and schedules, with no fitted parameters,
  2. [Section III, Fig. 3] The parity-biased binomial fit for the square case includes the parameter r=0.188, which explicitly biases even vs. odd domain-wall counts. This parameter is exactly the Z2 asymmetry the paper claims to explain; the fit is therefore descriptive, not explanatory. Additionally, the fitted values (p△=0.139, p□=0.158, r=0.188) are reported without confidence intervals, so it is unclear whether the PB model is strongly preferred over a simpler distribution and whether the asymmetry is statistically significant beyond shot noise. The authors should provide uncertainties and, ideally, derive r from the microscopic Hamiltonian or from the geometry-modified interactions, rather than inserting it as a fit parameter.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) estimates E↑↑ - E↓↓ ≈ -9 rad/µs from the final detuning and nearest-neighbor interaction, i.e., from the bare Rydberg Hamiltonian, not from geometry. The paper argues that despite this near-degeneracy the experiment strongly favors ↓↓ walls, and attributes the imbalance to constrained dynamics during the ramp. However, no simulation of the quasi-adiabatic evolution is provided to support this claim. A quantitative simulation using Eq. (1) with the actual schedules, or at least a PXP calculation with finite V/Ω, is needed to show that the ~3:1 ratio emerges dynamically without additional assumptions. As it stands, the explanation is plausible but untested.
  4. [SI A and Figs. 4–5] Supplementary Information A computes the corner-modified NNN couplings (V_corner_NNN ≈ 2.4 V_edge_NNN for the triangle; V_sq_corner_NNN ≈ 14.5 rad/µs for the square) and argues qualitatively that these favor DW pinning at the corners. But the paper never computes the resulting equilibrium DW density or site-resolved magnetization from the full Vjk, nor does it show that the measured profiles in Figs. 4 and 5 are quantitatively consistent with these interaction modifications. A zero-free-parameter classical (or quantum) prediction for the DW density would turn the observed correlation into a test. Without it, the claim that 'the domain wall peaks correspond approximately to the corners' remains a qualitative correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption and axes] The axes in Fig. 1 are labeled 'meters' but the text and layout clearly refer to micrometers. Please correct the units (µm).
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to 'the corresponding Gibbs distribution' for the PB binomial. The parity-biased binomial is not a standard Gibbs distribution; clarify the terminology or the connection.
  3. [Section II] The values C6 = 5,420,503 µm^6 rad/µs and VNN ≈ 116.2 rad/µs are given with inconsistent significant figures. Please use a consistent number of digits and state the uncertainty if known.
  4. [Section IV] The sentence 'In the PXP description of these dynamics [2,3], this asymmetry is absolute' is a bit strong: the PXP model has a constrained Hilbert space that excludes |rr⟩ nearest-neighbor pairs, but the effective Hamiltonian still contains the detuning term. Please phrase this more precisely.
  5. [References] Reference [31] is mentioned as 'perhaps also compounded by spurious couplings' but the connection to the present data is not explained. Please elaborate or remove the speculative reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the paper's central claims are direct experimental observations and parameter-free geometry calculations, not consequences of fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The load-bearing claims are (i) site-resolved Rydberg fractions and domain-wall densities are nonuniform, with enhancement at corners and near the vacancy, and (ii) the nonuniformity is plausibly caused by stronger corner NNN couplings and the absence of blockade at the vacancy. Both are grounded in direct experimental data (Figs. 2, 4, 5) and in a parameter-free calculation in SI A: V_NNN(corner) = V_NN/27 ≈ 4.30 rad/µs versus V_NNN(edge) = V_NN/64 ≈ 1.82 rad/µs, obtained from the quoted C6 = 5,420,503 µm^6 rad/µs and the programmed positions. The PB-binomial fits (p_△ ≈ 0.14, p_□ ≈ 0.16, r ≈ 0.19) are descriptive summaries of the DW-number histograms, not predictions derived from Eq. (1); the paper nowhere claims to predict these histograms from first principles, so the fitted bias r is not an input masquerading as a prediction. Eq. (3) is an independent energetic estimate using only the stated final detuning and V_NN. The global 50/50 calibration tunes only aggregate magnetization, not the site-resolved asymmetries that constitute the main claim. The admitted possibility of hardware errors and spurious couplings (ref. [31]) is a correctness/confounding risk, not a circular step. Self-citations [9,10] concern magnetic hysteresis on quantum annealers and are not load-bearing. No step reduces, by construction, to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on fitted PB parameters and hand-tuned experimental schedules; no independent prediction of p or r is derived. The Z2 asymmetry is partly built into the Hamiltonian (detuning and blockade) rather than being emergent solely from geometry, so the ledger mainly tracks calibration and model-form assumptions rather than new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • p_triangle = 0.139
    Probability of a domain wall in the PB binomial fit to the triangle DW-number histogram; obtained by KL-divergence minimization, no error bars reported.
  • p_square = 0.158
    Probability of a domain wall in the PB binomial fit to the square DW-number histogram; fitted, no error bars reported.
  • r_parity_bias = 0.188 (reported as r≈0.19)
    Bias parameter suppressing odd numbers of domain walls in the square model; fitted to the same data it describes.
  • detuning ramps = triangle Δ: -125 to 125 rad/µs; square Δ: -114 to 114 rad/µs
    Chosen by hand to balance aggregate Rydberg/ground fractions near 50/50; these are calibration choices that affect site-resolved statistics.
  • Rabi frequencies = triangle Ω=15.8 rad/µs; square Ω=13.0 rad/µs
    Chosen as hardware maximum/calibration values; they set the blockade ratio V_NN/Ω≈7.4-8.9 used for the PXP approximation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Parity-biased binomial form p_n ∝ C(N,n) p^n(1-p)^(N-n) (with odd/even weighting by r) is the correct null model for DW-number statistics.
    The form is assumed and then fit to data; no derivation or comparison against alternative models is given (Section III, Fig. 3).
  • domain assumption A 4 µs quasi-adiabatic ramp with large Ω samples low-energy configurations of the effective classical AFM Hamiltonian.
    The entire interpretation of shot statistics as approximate Gibbs/ground-state sampling rests on this; the authors note non-adiabatic defect creation (Section V) but do not model it.
  • domain assumption The PXP constrained subspace (no adjacent Rydberg pairs) is a good approximation at V_NN/Ω≈7.4-8.9.
    Used in Section IV to explain ↓↓ vs ↑↑ wall asymmetry; acknowledged as 'good approximation but not exact.'
  • domain assumption Geometry-modified NNN interactions (corner vs edge) are the dominant cause of DW pinning, with spurious couplings only 'possibly' contributing.
    Supplementary A computes V_NNN(corner)/V_NNN(edge)=2.4 and V_NNN(square corner)=14.5 rad/µs, but the paper does not separately control for spurious couplings [31] or other hardware effects.
  • domain assumption A pure Ising model with Z2 symmetry would imply uniform zero average site magnetization.
    Used in Section III to motivate the heatmap comparison; the implemented Rydberg Hamiltonian is not Z2-symmetric, so this is a baseline assumption rather than a theorem.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 10278 in / 10759 out tokens · 98171 ms · 2026-08-01T08:51:49.486862+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We perform experiments on QuEra's neutral-Rydberg-atom Aquila quantum computer, using quasi-adiabatic evolution on 1-dimensional models. We use hardware fine-tuning to balance the measurement statistics close to zero net magnetization, in two different geometric outlines: one closed triangular model with 33 atoms, and one 47-atom square with an engineered atom vacancy. The nature of this processor restricts the geometry of the atoms that can be programmed to a 2D plane. We report effects not predicted by the pure 1D Ising model, such as pinning of domain walls and $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry breaking due to the interplay between van der Waals interactions and the Rydberg blockade. In particular, atoms around the atom vacancy and at the vertices of the 1-dimensional square-outline model strongly prefer the Rydberg state, leading to the effective model having a ferromagnetic bond across the vacancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27358 by Cristiano Nisoli, Elijah Pelofske, Frank Barrows.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Fraction of Atoms in the Ground state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Domain-wall statistics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Antiferromagnetic domain wall density on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Domain wall densities on the 47-atom 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Representative qubit measurements, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.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

32 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhang, S

    J. Zhang, S. H. Cant´ u, F. Liu, A. Bylinskii, B. Braver- man, F. Huber, J. Amato-Grill, A. Lukin, N. Gemelke, A. Keesling, et al. , Probing quantum floating phases in Rydberg atom arrays , Nature communications 16, 712 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Ser- byn, and Z. Papi´ c,Weak ergodicity breaking from quan- tum many-body scars, Nature Physics14, 745–749 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity , Nature Physics 17, 675–685 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Hartse, L

    J. Hartse, L. Fidkowski, and N. Mueller, Stabilizer scars, Physical Review Letters 135, 10.1103/n5hb-l5p5 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/n5hb-l5p5 2025

  5. [5]

    Bernien, S

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

    2017

  6. [6]

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W. Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, et al., Beyond-classical computa- tion in quantum simulation, Science 388, 199–204 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, S. V. Isakov, M. Mohseni, G. Poulin-Lamarre, S. Ejtemaee, W. Bernoudy, I. Ozfidan, A. Y. Smirnov, M. Reis, F. Altomare, M. Babcock, C. Baron, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, P. I. Bunyk, H. Christiani, C. Enderud, B. Evert, R. Harris, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, K. Jooya, A. Khodabandelou, N. Ladizinsky, R. Li, P. A. Lott, A. J....

    2021

  8. [8]

    A. D. King, C. Nisoli, E. D. Dahl, G. Poulin-Lamarre, and A. Lopez-Bezanilla, Qubit spin ice , Science 373, 576–580 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Pelofske, F

    E. Pelofske, F. Barrows, P. Sathe, and C. Nisoli,Magnetic hysteresis experiments performed on quantum annealers , Science Advances 12, 10.1126/sciadv.aeb5192 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aeb5192 2026

  10. [10]

    Barrows, E

    F. Barrows, E. Pelofske, P. Sathe, F. Caravelli, and C. Nisoli, Magnetic Memory and Hysteresis from Quan- tum Transitions: Theory and Experiments on Quantum Annealers (2025), arXiv:2507.18079 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    I. H. Deutsch, G. K. Brennen, and P. S. Jessen, Quan- tum computing with neutral atoms in an optical lattice , Fortschritte der Physik 48, 925–943 (2000)

    2000

  12. [12]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms , Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Observation of Rydberg blockade between two atoms , Nature Physics 5, 110–114 (2009)

    2009

  14. [14]

    Ga¨ etan, Y

    A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Observation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the Rydberg blockade regime , Nature Physics 5, 115–118 (2009)

    2009

  15. [15]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms , Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313–2363 (2010)

    2010

  16. [16]

    Samajdar, W

    R. Samajdar, W. W. Ho, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Quantum phases of Rydberg atoms on a kagome lattice, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 10.1073/pnas.2015785118 (2021)

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2015785118 2021

  17. [17]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vish- wanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin,Prob- ing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science 374, 1242–1247 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Balewski, A

    J. Balewski, A. Khudorozhkov, S. Darbha, O. A. Ashour, F. Liu, E. Rrapaj, S.-T. Wang, P. L. S. Lopes, K. Klymko, M. Kornjaˇ ca, and D. Camps, Observation of an anomaly in the statistics of Kibble-Zurek defects (2025), arXiv:2512.02112 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    A. B. Rava, J. A. Montanez-Barrera, K. Michielsen, and J. Vodeb, Interplay of Confinement and Localiza- tion in a Programmable Rydberg Atom Chain (2025), arXiv:2512.18765 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    C. B. Da˘ g, H. Ma, P. M. Eugenio, F. Fang, and S. F. Yelin, Emergent Disorder and Sub-ballistic Dynamics in Quantum Simulations of the Ising Model Using Rydberg Atom Arrays, Physical Review Letters 135, 10.1103/jr7l- 8 2cfb (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/jr7l- 2025

  21. [21]

    Hudomal, A

    A. Hudomal, A. Daniel, T. S. do Espirito Santo, M. Kornjaˇ ca, T. Macr ` ı, J. C. Halimeh, G.-X. Su, A. Balaˇ z, and Z. Papi´ c, Ergodicity breaking meets crit- icality in a gauge-theory quantum simulator (2025), arXiv:2512.23794 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Wurtz, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using Rydberg atom arrays , Science...

    2022

  24. [24]

    Lukin, B

    A. Lukin, B. F. Schiffer, B. Braverman, S. H. Cantu, F. Huber, A. Bylinskii, J. Amato-Grill, N. Maskara, M. Cain, D. S. Wild, R. Samajdar, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum quench dynamics as a shortcut to adiabaticity (2024), arXiv:2405.21019 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0001106 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  26. [26]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse Ising model , Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355–5363 (1998)

    1998

  27. [27]

    Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechan- ics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 5, 435–439 (1950)

    T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechan- ics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 5, 435–439 (1950)

    1950

  28. [28]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V. Fock, Beweis des adiabatensatzes , Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik51, 165–180 (1928)

    1928

  29. [29]

    Bloqade.jl: Package for the quantum computation and quantum simulation based on the neutral-atom architec- ture. (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing , SIAM Review 59, 65–98 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    T¨ uys¨ uz, A

    C. T¨ uys¨ uz, A. Jayakumar, C. Coffrin, M. Vuffray, and A. Y. Lokhov, Learning response functions of analog quantum computers: analysis of neutral-atom and super- conducting platforms (2025), arXiv:2503.12520 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Pichler, S.-T

    H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, L. Zhou, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Optimization for Maximum Independent Set Using Rydberg Atom Arrays (2018), arXiv:1808.10816 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018