Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Quantum Counting in the Rydberg Blockade

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Rydberg-blockade quench samples planar 2SAT solutions nearly uniformly, turning approximate counting into a polynomial number of measurements.

desk verdict RydCount is a fresh, honestly-presented heuristic for approximate #2SAT counting on neutral atoms, but its polynomial-time claim leans on an unproven fixed-time uniformity assumption that the paper's own Thouless analysis makes look doubtful at scale. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19298 v1 pith:CQGLTB2D submitted 2025-06-24 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Joseph Gibson , Victor Drouin-Touchette , Stefanos Kourtis This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el MSC 81P6868Q17
keywords quantumcountingRydbergblockadeplanar2SATsampling-basedneutral-atomcomputingPXPmodelself-reductionapproximate
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

The paper proposes a practical quantum algorithm, RydCount, for approximately counting solutions to planar 2-satisfiability (2SAT) formulas on neutral-atom quantum computers. The central claim is that a quantum quench under Rydberg blockade dynamics, starting from a computational basis state and measured at a random time, produces an almost uniform sample of satisfying assignments, and that this near-uniformity is enough to feed the classical sampling-based counting scheme of Jerrum, Valiant, and Vazirani. If the claim holds, approximate counts within a constant multiplicative factor follow from polynomially many measurements, sidestepping the variational optimization of other near-term proposals. The paper supports the claim with numerical simulations on 1D chains and 2D punctured grids with up to about two dozen atoms, and shows that a feed-forward variant mitigates a bias toward low-Hamming-weight states.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Rydberg blockade: when atoms are placed so that edges of a planar graph fall within the blockade radius, the constraint $(\neg x_i \lor \neg x_j)$ for each edge is enforced by the PXP Hamiltonian's restriction to the blockade subspace. RydCount then runs a random-time quench of this Hamiltonian, measures in the computational basis, and feeds the measured bitstring back as the next initial state (feed-forward protocol) to suppress bias toward low-Hamming-weight states. The classic self-reduction of SAT turns the near-uniform samples into a product-of-likelihoods estimate of the count, requiring $O(n^4)$ samples in the worst case.

What would settle it

Simulate or run RydSamp on a 1D chain or 2D grid of, say, 40 or more atoms and compute $n\eta$ at $t_{\mathrm{min}} = 10\,\Omega^{-1}$ and $t_{\mathrm{max}} = 10^3\,\Omega^{-1}$. If $n\eta$ grows without bound with $n$, or if the RydCount estimate deviates beyond the promised constant factor as $n_{\mathrm{samp}}$ scales polynomially, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Rydberg blockade provides a native, hardware-aligned encoding of monotone 2SAT in which every low-energy state of the PXP Hamiltonian is a satisfying assignment, and that a random-time quench of a simple product state explores this solution space nearly uniformly. The uniformity condition $n\eta = O(1)$ is met in numerical studies for the feed-forward protocol, and RydCount then estimates the solution count by repeatedly sampling, fixing the most likely variable, reducing the atom register, and multiplying the observed likelihoods. The paper explicitly does not claim a proven speedup; it claims a polynomial-operation heuristic whose validity is robust to noise because sampled assignments can be checked in linear time.

Load-bearing premise

The whole protocol rests on the assumption that at the fixed quench times used (between 10 and 1000 inverse Rabi frequencies), the measured distribution stays close enough to uniform, with $n\eta$ of order one, for every problem size, even though no theoretical guarantee is given and the evidence is limited to small numerical systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the 2D punctured-grid instances tested, RydCount returns solution counts within roughly 10% error using a polynomially scaling number of samples, and the error decreases with system size.
  • Because the protocol needs no variational parameter optimization, it avoids the convergence problems common to near-term hybrid quantum-classical counting algorithms.
  • The basic fixed-input version requires only global pulse control and is implementable on existing analog neutral-atom devices, while the feed-forward version requires selective addressability.
  • The validity of each sampled assignment can be verified in linear time, so hardware noise degrades the efficiency but not the correctness of the checks.
  • If combined with known constructions for embedding arbitrary Boolean functions in 2D atomic registers, the same sampling mechanism would give a heuristic for any #P counting problem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-uniform sampling claim holds beyond the simulated sizes, the same blockade encoding could be applied to other constraint satisfaction problems whose solutions are independent sets of unit-disk graphs, such as counting maximum independent sets, with the same sampling-to-counting reduction.
  • The paper's own Thouless-time estimate ($t_{\mathrm{Th}} \propto e^{2cn/3}/\sqrt{n}$) suggests that a fixed quench window may become too short to reach near-uniformity on large systems; testing $n\eta$ on systems with $n \gtrsim 30$ atoms would reveal whether the heuristic's range is system-size-limited.
  • The feed-forward protocol effectively defines a quantum Markov chain over solution states; proving a mixing-time bound for that chain would upgrade the heuristic into a certified approximation algorithm, but the paper does not attempt this.
  • A direct experiment on a Rydberg array could measure the output distribution of a quench and compare it with the uniform distribution over independent sets, giving an immediate hardware check of the uniformity assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RydCount, a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm for approximate counting of satisfying assignments of planar 2SAT instances on neutral-atom quantum computers. Boolean variables are mapped to atoms arranged in a blockade graph, and the PXP/Rydberg Hamiltonian is used to quench an initial computational basis state into a superposition over solution states. The algorithm then applies the Jerrum-Valiant-Vazirani self-reduction framework, estimating variable marginals from measurements, fixing the most likely variable to 1, reducing the register, and accumulating an estimate of the count. Numerical simulations for 1D chains, 2D grids, and punctured grids show that a feed-forward variant can produce near-uniform sampling and count estimates within a few percent for the small system sizes considered. The authors present the protocol as a practical near-term heuristic rather than a proven quantum speedup, and they explicitly state that no theoretical guarantees of uniformity at the chosen timescales are available.

Significance. If the uniformity assumption were substantiated, RydCount would be a significant proposal: it offers a counting heuristic that requires no variational parameter optimization, is implementable with global pulses on current analog neutral-atom devices, and inherits a degree of noise resilience because sampled solutions can be verified classically. The numerical benchmarks are a useful first step, and the paper is commendably explicit about the heuristic nature of the central uniformity assumption. However, the main complexity claim, O(poly(n)) operations for constant-factor counting, rests on the unproven and, by the paper's own Thouless-time estimate, questionable condition that nη=O(1) holds at fixed evolution times for all system sizes and for every induced subproblem generated by the self-reduction. The evidence presented does not yet establish that condition.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, uniform-sampling subsection] The central condition nη=O(1) (Eq. 5) is asserted for the fixed time window tmin=10Ω^-1, tmax=10^3Ω^-1 without a proof or scaling analysis. The SM's own estimate tTh ∝ D^{2/3}/Γ ≈ e^{2cn/3}/√n (with Γ∼n) grows exponentially with n, so for larger n the chosen tmax is below the estimated equilibration time. Since the manuscript states "we do not have theoretical guarantees of uniformity at these timescales," the abstract's claim that the algorithm "requires O(poly(n)) operations" is not supported by the presented evidence.
  2. [Figs. 1, 6, 7 and Algorithm 1] The FI protocol's nη grows roughly linearly with n, so it does not meet the JVV condition. The FF protocol's improvement is demonstrated only for small chains and grids (n up to about 24), and Fig. 7 shows that η is non-monotonic in the number of FF steps and fluctuates across runs. Crucially, no uniformity data are given for the induced subproblems created by fixing variables (Algorithm 1 steps 13-14), although JVV requires near-uniform sampling from each conditional distribution. The end-to-end counts in Figs. 2-3 do not close this gap, because the count estimator can be accurate for the tested sizes even when the per-step bias is not controlled.
  3. [Algorithm 1, step 15] The estimate κ is updated by division by the empirical probability p_c that variable c is 1. Any per-step sampling bias enters the estimator multiplicatively and propagates through up to n self-reduction steps. The manuscript does not bound the final multiplicative error in terms of the per-step total variation distance η, nor does it analyze the compounding of errors; the insets of Figs. 2-3 report relative errors for a few sizes but not a scaling law. Without such an analysis, the polynomial-sample claim for constant-factor approximation is not established.
  4. [SM, feed-forward protocol] The practical FF protocol is not a memoryless Markov chain in the sense of Eqs. (8)-(9): after each step the next input is a single sampled bitstring, so the evolution of the distribution depends on the entire history of sampled states. The SM notes that η is not monotonically decreasing in k and that scarred states act as attractors, reducing the process to FI behavior. No mixing-time bound or stationary-distribution analysis is provided, and the empirical convergence in Fig. 7 is for one small chain (n=18). Thus the claim that FF converges to uniform sampling is heuristic only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "O(poly(n)) operations" is imprecise; specifying the scaling of the sample count and evolution-time window, or explicitly labeling the statement as a heuristic conjecture, would align the abstract with the evidence in the main text.
  2. [Footnote [51]] The footnote discards trand values closer than the Heisenberg time tH, but tH is never defined, and this rejection changes the effective time distribution U(tmin,tmax) used in Eq. (6); the authors should clarify how the reported η estimates account for this rejection.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption uses "punched grids" while the main text refers to "punctured grids"; the terminology should be made consistent.
  4. [Main text, initial-state discussion] The statement that "all but an O(1) subset of initial states" exhibit unexpectedly long thermalization times is unclear: it should specify whether the exceptional set has size O(1) in n or is a measure-zero subset with respect to a particular ensemble.
  5. [SM, Thouless-time estimate] The scaling Γ∼n is attributed to Ref. [49], an arXiv preprint from the same group; providing a derivation or an additional independent citation would make the Thouless-time estimate easier to assess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RydCount's counts are benchmarked against exact counts, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central mechanism is the standard Jerrum–Valiant–Vazirani (JVV) sampling-to-counting reduction, cited to an external classical result: a near-uniform sampler over the solution set yields a constant-factor count estimate, with the product of conditional likelihoods giving the count. RydCount implements the sampler by a Rydberg/PXP quench, and the paper independently measures the sampler's non-uniformity η against the exact uniform distribution, not against the count it ultimately reports. The end-to-end benchmarks compare the algorithm's output with exact counts obtained by independent classical methods, so the quantity being 'predicted' is not an input fit. The quench-time parameters tmin and tmax are chosen empirically from the observed ramp-dip structure of the survival probability and then used to run the protocol; this is calibration of a heuristic, not fitting a parameter to the count target, and the paper explicitly states it has no theoretical guarantees of uniformity at these timescales. The only self-citation, ref. [49] (same group) for the scaling Γ∼n in the Thouless-time estimate, is not load-bearing: the main complexity claim rests on the numerically demonstrated nη=O(1) for the tested instances and is presented as a heuristic, not as a consequence of the Thouless-time formula. The absence of uniformity guarantees for larger systems and for induced subproblems is a legitimate correctness/robustness concern, but it is not a circularity, because the paper does not assume the conclusion it claims to derive. No equation is reduced to its own input, and no fitted value is relabeled as a prediction.

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

The central algorithm depends on the physical mapping from Rydberg dynamics to PXP, the assumption of chaotic thermalization for typical initial states, the suppression of long-range tails, and the classical JVV sampling-counting theorem. The main free parameters are the quench time bounds tmin and tmax, which are set empirically. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • tmin = 10 Ω^-1
    Minimum evolution time for sampling, empirically set based on the ramp-dip structure in the survival probability for 1D chains of sizes n=16 and n=24 (see SM, 'Estimate of tmin and relation to the Thouless time'). This is a hand-picked value, not derived from first principles.
  • tmax = 10^3 Ω^-1
    Maximum evolution time; chosen for the numerics, not derived from a stated theorem. The paper states tmax~10^3 Ω^-1 in the numerical characterization section.
  • nsamp = up to ~n^4 in tests
    Number of samples per iteration. The paper observes convergence when nsamp scales as n^4, matching JVV's worst-case bound, but nsamp is a user-specified parameter, not a derived quantity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The PXP Hamiltonian captures the low-energy dynamics of the Rydberg Hamiltonian in the blockade limit, and residual long-range interactions can be suppressed with logical Rydberg atoms.
    After Eq. (2), the paper states that in the limit Vij >> Ω the Rydberg Hamiltonian is approximately equal to the PXP Hamiltonian and that long-range tails can be suppressed [36-39]. This is a standard but non-trivial mapping.
  • domain assumption Under the PXP Hamiltonian, generic initial states thermalize and yield close-to-uniform superpositions of blockade-satisfying states at long times, except for O(1) scarred states.
    The paper cites chaos and thermalization results [45,47-49] but does not prove the uniformity needed for JVV. The assumption that the |0>^n initial state is generic is contradicted by their own Fig. 5, which shows exponentially large survival probability for |0>^n.
  • standard math The JVV algorithm yields a constant-factor count estimate when the sampler has nη=O(1) and the problem is self-reducible.
    This is a classical result from Ref. [16], used as the theoretical foundation. The paper does not derive it, but it is a standard theorem in counting complexity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Counting in the Rydberg Blockade." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQGLTB2D

@misc{pith2026250619298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Counting in the Rydberg Blockade},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQGLTB2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19298}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a quantum algorithm for approximately counting the number of solutions to planar 2-satisfiability (2SAT) formulas natively on neutral atom quantum computers. Our algorithm maps Boolean variables to atomic registers arranged in space according to a given formula, so that 2SAT constraints are enforced via the Rydberg blockade between neighboring atoms. A quench under Rydberg dynamics of an initial computational basis state produces a superposition of all solutions after a sufficiently long evolution. For almost uniform superpositions, a polynomial number of measurements is enough to estimate the solution count up to any constant multiplicative factor via sampling based counting. We demonstrate numerically that this protocol leads to almost uniform solution sampling in 1D and 2D grids and that it produces accurate counts for 2SAT instances on punctured grids, suggesting its general applicability as a heuristic for #P-complete problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19298 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scaled non-uniformity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Accuracy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Performance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the probability distributions for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scaling of the averaged survival probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Scaled non-uniformity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Convergence of the non-uniformity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The survival probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. G. Valiant, SIAM Journal on Computing 8, 410–421 (1979)

    1979

  2. [2]

    Roth, Artificial Intelligence 82, 273–302 (1996)

    D. Roth, Artificial Intelligence 82, 273–302 (1996)

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    T. Sang, P. Bearne, and H. Kautz, in Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 1 (2005) pp. 475–481

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Baluta, S

    T. Baluta, S. Shen, S. Shinde, K. S. Meel, and P. Saxena, in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’19 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Duenas-Osorio, K

    L. Duenas-Osorio, K. Meel, R. Paredes, and M. Vardi, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence 31 (2017), 10.1609/aaai.v31i1.11178

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.11178 2017

  6. [6]

    S. Nagy, R. Paredes, J. M. Dudek, L. Due˜ nas-Osorio, and M. Y. Vardi, Physical Review E 109 (2024), 10.1103/physreve.109.055301

    doi:10.1103/physreve.109.055301 2024

  7. [7]

    Jerrum and A

    M. Jerrum and A. Sinclair, SIAM Journal on Computing 22, 1087–1116 (1993)

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Valiant, Theoretical Computer Science 8, 189 (1979)

    L. Valiant, Theoretical Computer Science 8, 189 (1979)

    work page 1979

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Toda, SIAM Journal on Computing 20, 865 (1991), https://doi.org/10.1137/0220053

    S. Toda, SIAM Journal on Computing 20, 865 (1991), https://doi.org/10.1137/0220053

    1991 doi

  2. [10]

    C. P. Gomes, A. Sabharwal, and B. Selman, in Handbook of satisfiability (IOS press, 2021) pp. 993–1014

    2021

  3. [11]

    T. Sang, F. Bacchus, P. Beame, H. A. Kautz, and T. Pitassi, SAT 4, 7th (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Lagniez and P

    J.-M. Lagniez and P. Marquis, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, IJCAI-17 (2017) pp. 667–673

    2017

  5. [13]

    Kourtis, C

    S. Kourtis, C. Chamon, E. R. Mucciolo, and A. E. Ruck- enstein, SciPost Phys. 7, 060 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Efficient Contraction of Large Tensor Networks for Weighted Model Counting through Graph Decomposi- tions,

    J. M. Dudek, L. Due˜ nas-Osorio, and M. Y. Vardi, “Efficient Contraction of Large Tensor Networks for Weighted Model Counting through Graph Decomposi- tions,” (2020), arXiv:1908.04381 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Stockmeyer, SIAM Journal on Computing 14, 849 (1985), https://doi.org/10.1137/0214060

    L. Stockmeyer, SIAM Journal on Computing 14, 849 (1985), https://doi.org/10.1137/0214060

    1985 doi

  8. [16]

    M. R. Jerrum, L. G. Valiant, and V. V. Vazirani, Theo- retical Computer Science 43, 169 (1986)

    1986

  9. [17]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp, in Automata, Languages and Programming , edited by K. G. Larsen, S. Skyum, and G. Winskel (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998) pp. 820–831

    1998

  10. [18]

    L. K. Grover, in Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC ’96 , STOC ’96 (ACM Press, 1996) p. 212–219

    1996

  11. [19]

    Quantum approximate count- ing, simplified,

    S. Aaronson and P. Rall, “Quantum approximate count- ing, simplified,” in Symposium on Simplicity in Algo- rithms (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,

  12. [20]

    Aaronson, R

    S. Aaronson, R. Kothari, W. Kretschmer, and J. Thaler, in 35th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2020), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 169, edited by S. Saraf (Schloss Dagstuhl– Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany,

    2020

  13. [21]

    Tight quantum lower bound for approximate counting with quantum states,

    A. Belovs and A. Rosmanis, “Tight quantum lower bound for approximate counting with quantum states,” (2024), arXiv:2002.06879 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    QMA lower bounds for approximate counting,

    W. Kretschmer, “ QMA lower bounds for approximate counting,” (2019), arXiv:1902.02398 [cs.CC]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Stoudenmire and X

    E. Stoudenmire and X. Waintal, Physical Review X 14 (2024), 10.1103/physrevx.14.041029

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Lee and S

    S. Lee and S. Y. Nam, Ieee Access 12, 43027 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Counting with the quantum alternating operator ansatz,

    J. Drapeau, S. Banerjee, and S. Kourtis, “Counting with the quantum alternating operator ansatz,” (2025), arXiv:2503.07720 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zhang, R

    Z. Zhang, R. Paredes, B. Sundar, D. Quiroga, A. Kyril- lidis, L. Duenas-Osorio, G. Pagano, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 015022 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    A quantum algorithm to count weighted ground states of classical spin Hamil- tonians,

    B. Sundar, R. Paredes, D. T. Damanik, L. Due˜ nas- Osorio, and K. R. A. Hazzard, “A quantum algorithm to count weighted ground states of classical spin Hamil- tonians,” (2019), arXiv:1908.01745 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bittel and M

    L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    A review of barren plateaus in varia- tional quantum computing,

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, “A review of barren plateaus in varia- tional quantum computing,” (2024), arXiv:2405.00781 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Stastny, H

    S. Stastny, H. P. B¨ uchler, and N. Lang, Physical Re- view B 108, 085138 (2023), arXiv:2301.01508 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wintersperger, F

    K. Wintersperger, F. Dommert, T. Ehmer, A. Hour- sanov, J. Klepsch, W. Mauerer, G. Reuber, T. Strohm, M. Yin, and S. Luber, EPJ Quantum Technology 10, 32 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nature Physics 16, 132–142 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    We therefore omit the detuning term that commonly appears in the Rydberg Hamiltonian

    Here we assume that the driving laser is tuned exactly to the resonance between ground and Rydberg states. We therefore omit the detuning term that commonly appears in the Rydberg Hamiltonian

  26. [34]

    Lesanovsky, Phys

    I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 025301 (2011). 6

    2011

  27. [35]

    S. Ji, C. Ates, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 060406 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Pichler, S.-T

    H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, L. Zhou, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04954 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nguyen, J.-G

    M.-T. Nguyen, J.-G. Liu, J. Wurtz, M. D. Lukin, S.-T. Wang, and H. Pichler, PRX Quantum 4, 010316 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Lanthaler, K

    M. Lanthaler, K. Ender, C. Dlaska, and W. Lechner, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03902 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bombieri, Z

    L. Bombieri, Z. Zeng, R. Tricarico, R. Lin, S. Notarni- cola, M. Cain, M. D. Lukin, and H. Pichler, PRX Quan- tum 6, 020306 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Xia and W

    M. Xia and W. Zhao, in International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation (Springer, 2006) pp. 356–364

    2006

  33. [41]

    A visual representation of the self-reduction process can be found in Ref. [43]

  34. [42]

    The power of self-reducibility: Selectivity, information, and approximation,

    L. A. Hemaspaandra, “The power of self-reducibility: Selectivity, information, and approximation,” (2019), arXiv:1902.08299 [cs.CC]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Moore and S

    C. Moore and S. Mertens, The Nature of Computation (Oxford University Press, 2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    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, Nature 551, 579–584 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B98, 155134 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, et al., Science 371, 1355 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, I. S. Madjarov, X. Xie, R. Finkel- stein, J. P. Covey, J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, A. Kale, et al., Nature 613, 468 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    W. W. Ho, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review Letters 122 (2019), 10.1103/phys- revlett.122.040603

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    Schnee, R

    M. Schnee, R. Radgohar, and S. Kourtis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12968 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Schiulaz, E

    M. Schiulaz, E. J. Torres-Herrera, and L. F. Santos, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174313 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    This reduces inter-correlations between samples [69]

    Note that the sampled times trand are discarded if they are closer than the Heisenberg time tH. This reduces inter-correlations between samples [69]

  44. [52]

    All calculations were performed using the QuSpin li- brary [70] on an AMD EPYC 7F72 CPU with 100GB of RAM available

  45. [53]

    Goswami, R

    K. Goswami, R. Mukherjee, H. Ott, and P. Schmelcher, Physical Review Research 6, 023031 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    de Oliveira, E

    A. de Oliveira, E. Diamond-Hitchcock, D. Walker, M. Wells-Pestell, G. Pelegri, C. Picken, G. Malcolm, A. Daley, J. Bass, and J. Pritchard, PRX Quantum 6, 010301 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Ignatiev, A

    A. Ignatiev, A. Morgado, and J. Marques-Silva, in SAT (2018) pp. 428–437

    2018

  48. [56]

    C. P. Gomes, J. Hoffmann, A. Sabharwal, and B. Sel- man, in Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Con- ference on Artifical Intelligence, IJCAI’07 (Morgan Kauf- mann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2007) p. 2293–2299

    2007

  49. [57]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Desaules, E

    J.-Y. Desaules, E. J. Gustafson, A. C. Li, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, Physical Review A 110, 042606 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Leclerc, Quantum computing with Rydberg atoms: con- trol and modelling for quantum simulation and practical algorithms, Ph.D

    L. Leclerc, Quantum computing with Rydberg atoms: con- trol and modelling for quantum simulation and practical algorithms, Ph.D. thesis, Universit´ e Paris-Saclay (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Sinclair and M

    A. Sinclair and M. Jerrum, Information and Computa- tion 82, 93 (1989)

    1989

  53. [61]

    C. P. Gomes, J. Hoffmann, A. Sabharwal, and B. Sel- man, in IJCAI, Vol. 2007 (2007) pp. 2293–2299

    2007

  54. [62]

    Technical overview for advanced users orion beta,

    Pasqal, “Technical overview for advanced users orion beta,” (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum com- puter,

    J. Wurtz, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, J. Amato-Grill, S. H. Cantu, F. Huber, A. Lukin, F. Liu, P. Weinberg, 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]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Dalyac, L

    C. Dalyac, L. Leclerc, L. Vignoli, M. Djellabi, W. d. S. Coelho, B. Ximenez, A. Dareau, D. Dreon, V. E. Elfving, A. Signoles, et al., The European Physical Journal A 60, 177 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits,

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, “A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits,” (2024), arXiv:2403.12021 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Pichard, D

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, ´E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. M´ eriaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, et al. , Physical Review Applied 22, 024073 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Xiang, Y.-W

    D.-S. Xiang, Y.-W. Zhang, H.-X. Liu, P. Zhou, D. Yuan, K. Zhang, S.-Y. Zhang, B. Xu, L. Liu, Y. Li, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15455 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, F. Machado, S. Chern, L. Leclerc, B. G´ ely, Y. T. Chew, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 263601 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    A. K. Das, C. Cianci, D. G. A. Cabral, D. A. Zarate-Herrada, P. Pinney, S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, V. S. Batista, A. del Campo, E. J. Torres-Herrera, and L. F. Santos, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013181 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, SciPost Phys. 7, 020 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    attractors

    L. Accardi, Physics Reports 77, 169 (1981). Effective probability distribution of RydSamp We wish to calculate the probability distributionD(x) that RydSamp samples from. In the case of the FI protocol, we proceed thusly. After randomtrand∈U(tmin,t max) are chosen, we simulate...

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.