Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 84 references

A Graph-Based Framework for Exploring Mathematical Patterns in Physics: A Proof of Concept

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graph of 400 physics equations, built after resolving notational ambiguities in 213 of them, lets a Graph Attention Network predict cross-domain mathematical links at 97.4% AUC, and the same graph generates and audits hypotheses.

desk verdict The submission's full text is a different paper, so this is an abstract-only review; the framework idea is a reasonable proof of concept, but the 97.4% AUC is uninterpretable without disambiguation controls and evaluation details. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05724 v2 pith:GEKVHAWM submitted 2025-08-07 cs.LG physics.data-an

Massimiliano Romiti This is my paper
classification cs.LGphysics.data-an
keywords knowledgegraphattentionnetworklinkpredictionphysicsequationssemanticdisambiguationhypothesisgenerationauditingsymbolicanalysis
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

Starting from 659 equations, the author resolves notational polysemy in 213, keeps 400 advanced physics equations, and turns them into a weighted knowledge graph whose nodes are equations and whose edges encode mathematical proximity. A Graph Attention Network trained on this graph achieves 97.4% AUC in link prediction, far above classical baselines, which the author reads as evidence that the graph encodes recoverable mathematical structure. The framework's stated value is twofold: it generates hundreds of candidate cross-domain connections for human review, and it audits the corpus symbolically, e.g., verifying known theory consistencies and synthesizing the Magnetic Reynolds Number from electromagnetic-fluid coupling. The paper is a proof of concept that intentionally over-generates candidates, treating even tautologies and parsing errors as useful signals for redundancy identification and knowledge-base quality assessment.

What carries the argument

The central object is a weighted knowledge graph of physics equations: nodes are disambiguated equations and edges encode mathematical proximity. The argument is carried by two coordinated mechanisms: semantic disambiguation of notational polysemy across 213 equations, which decides when two equations that look similar actually share mathematical meaning, and a Graph Attention Network performing link prediction on this graph, whose 97.4% AUC is the quantitative warrant that the graph's structure is mathematically meaningful. Symbolic analysis of 30 equation clusters then converts predicted links into testable hypotheses and consistency audits.

What would settle it

Re-run link prediction after randomly permuting the disambiguation mapping for a test subset of the 213 symbols while keeping the graph otherwise fixed; if AUC remains near 97.4%, the edges are driven by surface symbol statistics, not resolved mathematical meaning. Alternatively, check whether the Magnetic Reynolds Number synthesis reproduces when the equations of magnetohydrodynamics are replaced by dimensionally similar but physically unrelated equations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the implicit network structure of physics equations can be made explicit and machine-navigable. Equations are nodes; weighted edges represent mathematical proximity after a 'rigorous semantic disambiguation' step that resolves cases where the same symbol means different things in different subfields. The Graph Attention Network's 97.4% AUC link prediction, beating classical baselines, is the evidence that the edge weights capture real mathematical relations rather than surface similarities. The same representation is then used in two modes: generative, producing hundreds of candidate cross-domain links such as blackbody radiation coupled with Navier-Stokes e

Load-bearing premise

The framework's output is only as trustworthy as the 'rigorous semantic disambiguation' that assigns meanings to symbols in 213 equations; if that step is wrong, the graph edges encode shared notation rather than shared mathematics, and both the 97.4% AUC and the cluster 'discoveries' would be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, a mostly automatic pipeline can scan a corpus of equations, rank cross-domain connections for human review, and compress the combinatorial space of possible mathematical analogies into a filtered stream.
  • Link prediction performance above classical baselines indicates that graph attention can capture nonlocal, nonlinear mathematical similarity rather than mere symbol overlap.
  • The same graph can serve as a knowledge auditor: inconsistencies, redundancies, and even parsing errors become signals about corpus quality and possible physics.
  • Candidate cross-domain pairings, such as blackbody radiation with Navier-Stokes equations, become a shortlist for physicists to test rather than a reason to discard them.
  • The framework is extensible: adding more equations, better disambiguation, and richer edge features should improve both hypothesis generation and auditing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As supplied, the body text is a different manuscript on Rydberg atoms on a Lieb lattice, so the pipeline's concrete steps—disambiguation rules, edge-weight definition, cluster-symbolic algorithm—cannot be checked from this submission; the claims above rest on the abstract.
  • If link prediction truly tracks mathematical proximity, a stronger test than random-negative-edge AUC would be whether the model recovers known physics equivalences, such as the same equation derived independently in two subfields.
  • The auditing mode suggests a general method for scientific knowledge-base quality control: parse errors that land inside high-scoring clusters may flag near-miss analogies worth investigating.
  • A testable extension: run the same pipeline on a corpus with explicit dimensional-analysis labels and see whether the graph attention weights recover known dimensional-analysis relationships as high-weight edges.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The abstract describes a graph-based framework for discovering and validating mathematical patterns in physics. Starting from 659 equations, the authors perform 'rigorous semantic disambiguation' on 213 equations, retain 400 'advanced physics equations,' build a weighted knowledge graph, and report that a Graph Attention Network achieves 97.4% AUC in link prediction, 'significantly outperforming classical baselines.' The framework is claimed to function as a hypothesis generator (producing candidate cross-domain connections) and as a computational auditor (verifying theory consistencies, 'synthesizing the Magnetic Reynolds Number,' and revealing that parsing errors can point toward analog gravity). The full text supplied for review is, however, a completely different paper on Rydberg atoms on a Lieb lattice (arXiv:2508.05737v2); it contains no description of the graph framework, its data, or its experiments. The referee report below therefore evaluates only the abstract and the surrounding submission context, flagging the full-text mismatch as the central obstruction to assessment.

Significance. If the claims in the abstract were substantiated, the framework would be a potentially useful triage tool for generating cross-domain physics hypotheses and for auditing consistency in large equation corpora. The 97.4% AUC result, if accompanied by proper controls and a well-defined graph construction, could indicate that the graph encodes recoverable mathematical structure. However, the current submission provides no methods, no code, no reproducibility artifacts, and no external validation. The symbolic 'synthesis' of the Magnetic Reynolds Number appears, from the abstract alone, to be a recombination of symbols already present in the input equations rather than a validated derivation. No credit can be given for machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, because none are supplied. The significance of the contribution is therefore unverifiable in the present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full Text] The supplied full text is arXiv:2508.05737v2, a condensed-matter paper on Rydberg atoms on a Lieb lattice, with no connection to the abstract's graph-based framework. This is not a minor presentation issue: it makes it impossible to evaluate the method, the graph construction, the baselines, the disambiguation rules, or the cluster analysis. The manuscript must be corrected to the actual paper before any further review.
  2. [Abstract] The headline claim of 97.4% AUC link prediction is reported without any experimental protocol. There is no description of the dataset split, cross-validation procedure, confidence intervals, or leakage checks. More importantly, there is no no-disambiguation control: to interpret the AUC as evidence that the graph encodes mathematical structure, one must show that a raw symbol-co-occurrence graph (without the 'rigorous semantic disambiguation') performs worse. Without that control, the number could simply reflect the graph's ability to recover notation-based adjacencies.
  3. [Abstract] The 'rigorous semantic disambiguation to resolve notational polysemy affecting 213 equations' is the load-bearing step that maps raw notation to mathematical meaning. The abstract gives no rules, examples, or external checks for this step. Since every downstream output (link predictions, clusters, 'synthesis') is a function of the disambiguated symbol space, an incorrect disambiguation would make all results artifacts of the input representation. Provide a sample of disambiguation decisions, inter-annotator agreement, or an out-of-corpus validation (e.g., recovering known physical relations from equations not in the training corpus).
  4. [Abstract] The claim that the framework 'synthesized the Magnetic Reynolds Number from electromagnetic-fluid coupling' is not supported. If 'synthesis' means that the system recombined symbols already present in the coupled equations, this is a rediscovery of the input representation, not an independent derivation. To make this claim load-bearing, the authors must show that the output matches a standard physical definition that was not explicitly encoded as a target, and ideally that the framework can produce a relation not trivially obtainable by symbol-level recombination.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The relationship between the 659 initial equations and the 400 'advanced physics equations' is unclear. How many equations were excluded, and by what criteria? Is the subset size a free parameter that affects the results?
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'significantly outperforming classical baselines' is unverifiable without a list of those baselines and their performance numbers. Please specify the baselines and report the comparison with variance.
  3. [Abstract] The statement that 'even tautologies and errors serve scientific purposes: redundancy identification and knowledge base quality assessment' is rhetorical. To be meaningful, the paper should define how tautologies and parsing errors are detected and how their 'scientific purpose' is evaluated.
  4. [Abstract] The claim that 'parsing errors could potentially point toward legitimate research like analog gravity' is extraordinary and needs a concrete example. Without one, it reads as a post-hoc rationalization rather than a finding.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract says the framework 'intentionally over-generates candidates to ensure comprehensive exploration of mathematical possibility space.' If over-generation is intentional, what is the false-positive rate? The 97.4% AUC on link prediction is not directly informative about the quality of the generated hypotheses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No demonstrable circularity in the abstract; supplied full text is a different paper, so the derivation chain cannot be audited further.

full rationale

The abstract of arXiv:2508.05724 claims a graph-based framework starting from 659 physics equations, with semantic disambiguation, a weighted knowledge graph, GAT link prediction at 97.4% AUC, and a dual hypothesis-generation/auditing capability. The supplied full text is a different manuscript (arXiv:2508.05737v2, a Rydberg Lieb-lattice experiment), so the method section, edge-weight definitions, baselines, and cluster analyses of the target paper are unavailable. On the abstract alone, no specific derivation step reduces to its own input by construction. The 'synthesized the Magnetic Reynolds Number' example is consistent with recombining input equations, but the abstract does not specify the input symbols or the cluster algebra, so the claimed reduction cannot be exhibited. The paper explicitly disclaims novelty for all outputs: 'This proof-of-concept intentionally over-generates candidates... Even tautologies and errors serve scientific purposes,' which is an admission of intentional redundancy rather than a hidden circularity. The 97.4% AUC is a link-prediction score on a graph derived from the corpus; without a no-disambiguation control its interpretation is uncertain, but that is a validity/confound concern, not a circular derivation. There are no self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or fitted parameters in the abstract. Accordingly, no significant circularity can be established from the available text.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-level audit only. The central claim rests on the fidelity of disambiguation and on the assumption that symbol-level recombinations carry meaning; no external benchmarks, error analysis, or falsifiable predictions are reported, so the epistemic weight is carried largely by assumptions the reader cannot check from the abstract. No new physical entities are introduced, which is favorable and keeps the inventoried-entity count at zero.

free parameters (3)
  • Equation subset size = 400
    Corpus reduced from 659 equations to 400 by excluding elementary mechanics; the exclusion rule is not stated and directly determines which connections can be discovered.
  • Number of symbolic clusters = 30
    Symbolic analysis was applied to 30 equation clusters; cluster granularity is a hand-chosen hyperparameter that controls which patterns are surfaced.
  • Graph edge weighting scheme = not stated
    The knowledge graph is 'weighted' but the similarity metric defining edge weights is not given in the abstract; all link prediction and clustering outputs depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Equations in the corpus can be faithfully represented as a weighted graph whose edges encode meaningful mathematical relatedness after disambiguation.
    The whole pipeline rests on this representational premise; stated in the abstract as 'This corpus was represented as a weighted knowledge graph'.
  • domain assumption The semantic disambiguation of 213 polysemous equations is correct and complete.
    Notational polysemy resolution is asserted as 'rigorous' but no rules or external validation are given in the abstract; an error here propagates to every edge and cluster.
  • domain assumption The 659-equation corpus (400 after exclusions) is a representative sample of physics for the purpose of discovering cross-domain patterns.
    Exclusion of elementary mechanics is a selection that shapes which patterns can be found; 'advanced physics' is not defined in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Symbolic recombination of terms across coupled equations corresponds to physically meaningful candidate patterns.
    This is what turns link prediction and clustering into 'hypotheses'; the abstract concedes many outputs are tautologies or errors, so the assumption is only partially satisfied by design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Graph-Based Framework for Exploring Mathematical Patterns in Physics: A Proof of Concept." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEKVHAWM

@misc{pith2026250805724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Graph-Based Framework for Exploring Mathematical Patterns in Physics: A Proof of Concept},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEKVHAWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05724}
}
read the original abstract

The vast corpus of physics equations forms an implicit network of mathematical relationships that traditional analysis cannot fully explore. This work introduces a graph-based framework combining neural networks with symbolic analysis to systematically discover and validate mathematical patterns across physics domains. Starting from 659 equations, we performed rigorous semantic disambiguation to resolve notational polysemy affecting 213 equations, then focused on 400 advanced physics equations by excluding elementary mechanics to emphasize inter-branch connections of modern physics. This corpus was represented as a weighted knowledge graph where a Graph Attention Network achieved 97.4% AUC in link prediction, significantly outperforming classical baselines. The framework's primary value emerges from its dual capability: generating hypotheses and auditing knowledge. First, it functions as a hypothesis generator, producing hundreds of candidate cross-domain connections, from blackbody radiation coupled with Navier-Stokes equations to radioactive decay linked with electromagnetic induction. Second, through symbolic analysis of 30 equation clusters, it serves as a computational auditor that verified established theory consistencies, synthesized the Magnetic Reynolds Number from electromagnetic-fluid coupling, and revealed how even parsing errors could potentially point toward legitimate research like analog gravity. This proof-of-concept intentionally over-generates candidates to ensure comprehensive exploration of mathematical possibility space. Even tautologies and errors serve scientific purposes: redundancy identification and knowledge base quality assessment. The system transforms the intractable combinatorial space into a filtered stream of mathematical patterns for human interpretation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    empty” sites and reducing the occupation of classically “filled

    Stability of the collinear phase The existence of the collinear region in the phase diagram is driven by quantum fluctuations, akin to the striated phase on the square lattice [14]. Indeed, while both the star and collinear phases satisfy the first- and second-neighbor blockade constraints, the interaction tails prefer the star phase classically. The clas...

  2. [2]

    1 where the disordered, collinear, and star regions meet using density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) calculations

    Numerical determination of phase boundaries Here, we provide a more detailed look into the region of the phase diagram depicted in Fig. 1 where the disordered, collinear, and star regions meet using density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) calculations. In Fig. 8, we plot the entanglement entropy, the collinear order parameter, and the star order param...

  3. [3]

    Symmetry analysis of the Lieb-lattice phases We now proceed to classify the order parameters of the phases found on the Lieb lattice by employing a real-space symmetry analysis. The starting point for such an analysis is a collection of density profilesρ λ (r) ={⟨n r⟩}λ, where λlabels all the linearly independent density-wave-order combinations relevant t...

  4. [4]

    +u 12 Ψ4 1 + Ψ4 2 +v 12Ψ2 1Ψ2 2 +u 3Ψ4 3 +w 123 Ψ2 1 + Ψ2 2 Ψ2 3.(D12) The third-order invariant Ψ3(Ψ2 1 −Ψ 2

  5. [5]

    necessarily drives the transition first-order close to the tricritical point [34, 41, 42, 75, 76]. It is possible that the disordered–star transition becomes second-order away from the intersection at larger values ofR b/a, requiring the existence of an additional tricritical point. Furthermore, the collinear–star phase transition 15 (a) (b) (c) FIG. 10.F...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Experimental phase diagram with alternative boundary terminations In Fig. 11, we plot the experimental phase diagram together with supporting DMRG simulations for an alternative choice of boundary conditions, in which the boundary forms a smooth line consisting of A, B, and C sublattice sites. Although the precise phase boundaries are dramatically affecte...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Here, we show numerically that such constraints give rise to a distinct string phase in finite systems with commensurate boundary conditions

    Numerical identification of the string phase The quantum relaxation dynamics experiment considers quenches into a parameter regime characterized by kinetic constraints. Here, we show numerically that such constraints give rise to a distinct string phase in finite systems with commensurate boundary conditions. In the string region, Rydberg excitations orga...

    work page

  8. [8]

    K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Critical Exponents in 3.99 Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 240 (1972)

    work page 1972

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr ` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single Rydberg atoms for realizing quantum Ising models, Nature534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Bernien, S

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

    2017

  4. [12]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2024

  6. [14]

    de L´ es´ eleuc, V

    S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, S. We- ber, N. Lang, H. P. B¨ uchler, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Observation of a symmetry-protected topological phase of interacting bosons with Rydberg atoms, Science365, 775 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Samajdar, W

    R. Samajdar, W. W. Ho, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Quantum phases of Rydberg atoms on a kagome lattice, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A118, e2015785118 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Verresen, M

    R. Verresen, M. D. Lukin, and A. Vishwanath, Prediction of Toric Code Topological Order from Rydberg Blockade, Phys. Rev. X11, 031005 (2021)

    2021

  9. [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 simul...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Kornjaˇ ca, R

    M. Kornjaˇ ca, R. Samajdar, T. Macr ` ı, N. Gemelke, S.- T. Wang, and F. Liu, Trimer quantum spin liquid in a honeycomb array of Rydberg atoms, Commun. Phys.6, 358 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    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, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling quantum many- body dynamics in driven Rydberg atom arrays, Science 371, 1355 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Keesling, A

    A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Kibble–Zurek mechanism and critical dynamics on a programmable Rydberg sim- ulator, Nat...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    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, S.-T. Wang, Y. Meurice, and S.-W. Tsai, Probing quantum floating phases in Rydberg atom ar- rays, Nat. Commun.16, 712 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Samajdar and D

    R. Samajdar and D. A. Huse, Quantum and classi- cal coarsening and their interplay with the kibble-zurek mechanism (2024), arXiv:2401.15144 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Manovitz, S

    T. Manovitz, S. H. Li, S. Ebadi, R. Samajdar, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, H. Zhou, N. U. Koylu- oglu, J. Feldmeier, P. E. Dolgirev, N. Maskara, M. Kali- nowski, S. Sachdev, D. A. Huse, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum coarsening and collective dy-...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Darbha, M

    S. Darbha, M. Kornjaˇ ca, F. Liu, J. Balewski, M. R. Hirs- brunner, P. L. S. Lopes, S.-T. Wang, R. Van Beeumen, D. Camps, and K. Klymko, False vacuum decay and nu- cleation dynamics in neutral atom systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 155103 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Darbha, M

    S. Darbha, M. Kornjaˇ ca, F. Liu, J. Balewski, M. R. Hirs- brunner, P. L. S. Lopes, S.-T. Wang, R. Van Beeumen, K. Klymko, and D. Camps, Long-lived oscillations of metastable states in neutral atom systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 155114 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Vodeb, J.-Y

    J. Vodeb, J.-Y. Desaules, A. Hallam, A. Rava, G. Hu- mar, D. Willsch, F. Jin, M. Willsch, K. Michielsen, and Z. Papi´ c, Stirring the false vacuum via interacting quan- tized bubbles on a 5,564-qubit quantum annealer, Nat. Phys.21, 386 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Z.-H. Zhu, Y. Liu, G. Lagnese, F. M. Surace, W.- Y. Zhang, M.-G. He, J. C. Halimeh, M. Dalmonte, S. C. Morampudi, F. Wilczek, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Probing false vacuum decay on a cold-atom gauge- theory quantum simulator (2024), arXiv:2411.12565 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    F. M. Surace, A. Lerose, O. Katz, E. R. Bennewitz, A. Schuckert, D. Luo, A. De, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. Collins, C. Monroe, Z. Davoudi, and A. V. Gorshkov, String-breaking dynamics in quantum adiabatic and di- abatic processes (2024), arXiv:2411.10652 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. De, A. Lerose, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, A. Schuckert, Z. Davoudi, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz, and C. Monroe, Quantum simulation of bub- ble nucleation across a quantum phase transition (2025), arXiv:2505.09607 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. A. Michailidis, C. J. Turner, Z. Papi´ c, D. A. Abanin, and M. Serbyn, Slow quantum thermalization and many- body revivals from mixed phase space, Phys. Rev. X10, 011055 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Collo- quium: Theory of intertwined orders in high temperature superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 457 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Maffi, N

    L. Maffi, N. Tausendpfund, M. Rizzi, and M. Burrello, Quantum Simulation of the Tricritical Ising Model in Tunable Josephson Junction Ladders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 132, 226502 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    H. Wang, X. Li, and C. Li, Tricritical Kibble-Zurek scal- ing in Rydberg atom ladders, Nature Communications 16, 10.1038/s41467-025-65652-9 (2025)

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    Gould, S

    O. Gould, S. G¨ uyer, and K. Rummukainen, First-order electroweak phase transitions: A nonperturbative up- date, Phys. Rev. D106, 114507 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Samajdar, W

    R. Samajdar, W. W. Ho, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Complex Density Wave Orders and Quantum Phase Transitions in a Model of Square-Lattice Rydberg Atom Arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 103601 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. La¨ uchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of Rydberg atoms, Nature595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Code- base release 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  32. [41]

    Kalinowski, R

    M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, R. G. Melko, M. D. Lukin, S. Sachdev, and S. Choi, Bulk and boundary quantum phase transitions in a square Rydberg atom array, Phys. Rev. B105, 174417 (2022)

    2022

  33. [42]

    Miles, R

    C. Miles, R. Samajdar, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Pich- ler, S. Sachdev, M. D. Lukin, M. Greiner, K. Q. Wein- berger, and E.-A. Kim, Machine learning discovery of new phases in programmable quantum simulator snap- shots, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013026 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    M. J. O’Rourke and G. K.-L. Chan, Entanglement in the quantum phases of an unfrustrated Rydberg atom array, Nat. Commun.14, 5397 (2023)

    2023

  35. [44]

    Yan, Y.-C

    Z. Yan, Y.-C. Wang, R. Samajdar, S. Sachdev, and Z. Y. Meng, Emergent Glassy Behavior in a Kagome Rydberg Atom Array, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 206501 (2023)

    2023

  36. [45]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  37. [46]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. M. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Dipole blockade and quantum information processing in mesoscopic atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 037901 (2001)

    2001

  38. [47]

    Landau, On the theory of phase transitions, inCol- lected Papers of L.D

    L. Landau, On the theory of phase transitions, inCol- lected Papers of L.D. Landau, edited by D. Ter Haar (Pergamon, 1965) pp. 193–216

    1965

  39. [48]

    Park and S

    K. Park and S. Sachdev, Bond-operator theory of doped antiferromagnets: From Mott insulators with bond- centered charge order to superconductors with nodal fermions, Phys. Rev. B64, 184510 (2001)

    2001

  40. [49]

    Sachdev and K

    S. Sachdev and K. Park, Ground states of quantum an- tiferromagnets in two dimensions, Ann. Phys.298, 58 (2002)

    2002

  41. [50]

    Shackleton, A

    H. Shackleton, A. Thomson, and S. Sachdev, Decon- fined criticality and a gaplessZ 2 spin liquid in the square-lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B104, 045110 (2021)

    2021

  42. [51]

    Hindmarsh, M

    M. Hindmarsh, M. L¨ uben, J. Lumma, and M. Pauly, Phase transitions in the early universe, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 24 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  44. [53]

    Hibat-Allah, E

    M. Hibat-Allah, E. Merali, G. Torlai, R. G. Melko, and J. Carrasquilla, Recurrent neural network wave functions for Rydberg atom arrays on kagome lattice, Communi- cations Physics8, 10.1038/s42005-025-02226-7 (2025)

    2025 doi

  45. [54]

    Ritort and P

    F. Ritort and P. Sollich, Glassy dynamics of kinetically constrained models, Adv. Phys.52, 219 (2003)

    2003

  46. [55]

    Z. Lan, M. van Horssen, S. Powell, and J. P. Garra- han, Quantum Slow Relaxation and Metastability due to Dynamical Constraints, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 040603 (2018)

    2018

  47. [56]

    Angelone, F

    A. Angelone, F. Mezzacapo, and G. Pupillo, Superglass Phase of Interaction-Blockaded Gases on a Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 135303 (2016)

    2016

  48. [57]

    Feldmeier, F

    J. Feldmeier, F. Pollmann, and M. Knap, Emergent Glassy Dynamics in a Quantum Dimer Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 040601 (2019)

    2019

  49. [58]

    Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annu

    A. Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annu. Rev. Con- dens. Matter Phys.9, 245 (2018)

    2018

  50. [59]

    Friedemann, W

    S. Friedemann, W. J. Duncan, M. Hirschberger, T. W. Bauer, R. K¨ uchler, A. Neubauer, M. Brando, C. Pflei- derer, and F. M. Grosche, Quantum tricritical points in NbFe2, Nat. Phys.14, 62 (2018)

    2018

  51. [60]

    Y.-Z. Wang, S. He, L. Duan, and Q.-H. Chen, Quantum tricritical point emerging in the spin-boson model with two dissipative spins in staggered biases, Phys. Rev. B 103, 205106 (2021)

    2021

  52. [61]

    Papi´ c, Weak ergodicity breaking through the lens of quantum entanglement, inEntanglement in Spin Chains: From Theory to Quantum Technology Applica- tions, edited by A

    Z. Papi´ c, Weak ergodicity breaking through the lens of quantum entanglement, inEntanglement in Spin Chains: From Theory to Quantum Technology Applica- tions, edited by A. Bayat, S. Bose, and H. Johannes- son (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022) pp. 341–395

    2022

  53. [62]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quan- tum many-body scars and Hilbert space fragmentation: a review of exact results, Rep. Prog. Phys.85, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  54. [63]

    Schlosser, S

    M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, D. Sch¨ affner, D. O. de Mello, M. Hambach, J. Sch¨ utz, and G. Birkl, Scalable multilayer architecture of assembled single-atom qubit arrays in a three-dimensional talbot tweezer lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 180601 (2023)

    2023

  55. [64]

    Pause, L

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits, Optica11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  56. [65]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6,100 highly coherent atomic qubits, Nature647, 60–67 (2025)

    2025

  57. [66]

    B. F. Schiffer, D. S. Wild, N. Maskara, M. Cain, M. D. Lukin, and R. Samajdar, Circumventing superexponen- tial runtimes for hard instances of quantum adiabatic optimization, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013271 (2024)

    2024

  58. [67]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Bintz, V

    M. Bintz, V. S. Liu, J. Hauschild, A. Khalifa, S. Chat- terjee, M. P. Zaletel, and N. Y. Yao, Dirac spin liquid in quantum dipole arrays (2024), arXiv:2406.00098 [cond- mat.str-el]. 21

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    M. Tian, R. Samajdar, and B. Gadway, Engineering Frus- trated Rydberg Spin Models by Graphical Floquet Mod- ulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 253001 (2025)

    2025

  61. [70]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  62. [71]

    Kashyap, G

    V. Kashyap, G. Styliaris, S. Mouradian, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Accuracy guarantees and quantum advantage in analog open quantum simulation with and without noise, Phys. Rev. X15, 021017 (2025)

    2025

  63. [72]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  64. [73]

    S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  65. [74]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  66. [75]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  67. [76]

    S. R. White and A. L. Chernyshev, Ne´ el Order in Square and Triangular Lattice Heisenberg Models, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 127004 (2007)

    2007

  68. [77]

    Balents, L

    L. Balents, L. Bartosch, A. Burkov, S. Sachdev, and K. Sengupta, Putting competing orders in their place near the Mott transition, Phys. Rev. B71, 144508 (2005)

    2005

  69. [78]

    Binder, Finite size scaling analysis of Ising model block distribution functions, Z

    K. Binder, Finite size scaling analysis of Ising model block distribution functions, Z. Phys. B43, 119 (1981)

    1981

  70. [79]

    Hasenbusch, K

    M. Hasenbusch, K. Pinn, and S. Vinti, Critical expo- nents of the three-dimensional Ising universality class from finite-size scaling with standard and improved ac- tions, Phys. Rev. B59, 11471 (1999)

    1999

  71. [80]

    Goldenfeld,Lectures On Phase Transitions And The Renormalization Group, Frontiers in Physics (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1992)

    N. Goldenfeld,Lectures On Phase Transitions And The Renormalization Group, Frontiers in Physics (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1992)

    1992

  72. [81]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Critical phenomena and renormalization-group theory, Phys. Rep.368, 549 (2002)

    2002

  73. [82]

    N. L. Silva, M. A. Continentino, and D. G. Barci, Quan- tum corrections for the phase diagram of systems with competing order, J. Phys. Condens. Matter30, 225402 (2018)

    2018

  74. [83]

    Kornjaˇ ca and R

    M. Kornjaˇ ca and R. Flint, Signatures of spinorial order in URu 2Si2: Landau-ginzburg theory of hastatic order (2020), arXiv:2012.08511 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [84]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Statistical Physics, 3rd ed., Course Of Theoretical Physics (Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford, England, 1996)

    1996

  76. [85]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Optimiza- tion by simulated annealing, Science220, 671 (1983)

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.