Efficient Algorithms for Weakly-Interacting Quantum Spin Systems

Gabriel Waite; Ryan L. Mann

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 28 references

The paper's central claim is that weakly-interacting quantum spin systems admit a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme for the partition function and an efficient approximate sampling scheme for the thermal distribution at arbitrary t

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 cluster-expansion FPTAS for the partition function and an approximate sampler for weakly-interacting quantum spin systems at arbitrary temperature are claimed, but a key bound in the proof fails.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The paper's central polymer-weight bound is false in the stated regime; a single-edge counterexample breaks Lemma 3 and with it Theorems 1 and 5. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21140 v2 pith:7EXMNFKX submitted 2026-01-29 quant-ph cs.CCcs.DSmath.CO

Efficient Algorithms for Weakly-Interacting Quantum Spin Systems

Ryan L. Mann , Gabriel Waite This is my paper

classification quant-ph cs.CCcs.DSmath.CO

keywords weakly-interacting quantum spin systemscluster expansionpartition functionpolymer modelfully polynomial-time approximation schemeapproximate samplingthermal distributionarbitrary temperature

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 prove that whenever the interaction strength of a quantum spin system is small enough relative to inverse temperature and the lattice degree and rank, its partition function can be approximated to any fixed relative error in polynomial time and its thermal distribution can be approximately sampled efficiently, with no restriction on temperature. The argument works by rewriting the partition function as an abstract polymer model, expanding the logarithm in a convergent cluster expansion, and truncating the series to get a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme. The sampling result then follows from a standard chain-rule reduction from approximate sampling to approximate counting of marginals. If correct, this would be the first algorithmic result of its kind for weakly-interacting quantum systems at arbitrary temperature, and it extends naturally to on-site fermionic perturbations.

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for a multihypergraph with maximum degree Δ and rank r, and a complex interaction λ satisfying |λ| ≤ e^{-2rβ}/(e^{4βΔ} binom(r,2)), the cluster expansion for log Z_G(β,λ) converges absolutely, Z_G(β,λ)≠0, and a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme exists for the partition function. Theorem 5 asserts an efficient approximate sampling scheme for the diagonal thermal distribution in the same regime. The proof constructs an abstract polymer model for Z, establishes exponential decay of polymer weights, and invokes a general algorithmic cluster-expansion theorem; the weights themselves are evaluated in time exponential only in the polymer size.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the abstract polymer model representation of the partition function. Each polymer is a connected subgraph of the interaction hypergraph, with a complex weight given by a normalized trace difference expressed through an inclusion-exclusion/Duhamel expansion. The load-bearing property is the decay bound |w_γ| ≤ (1/e^{3Δ binom(r,2)})^{∥γ∥}, which puts the model in the convergence regime of the cluster expansion; the expansion is then truncated at a depth depending on the target error, yielding the FPTAS.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on the claim that the stated smallness condition on the interaction forces every polymer weight to decay exponentially with polymer size; if that inequality fails, the subsequent convergence and algorithmic conclusions do not follow.

What would settle it

Compute the polymer weight for a single-edge polymer with β=0.1, Δ=r=2, zero non-interacting Hamiltonian, interaction operator the identity, and λ=e^{-0.4}/e^{0.8}≈0.301 (which satisfies the theorem's condition). Then |w_γ| = |e^{-βλ}-1| ≈ 0.0306, but the claimed bound is (1/e^{3·2·1})^{1} = 1/e^6 ≈ 0.00248. The bound fails, contradicting Lemma 3 as stated.

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

If this is right

The partition function of any bounded-degree bounded-rank quantum spin system whose interaction satisfies the stated smallness condition can be approximated to relative error ε in time polynomial in system size and 1/ε, at any temperature.
One can approximately sample from the computational-basis diagonal of the thermal state with total variation error ε in polynomial time.
The results extend to fermionic systems with on-site non-interacting terms.
The approach separates the combinatorial convergence condition (polymer decay) from the quantum trace computation, so any refinement of the weight bound automatically improves the algorithmic regime.
The theorem covers arbitrary temperature, unlike earlier cluster-expansion results restricted to high temperature or stable low-temperature perturbations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The stated smallness condition on |λ| decays exponentially in β, so the practical regime is genuinely perturbative; a natural testable extension is whether a sharper polymer weight bound could allow polynomial rather than exponential decay in β.
The proof's weakest link is the transition from the smallness condition to the weight decay bound in Lemma 3; because that bound triggers the cluster-expansion convergence, checking it numerically on small polymers is a quick way to test the theorem.
Because the sampling algorithm derives from the counting algorithm via a standard reduction, any future improvement or correction to the counting result automatically upgrades the sampler.
The abstract polymer model framework suggests the same strategy could handle longer-range interactions or higher-rank edges if the corresponding weight bounds can be established.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

The paper's central polymer-weight bound is false in the stated regime; a single-edge counterexample breaks Lemma 3 and with it Theorems 1 and 5.

read the letter

The two things you should know: the claimed FPTAS for weakly-interacting quantum spin systems at arbitrary temperature is not established, and the failure is concrete, not a matter of taste. Lemma 3's weight bound does not follow from the stated condition on λ. I checked the counterexample in the stress-test note: with r=2, Δ=2, β=0.1, Φ=0, Ψe=I, and λ=e^{-1.2}, a single-edge polymer has |wγ|=e^{-βλ}-1≈0.0297, while Lemma 3 claims |wγ|≤e^{-6}≈0.00248. The condition on λ is satisfied. So the bound is simply false.

What is genuinely good: the paper is clearly written, the inclusion-exclusion polymer representation (Lemma 2) is correct and useful, and Lemma 4's runtime bound is fine. Extending algorithmic cluster expansions from high-temperature and low-temperature stable perturbations to a weak-coupling regime at arbitrary temperature is a natural and potentially valuable goal. The paper is honest that the result is a natural extension and properly cites the prior framework (including Ref. [14]) on which it builds; the self-citation is not itself a problem.

The soft spot is load-bearing. In Appendix B, the proof arrives at |wγ|≤(e^{2rβ}(e^{β|λ|}-1))^{||γ||}. To reach the claimed e^{-3ΔC} per-edge decay, one needs e^{2rβ}(e^{β|λ|}-1)≤e^{-3ΔC}. The stated bound |λ|≤e^{-2rβ}e^{-4βΔC} only gives, for small β, an upper bound of order βe^{-4βΔC}, which is much larger than e^{-3ΔC} when β<3/4. The numerical counterexample is just a clean demonstration of that. Since Theorem 1 invokes Ref. [14, Theorem 3] solely on the strength of this bound, the convergence and FPTAS conclusion does not follow. Theorem 5 inherits the failure, and its proof also handwaves the extension to marginal probabilities via a trace restriction that needs its own argument.

This is not a minor gap; it is the main engine. The result may be repairable with a substantially stronger smallness condition—something like β|λ|e^{2rβ} bounded by a small constant depending on Δ and r—but the submitted argument does not get there.

Who this is for: researchers working on algorithmic cluster expansions for quantum spin systems might find the framework and the attempted strategy interesting, and the proof of Lemma 3 is a good example of how easy it is to confuse a sufficient condition with a necessary one. But as submitted, the paper needs major revision before it can be accepted.

My recommendation: send it to peer review—the topic is relevant and the flaw is technical and potentially fixable—but make clear that the current version should not be accepted. The referees should check whether a stronger smallness condition restores the theorems and whether the marginal-probability step in Theorem 5 can be made rigorous.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum spin systems on bounded-degree bounded-rank multihypergraphs with Hamiltonians of the form H_Phi + lambda H_Psi, where H_Phi is a sum of single-site terms and H_Psi is a sum of edge-local perturbations. It claims Theorem 1: for |lambda| <= e^{-2r beta}/(e^{4 beta Delta C(r,2)}), the cluster expansion for log Z_G(beta, lambda) converges absolutely, Z_G(beta, lambda) != 0, and there is a deterministic fully polynomial-time approximation scheme. Theorem 5 claims an efficient approximate sampling scheme for the thermal distribution over the classical spin space in the same regime. The proof uses an inclusion-exclusion polymer representation (Lemma 2), a polymer-weight decay bound (Lemma 3), and an abstract cluster-expansion algorithm from Ref. [14], followed by a chain-rule reduction from counting to sampling (Lemma 6).

Significance. If correct, the paper would be a significant advance: it would provide the first approximation and sampling algorithms for weakly interacting quantum spin systems at arbitrary temperature, extending the high-temperature cluster-expansion approach. The inclusion-exclusion representation and the overall algorithmic pipeline are natural and the connection to Ref. [14] is plausible. However, the central quantitative estimate in Lemma 3 is false, and the sampling reduction in Theorem 5 has an independent gap. The advertised theorems are therefore not established.

major comments (2)

[Appendix B, Lemma 3] The final implication in the proof of Lemma 3 is invalid. From the valid bound |w_gamma| <= e^{2 beta |gamma|} (e^{beta |lambda|} - 1)^{||gamma||} and |gamma| <= r ||gamma||, one would need e^{2 r beta} (e^{beta |lambda|} - 1) <= e^{-3 Delta C(r,2)}. The hypothesis |lambda| <= e^{-2 r beta} e^{-4 beta Delta C(r,2)} gives at best e^{2 r beta}(e^{beta |lambda|}-1) of order beta e^{-4 beta Delta C(r,2)} for small beta, which is not below e^{-3 Delta C(r,2)} in general. Concretely, take r=2, Delta=2, beta=0.1, C(2,2)=1, Phi=0, Psi_e=I, and lambda=e^{-1.2}; this satisfies the theorem's condition. For a single-edge polymer, w_gamma = e^{-beta lambda} - 1, so |w_gamma| approx 0.0297, whereas Lemma 3 claims |w_gamma| <= e^{-6} approx 0.00248. Lemma 3 is therefore false. Since Theorem 1 invokes Ref. [14, Theorem 3] only after this weight bound, the convergence, nonzero partition function, and FPT
[Theorem 5, proof] The proof states that the FPTAS for Z_G(beta, lambda) 'extends to the marginal probabilities ... by restricting the trace to the appropriate subspace.' This is not justified. For a partial assignment x_S, the marginal is Tr[e^{-beta(H_Phi + lambda H_Psi)} P_{x_S}]/Z with a diagonal projection P_{x_S}. This is a diagonal matrix element of the Gibbs operator and is not generally the partition function of a Hamiltonian of the same form, because P_{x_S} does not commute with the Hamiltonian. Lemma 6 requires an FPTAS for all such partial-assignment marginals, but the argument only supplies an FPTAS for unconstrained partition functions. Thus the sampling theorem is also unsupported.

minor comments (4)

[Lemma 2] The quantity Z_gamma(beta,0) appears in the polymer weight formula before being defined. It should be defined explicitly, e.g. as Tr[e^{-beta sum_{v in V(gamma)} Phi_v}], so that the factorization over connected components is clear.
[Appendix B] The Duhamel expansion is invoked without a statement or reference. Since this is the starting point of the main estimate, the identity and its convergence should be stated explicitly.
[Lemma 4] The runtime exp(O(||gamma||)) assumes the local dimension d is a fixed constant. If d is allowed to grow with the system, the dimension is d^{|V(gamma)|} and the stated bound needs qualification.
[Remarks after Theorems 1 and 5] The claims that the results extend naturally to fermionic systems are not substantiated. Either provide a reference or proof sketch, or remove these remarks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: the derivation imports a general abstract polymer-model theorem from prior work, but does not fit or presuppose the target weakly-interacting-system result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: Lemma 2 gives an abstract polymer representation of Z_G by inclusion–exclusion; Lemma 3 aims to prove a polymer-weight decay bound from the stated parameter condition; Lemma 4 verifies computability of polymer weights; Theorem 1 then invokes Ref. [14, Theorem 3], an abstract polymer-model approximation theorem. That citation is a self-citation (Mann is an author of both papers), but it is not circular: the cited theorem is a general statement about any polymer model satisfying decay and efficient-computability conditions, and it does not assume the weakly-interacting quantum spin system conclusion. The target result is not used to set λ or the polymer weights, and no data or fitted parameters are involved. Theorem 5 follows from Theorem 1 through the standard chain-rule reduction in Lemma 6, again without importing the desired conclusion. The apparent flaw in the Lemma 3 bound (e.g., the single-edge counterexample at β=0.1) is a mathematical correctness issue in proving the sufficient condition, not a circularity in which a conclusion is equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore the paper has no significant circularity: it relies on a general tool from the authors' earlier work, but the central claim retains independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No empirical fitting constants or invented physical entities appear. The temperature and coupling are inputs, and the constants in the theorem are explicit analytic expressions. The ledger entries are the imported cluster-expansion theorem and the unverified pinning assumption behind the sampling theorem.

axioms (3)

standard math Ref. [14, Theorem 3]: abstract polymer-model partition functions with bounded-degree, bounded-rank polymers and sufficiently small polymer weights admit an FPTAS
The main algorithmic engine of Theorem 1 is imported from a published paper by one of the authors. The present paper does not prove this theorem; it relies on its conditions being satisfied.
standard math Duhamel expansion for e^{-β(H0+λV)} and the resulting norm bound
Used in Appendix B to bound the polymer weights. The expansion is standard, but the subsequent numerical inequality is where the proof fails.
domain assumption Pinning a subset of vertices to classical states leaves the system in the same algorithmic class (bounded degree/rank and ∥Φv∥≤1) so that Theorem 1 applies to all marginal probabilities
Invoked in the proof of Theorem 5 with no detailed verification. Absorbing contracted edge terms into the on-site Hamiltonian can increase the norm of the effective Φ, threatening the hypothesis ∥Φv∥≤1.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Algorithms for Weakly-Interacting Quantum Spin Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EXMNFKX

@misc{pith2026260121140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Algorithms for Weakly-Interacting Quantum Spin Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EXMNFKX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.21140}
}

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

read the original abstract

We establish efficient algorithms for weakly-interacting quantum spin systems at arbitrary temperature. In particular, we obtain a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme for the partition function and an efficient approximate sampling scheme for the thermal distribution over a classical spin space. Our approach is based on the cluster expansion method and a standard reduction from approximate sampling to approximate counting.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

[1]

Helmuth, W

T. Helmuth, W. Perkins, and G. Regts, Probability The- ory and Related Fields176, 851 (2020), arXiv:1806.11548

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[2]

Jenssen, P

M. Jenssen, P. Keevash, and W. Perkins, SIAM Journal on Computing49, 681 (2020), arXiv:1807.04804

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[3]

Z. Chen, A. Galanis, L. A. Goldberg, W. Perkins, J. Stew- art, and E. Vigoda, inApproximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Tech- niques (APPROX/RANDOM 2019)(Schloss Dagstuhl- Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019) arXiv:1901.06653

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[4]

Cannon and W

S. Cannon and W. Perkins, inProceedings of the Fourteeth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SIAM, 2020) pp. 1456–1466, arXiv:1906.01666

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[5]

Jenssen and W

M. Jenssen and W. Perkins, Journal of the London Math- ematical Society102, 645 (2020), arXiv:1907.00862

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[6]

Jenssen, W

M. Jenssen, W. Perkins, and A. Potukuchi, Random Struc- tures & Algorithms63, 215 (2023), arXiv:2109.03744

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[7]

Galvin, G

D. Galvin, G. McKinley, W. Perkins, M. Sarantis, and P. Tetali, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing33, 65 (2024), arXiv:2211.00464

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[8]

Collares, J

M. Collares, J. Erde, A. Geisler, and M. Kang, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.22255

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[9]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. Chayes, T. Helmuth, W. Perkins, and P. Tetali, inProceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing(ACM,
[10]

Helmuth, M

T. Helmuth, M. Jenssen, and W. Perkins, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probabilites et statistiques 59, 817 (2023), arXiv:2006.11580

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[11]

Carlson, E

C. Carlson, E. Davies, N. Fraiman, A. Kolla, A. Potukuchi, and C. Yap, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 33, 487 (2024), arXiv:2204.01923

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[12]

R. L. Mann and T. Helmuth, Journal of Mathematical Physics62, 022201 (2021), arXiv:2004.11568

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[13]

Helmuth and R

T. Helmuth and R. L. Mann, Quantum7, 1155 (2023), arXiv:2201.06533

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[14]

R. L. Mann and R. M. Minko, PRX Quantum5, 010305 (2024), arXiv:2306.08974

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[15]

Koteck´ y and D

R. Koteck´ y and D. Preiss, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics103, 491 (1986)

1986
[16]

Bravyi, D

S. Bravyi, D. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics284, 481 (2008), arXiv:0707.1894

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[17]

Tong and Y

Y. Tong and Y. Zhan, PRX Quantum6, 030301 (2025), arXiv:2501.00443

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[18]

ˇSm ´ ıd, R

ˇS. ˇSm ´ ıd, R. Meister, M. Berta, and R. Bondesan, Nature Communications16, 10736 (2025), arXiv:2501.01412

arXiv 2025
[19]

ˇSm ´ ıd, R

ˇS. ˇSm ´ ıd, R. Meister, M. Berta, and R. Bondesan, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2510.04954

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[20]

H. Chen, C. Rouz´ e, J. Chen, J. Jiang, S. O. Scalet, Y. Zhan, G. K.-L. Chan, L. Ying, and Y. Tong, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2512.12010

arXiv 2025
[21]

Friedli and Y

S. Friedli and Y. Velenik,Statistical Mechanics of Lattice Systems: A Concrete Mathematical Introduction(Cam- bridge University Press, 2017)

2017
[22]

M. R. Jerrum, L. G. Valiant, and V. V. Vazirani, Theo- retical Computer Science43, 169 (1986)

1986
[23]

Sinclair and M

A. Sinclair and M. Jerrum, Information and Computation 82, 93 (1989)

1989
[24]

Yin and A

C. Yin and A. Lucas, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2305.18514

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[25]

Bakshi, A

A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, in2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Com- puter Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2024) pp. 1027–1036, arXiv:2403.16850

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[26]

Ramkumar, Y

A. Ramkumar, Y. Cai, Y. Tong, and J. Jiang, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2505.09730

arXiv 2025
[27]

R. L. Graham, M. Gr¨ otschel, and L. Lov´ asz,Handbook of Combinatorics, Vol. 2 (Elsevier, 1995)

1995
[2020]

738–751, arXiv:1909.09298

pp. 738–751, arXiv:1909.09298

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

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

[1] [1]

Helmuth, W

T. Helmuth, W. Perkins, and G. Regts, Probability The- ory and Related Fields176, 851 (2020), arXiv:1806.11548

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

Jenssen, P

M. Jenssen, P. Keevash, and W. Perkins, SIAM Journal on Computing49, 681 (2020), arXiv:1807.04804

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[3] [3]

Z. Chen, A. Galanis, L. A. Goldberg, W. Perkins, J. Stew- art, and E. Vigoda, inApproximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Tech- niques (APPROX/RANDOM 2019)(Schloss Dagstuhl- Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019) arXiv:1901.06653

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

Cannon and W

S. Cannon and W. Perkins, inProceedings of the Fourteeth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SIAM, 2020) pp. 1456–1466, arXiv:1906.01666

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

Jenssen and W

M. Jenssen and W. Perkins, Journal of the London Math- ematical Society102, 645 (2020), arXiv:1907.00862

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

Jenssen, W

M. Jenssen, W. Perkins, and A. Potukuchi, Random Struc- tures & Algorithms63, 215 (2023), arXiv:2109.03744

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Galvin, G

D. Galvin, G. McKinley, W. Perkins, M. Sarantis, and P. Tetali, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing33, 65 (2024), arXiv:2211.00464

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Collares, J

M. Collares, J. Erde, A. Geisler, and M. Kang, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.22255

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[9] [9]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. Chayes, T. Helmuth, W. Perkins, and P. Tetali, inProceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing(ACM,

[10] [10]

Helmuth, M

T. Helmuth, M. Jenssen, and W. Perkins, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probabilites et statistiques 59, 817 (2023), arXiv:2006.11580

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[11] [11]

Carlson, E

C. Carlson, E. Davies, N. Fraiman, A. Kolla, A. Potukuchi, and C. Yap, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 33, 487 (2024), arXiv:2204.01923

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[12] [12]

R. L. Mann and T. Helmuth, Journal of Mathematical Physics62, 022201 (2021), arXiv:2004.11568

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[13] [13]

Helmuth and R

T. Helmuth and R. L. Mann, Quantum7, 1155 (2023), arXiv:2201.06533

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[14] [14]

R. L. Mann and R. M. Minko, PRX Quantum5, 010305 (2024), arXiv:2306.08974

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[15] [15]

Koteck´ y and D

R. Koteck´ y and D. Preiss, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics103, 491 (1986)

1986

[16] [16]

Bravyi, D

S. Bravyi, D. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics284, 481 (2008), arXiv:0707.1894

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

[17] [17]

Tong and Y

Y. Tong and Y. Zhan, PRX Quantum6, 030301 (2025), arXiv:2501.00443

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[18] [18]

ˇSm ´ ıd, R

ˇS. ˇSm ´ ıd, R. Meister, M. Berta, and R. Bondesan, Nature Communications16, 10736 (2025), arXiv:2501.01412

arXiv 2025

[19] [19]

ˇSm ´ ıd, R

ˇS. ˇSm ´ ıd, R. Meister, M. Berta, and R. Bondesan, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2510.04954

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[20] [20]

H. Chen, C. Rouz´ e, J. Chen, J. Jiang, S. O. Scalet, Y. Zhan, G. K.-L. Chan, L. Ying, and Y. Tong, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2512.12010

arXiv 2025

[21] [21]

Friedli and Y

S. Friedli and Y. Velenik,Statistical Mechanics of Lattice Systems: A Concrete Mathematical Introduction(Cam- bridge University Press, 2017)

2017

[22] [22]

M. R. Jerrum, L. G. Valiant, and V. V. Vazirani, Theo- retical Computer Science43, 169 (1986)

1986

[23] [23]

Sinclair and M

A. Sinclair and M. Jerrum, Information and Computation 82, 93 (1989)

1989

[24] [24]

Yin and A

C. Yin and A. Lucas, arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2305.18514

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[25] [25]

Bakshi, A

A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, in2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Com- puter Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2024) pp. 1027–1036, arXiv:2403.16850

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[26] [26]

Ramkumar, Y

A. Ramkumar, Y. Cai, Y. Tong, and J. Jiang, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2505.09730

arXiv 2025

[27] [27]

R. L. Graham, M. Gr¨ otschel, and L. Lov´ asz,Handbook of Combinatorics, Vol. 2 (Elsevier, 1995)

1995

[28] [2020]

738–751, arXiv:1909.09298

pp. 738–751, arXiv:1909.09298

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

Efficient Algorithms for Weakly-Interacting Quantum Spin Systems

The reading

Core claim §

What carries the argument

Load-bearing premise §

What would settle it §

If this is right

Where Pith is reading between the lines

discussion (0)

Core claim

Load-bearing premise

What would settle it