Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Dynamics of discrete spacetimes with Quantum-enhanced Markov Chain Monte Carlo

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper claims that two quantum-enhanced Markov-chain algorithms sample causal-set spacetimes with a threefold smaller slowdown exponent than classical chains, one of them weighting samples by the Benincasa-Dowker action.

desk verdict New constrained-QeMCMC ingredients are real, but the cubic speedup claim rests on underspecified spectral-gap fits at tiny N; worth refereeing after major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19538 v1 pith:JS4W66EE submitted 2025-06-24 quant-ph gr-qcphysics.comp-ph

Stuart Ferguson , Arad Nasiri , Petros Wallden This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qcphysics.comp-ph
keywords causalsettheoryquantum-enhancedMarkovchainMonteCarloBenincasa-Dowkeractionquantumgravityspectralgaptransitiveclosureconstraintsamplingalgorithmsthermalizationscaling
topics Quantum Gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum computing could speed up the study of causal sets, a discrete picture of spacetime built from partially ordered events. The paper adapts quantum-enhanced Markov chain Monte Carlo to this setting: it adds a penalty term that keeps quantum proposals inside the space of valid causal sets, and it derives a qubit Hamiltonian encoding the Benincasa-Dowker action, the causal-set counterpart of the Einstein-Hilbert action. The central empirical claim is a super-quadratic scaling advantage: for uniform sampling, the spectral gap of the quantum chain decays as $\delta \propto e^{-kN}$ with $k = 0.17(5)$, about a third of the classical $k = 0.51(4)$, so thermalization slows down roughly cubically more slowly as cardinality grows. If the claim holds, simulations could reach larger causal sets and, for the first time, sample the causal-set partition function without dimension restrictions.

What carries the argument

Three pieces carry the argument. (1) The transitive-closure constraint $$H_{\mathrm{TC}} = P \sum_{i<j<k} C_{ij}C_{jk}(1-C_{ik})$$ adds a penalty $P$ for every triple of events that would violate the defining transitivity of a partial order, making valid causal sets the degenerate ground space and suppressing proposals into the exponentially larger space of directed acyclic graphs. (2) The qubit Hamiltonian $$H_{\mathrm{BD}\varepsilon} = \frac{4\sqrt{6}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\left[N - \varepsilon \sum_{k<m} C_{km}\left(1 - 10\varepsilon \sum_{k<l<m} C_{kl}C_{lm}\right)\right]$$ encodes the 4d Benincasa-Dowker action to first order in the small parameter $\varepsilon$, using products of at most three of the $q = N(N-1)/2$ relation qubits. (3) The QeMCMC proposal itself: starting from the current causal set, evolve under $H = \gamma_{\mathrm{TC}}H_{\mathrm{TC}} + \gamma_{\mathrm{BD}}H_{\mathrm{BD}\varepsilon} + \gamma_{\mathrm{mix}}\sum_i X_i$, measure, and classically accept the result only if it passes a transitivity check and, for weighted sampling, the Metropolis-Hastings criterion. The figure of merit is the spectral gap $\delta$ of the resulting Markov chain, since $\delta^{-1}$ bounds the thermalization time on both sides.

What would settle it

Compute, on a fixed small ensemble of causal sets, both $H_{\mathrm{BD}\varepsilon}$ from Eq. (G2) and the action $S^{(4)}_\varepsilon$ from Eq. (2), and check whether the Metropolis acceptance probabilities $\exp(-\beta\Delta S)$ match those built from the Hamiltonian actually simulated; the mismatched prefactors mean the two will disagree at $\varepsilon = 0.1$, which would show the weighted benchmark sampled a different action. Independently, re-run the spectral-gap fits with the coefficient-matched Hamiltonian and check whether $k_Q \approx k_C/3$ survives; if the ratio changes, the cubic claim falls with it. A third check targets the uniform sampler: obtain proposal statistics at larger $N$ through coarse-graining or quantum-inspired classical simulation and test whether $\delta \propto e^{-0.17N}$ still fits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the QeMCMC proposal step can be adapted to constrained configuration spaces, with causal-set sampling as the test case. The uniform-sampling algorithm replaces classical moves with quantum real-time evolution under $H_{\mathrm{uniform}} = (1-\gamma)H_{\mathrm{TC}} + \gamma H_{\mathrm{mix}}$, where $H_{\mathrm{TC}}$ penalizes every triple with $i \prec j$, $j \prec k$, but not $i \prec k$; valid causal sets become degenerate ground states. Spectral-gap fits give $k_Q = 0.17(5)$ versus $k_C = 0.51(4)$ in $\delta \propto e^{-kN}$, a factor-of-three, so-called cubic reduction of the slowdown exponent. The weighted-sampling algorithm adds a problem Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{BD}\varepsilon}$ that approximates the 4d Benincasa-Dowker action to first order in $\varepsilon$ with at most cubic interactions, then accepts proposals via the Metropolis-Hastings rule using the action difference. At temperature $T = 0.004$ the quantum chain again decays far more slowly ($k_Q = 2.09(8)$ versus $k_C = 4.3(4)$), although the paper deliberately attaches no single advantage number to this case because the comparison depends strongly on temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the qubit Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) faithfully encodes the 4d Benincasa-Dowker action; the paper's own Pauli form in Eq. (G2) has coefficients scaling as $\varepsilon^{3/2}$ and $\varepsilon^{5/2}$ where Eq. (7) implies $\varepsilon^{1/2}$ and $\varepsilon^{3/2}$ (with an extra $\sqrt{6}$), so the weighted chain may be sampling a different distribution from the claimed partition function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The uniform sampler's thermalization time would grow as $e^{0.17N}$ rather than $e^{0.51N}$, extending the range of cardinalities at which causal-set ensembles can be explored without restricting dimension.
  • The constraint-term recipe generalizes: any problem whose feasible configurations are the ground states of a low-degree Hamiltonian can inherit the constrained QeMCMC proposal.
  • The BD-action Hamiltonian enables the first MCMC weighted by the causal-set action over the full space of causal sets, opening numerical study of the causal-set partition function in the Euclidean setting.
  • Because quantum noise only slows thermalization and does not bias the accepted samples, the algorithms are candidates for early fault-tolerant quantum hardware.
  • At low temperature in 4d, the quantum weighted sampler avoids the critical slowing down that defeats the classical link move, so the practical advantage grows as $\beta$ increases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cubic claim rests on exponential fits over very small cardinalities, since the quadratic qubit count confines direct simulation to roughly $N \le 6$; the persistence of the factor-of-three ratio at larger $N$ is an extrapolation, and running the same fits with the coarse-graining the authors suggest would test it.
  • A classical proposal that samples directed acyclic graphs and then performs transitive reduction, a strategy the paper notes in passing, could narrow the measured gap; that comparison would sharpen rather than refute the reported advantage.
  • The BD Hamiltonian is derived for $\varepsilon \ll 1$, yet the simulations use $\varepsilon = 0.1$, a value the paper itself notes is far above physical estimates near $10^{-20}$; re-benchmarking at smaller $\varepsilon$ would show whether the weighted advantage survives in the physically relevant regime.
  • Because the paper identifies the inverse temperature with the squared ratio of the discreteness scale to the Planck length, its low-temperature advantage maps onto the regime of large discreteness, where classical samplers freeze and quantum-gravity effects are strongest.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper adapts Quantum-enhanced Markov Chain Monte Carlo (QeMCMC) to sample causal sets of fixed cardinality, both uniformly and weighted by an approximate 4d Benincasa–Dowker (BD) action. It introduces a transitive-closure penalty Hamiltonian to enforce causal-set validity and derives a qubit Hamiltonian intended to represent the BD action. Spectral-gap simulations compare the quantum proposal against classical move sets from the literature. The headline result is an exponential thermalization-time exponent k_Q = 0.17(5) for the quantum uniform-sampling proposal versus k_C = 0.51(4) for the classical algorithm, described as a cubic scaling advantage. Weighted-sampling results are presented but not quantified as a scaling advantage.

Significance. If the uniform-sampling exponent comparison survives scrutiny, this is a notable empirical extension of QeMCMC from unconstrained Ising-type problems to a constrained combinatorial space of direct physical interest. The paper makes concrete, reproducible contributions: an open-source implementation, a constraint Hamiltonian for causal sets, and a first qubit Hamiltonian approximating the BD action. It also states its limitations honestly, including the quadratic qubit requirement and the very small system sizes. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a small number of low-cardinality simulations and on a parameter-combining rule that is not fully specified. In addition, the BD Hamiltonian used in the weighted-sampling section has an internal inconsistency between the main-text expression and the Pauli decomposition in the appendix, so the weighted-sampling results cannot currently be interpreted as sampling the claimed distribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Simulated Results; Appendix G] The reported quantum spectral gaps are obtained by sampling the algorithmic parameters (r_TC and t) and then "combining these samples" to compute the transition matrix and spectral gap. This procedure is not defined precisely enough to support the central claim. If different proposals in the Markov chain are generated with different parameter values, the chain is time-inhomogeneous and its spectral gap is not well-defined; if instead the reported gap is an average over separately computed gaps, or a best value over the sampled parameters, the comparison with the fixed classical chains is biased. The manuscript must specify exactly how the parameter samples enter a single transition matrix (for example, as a fixed mixture over proposals) or report the full distribution of gaps over the parameter grid. Without this, the quoted k_Q = 0.17(5) and the cubic-advantage claim are not robust.
  2. [Fig. 1; Simulated Results] The exponential fit delta proportional to exp(-kN) is performed on "very small cardinality" simulations, but the actual values of N, the number of independent parameter samples, and the number of fit points are not stated. With only two values of r_TC and two values of t listed in Appendix G, the jackknife error bars reflect sampling over these few points, not the uncertainty of the exponential fit. Please report the N values used, the fit residuals, and the sensitivity of k_Q to excluding each data point. As presented, the factor-of-three reduction in k could be an artifact of the fit range and the parameter-combining rule.
  3. [Eq. (7) versus Eq. (G2); Appendix G] The qubit Hamiltonian used in the weighted simulations is not the Pauli representation of Eq. (7). Eq. (7) has a leading N term proportional to epsilon^{-1/2} and a linear-in-C coefficient proportional to epsilon^{1/2}, while Eq. (G2) has an N coefficient proportional to epsilon^{1/2} and a linear coefficient proportional to epsilon^{3/2}; the cubic coefficients differ by an additional power of epsilon and by a numerical factor. As written, the two expressions describe different Hamiltonians, so the weighted-sampling simulations may be sampling from a distribution that is not the intended BD partition function. The derivation in Appendix A should be reconciled with the implementation, and the weighted-sampling claims in the conclusion should be conditioned on the corrected Hamiltonian.
  4. [Conclusion; Fig. 2] The statement that "both algorithms exhibit a super-quadratic scaling" is stronger than the quantified results. For uniform sampling, the ratio k_C/k_Q is about 3, which is cubic. For weighted sampling, Fig. 2 gives k_Q = 2.09(8) versus k_C = 4.3(4), a ratio of about 2.1, and the text explicitly declines to quantify a weighted-sampling advantage because of temperature dependence. Please state precisely which claims are quantified and avoid attributing a super-quadratic advantage to the weighted algorithm unless the corrected Hamiltonian yields a stable ratio strictly below 1/2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix G] In the sentence defining the sampled variables, gamma_BD is assigned twice: the text gives gamma_BD = (1 - r_TC) r_BD and then gamma_BD = (1 - r_TC)(1 - r_BD); the second assignment should presumably be gamma_mix = (1 - r_TC)(1 - r_BD).
  2. [Appendix E, Figs. 3 and 4] The captions of Figs. 3 and 4 appear to swap the dimension labels: Fig. 3 is described in the text as the 2d BD action case but the caption says "for 4d BD action" with d = 2, and Fig. 4 is described as the 4d case but the caption says "for 2d BD action" with d = 4.
  3. [Simulated Results] The term "super-quadratic" is used without a definition; the text should state the precise criterion, for example k_Q < k_C/2, at first use.
  4. [Eq. (7)] The prefactor 4*sqrt(6)/sqrt(epsilon) in Eq. (7) diverges as epsilon goes to 0, while the text states that the epsilon much less than 1 regime is the relevant one; this suggests a typo in the placement of epsilon, which should be corrected together with Eq. (G2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the quantum uniform and BD-weighted algorithms are defined by explicit Hamiltonians (Eqs. 5-8) and by the QeMCMC proposal from Layden et al. [26]. The scaling claims are empirical spectral-gap results (Figs. 1-2), fit to delta proportional to e^{-kN} separately for the quantum proposals and for the independent classical samplers of Henson et al. [24]; no fitted constant is later renamed as a prediction. The 'cubic advantage' is the ratio of two independently fitted exponents, not a parameter forced by construction. Appendix G's parameter sampling ('we sample the parameters', 'Combining these samples, the transition matrix and thus spectral gap can be calculated') is under-specified and could introduce selection risk, but that is a robustness concern, not circularity. The coefficient discrepancy between Eq. (7) and Eq. (G2) is a correctness risk about whether the simulator implements the claimed BD Hamiltonian, but it does not make the derivation circular. The only self-citation, ref. [16] (Ferguson and Wallden), appears alongside the external foundational reference [26] and is not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper itself concedes there is no analytical proof of QeMCMC advantage [35], which is honest empirical benchmarking rather than a circular argument. Therefore no circular step is exhibited; the score reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

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

The paper introduces new Hamiltonian operators (H_TC and H_BDepsilon) but no new physical entities. The free parameters are algorithmic and physical constants (epsilon, gamma, t). The main burden is the correctness of the Hamiltonians as claimed.

free parameters (3)
  • BD smearing parameter epsilon = 0.1
    Set to 0.1 in simulations; the BD action is defined for any epsilon, but the first-order Hamiltonian approximation is only valid for epsilon << 1, while Sorkin's estimate is epsilon ~ 10^-20 (Appendix G, Ref. [41]).
  • Mixing weight gamma = sampled ranges r_TC={0.7,0.9}, r_BD={0.05,0.02}
    Algorithmic parameters sampled from ranges; the spectral gap depends on them, and the paper does not fix a single optimal set. This hand-chosen tuning affects the reported advantage.
  • Evolution time (Trotter steps) t = sampled between 3 and 10
    Proposal probabilities depend on t; sampled range is arbitrary and affects the spectral gap.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Spectral gap bounds thermalization time via Eq. (9) from Levin and Peres.
    Used to justify delta as a figure of merit for convergence.
  • domain assumption The BD action with uniform measure defines the target partition function for causal-set dynamics.
    The paper samples Z = sum mu(C) e^{iS}; no agreed decoherence functional exists, so mu is taken uniform (Appendix C).
  • domain assumption Quantum real-time evolution under the constraint Hamiltonian suppresses invalid proposals sufficiently to yield a fast-mixing chain.
    The algorithm relies on H_TC penalties; suppression is not proven analytically.
  • ad hoc to paper First-order-in-epsilon approximation of the BD action (Eq. A2) is adequate for the sampling task.
    Used to derive H_BDepsilon; epsilon=0.1 is not very small, and the approximation may be poor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of discrete spacetimes with Quantum-enhanced Markov Chain Monte Carlo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JS4W66EE

@misc{pith2026250619538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of discrete spacetimes with Quantum-enhanced Markov Chain Monte Carlo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JS4W66EE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19538}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum algorithms offer the potential for significant computational advantages; however, in many cases, it remains unclear how these advantages can be practically realized. Causal Set Theory is a discrete, Lorentz-invariant approach to quantum gravity which may be well positioned to benefit from quantum computing. In this work, we introduce a quantum algorithm that investigates the dynamics of causal sets by sampling the space of causal sets, improving on classical methods. Our approach builds on the quantum-enhanced Markov chain Monte Carlo technique developed by Layden et al. [Nature 619, 282 (2023)], adapting it to sample from the constrained spaces required for application. This is done by adding a constraint term to the Hamiltonian of the system. A qubit Hamiltonian representing the Benincasa-Dowker action (the causal set equivalent of the Einstein-Hilbert action) is also derived and used in the algorithm as the problem Hamiltonian. We achieve a super-quadratic quantum scaling advantage and, under some conditions, demonstrate a greater potential compared to classical approaches than previously observed in unconstrained QeMCMC implementations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spectral gap against cardinality for simulation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spectral gap against cardinality for simulation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Temperature dependence of spectral gap for each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temperature dependence of spectral gap for each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Greene, and Rafael Sorkin

    Maqbool Ahmed, Scott Dodelson, Patrick B. Greene, and Rafael Sorkin. Everpresent Λ.Phys. Rev. D, 69:103523, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Quantum anneal- ing enhanced markov-chain monte carlo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08060, 2025

    Shunta Arai and Tadashi Kadowaki. Quantum anneal- ing enhanced markov-chain monte carlo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08060, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Scalar curvature of a causal set.Physical review letters, 104(18):181301, 2010

    Dionigi MT Benincasa and Fay Dowker. Scalar curvature of a causal set.Physical review letters, 104(18):181301, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Space-time as a causal set.Physical review letters, 59(5):521, 1987

    Luca Bombelli, Joohan Lee, David Meyer, and Rafael D Sorkin. Space-time as a causal set.Physical review letters, 59(5):521, 1987

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Continuum limits for classical sequential growth models.Random Structures & Algorithms, 36(2):218–250, 2010

    Graham Brightwell and Nicholas Georgiou. Continuum limits for classical sequential growth models.Random Structures & Algorithms, 36(2):218–250, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Path integral suppres- sion of badly behaved causal sets.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40(9):095004, 2023

    P Carlip, S Carlip, and S Surya. Path integral suppres- sion of badly behaved causal sets.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40(9):095004, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    The einstein–hilbert action for entropically dominant causal sets.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41(14):145005, 2024

    Peter Carlip, Steve Carlip, and Sumati Surya. The einstein–hilbert action for entropically dominant causal sets.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41(14):145005, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    From quantum enhanced to quantum inspired monte carlo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17821, 2024

    Johannes Christmann, Petr Ivashkov, Mattia Chiurco, and Guglielmo Mazzola. From quantum enhanced to quantum inspired monte carlo.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17821, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Causal set generator and action computer.Computer Physics Communications, 233:123–133, 2018

    William J Cunningham and Dmitri Krioukov. Causal set generator and action computer.Computer Physics Communications, 233:123–133, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Dimension- ally restricted causal set quantum gravity: examples in two and three dimensions.Classical and Quantum Grav- ity, 37(5):054002, 2020

    William J Cunningham and Sumati Surya. Dimension- ally restricted causal set quantum gravity: examples in two and three dimensions.Classical and Quantum Grav- ity, 37(5):054002, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Santanu Das, Arad Nasiri, and Yasaman K. Yazdi. As- pects of Everpresent Λ. Part I. A fluctuating cosmologi- cal constant from spacetime discreteness.JCAP, 10:047, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Santanu Das, Arad Nasiri, and Yasaman K. Yazdi. As- pects of Everpresent Λ. Part II. Cosmological tests of current models.JCAP, 10:076, 2024. 6

    2024

  5. [13]

    Causal set d’alembertians for various dimensions.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30(19):195016, 2013

    Fay Dowker and Lisa Glaser. Causal set d’alembertians for various dimensions.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30(19):195016, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Hilbert spaces from path integrals.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43(27):275302, 2010

    Fay Dowker, Steven Johnston, and Rafael D Sorkin. Hilbert spaces from path integrals.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43(27):275302, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    SamplingCausalSets, 2025

    Stuart Ferguson. SamplingCausalSets, 2025. https://github.com/Stuartferguson00/SAMPLING_ CAUSAL_SETS

    2025

  8. [16]

    Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo for systems larger than a quan- tum computer.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013231, 2025

    Stuart Ferguson and Petros Wallden. Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo for systems larger than a quan- tum computer.Physical Review Research, 7(1):013231, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    A closed form expression for the causal set d’alembertian.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31(9):095007, 2014

    Lisa Glaser. A closed form expression for the causal set d’alembertian.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31(9):095007, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    The ising model coupled to 2d orders.Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity, 35(8):084001, mar 2018

    Lisa Glaser. The ising model coupled to 2d orders.Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity, 35(8):084001, mar 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Phase transitions in 2d orders coupled to the ising model.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38(14):145017, 2021

    Lisa Glaser. Phase transitions in 2d orders coupled to the ising model.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38(14):145017, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Finite size scaling in 2d causal set quantum gravity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35(4):045006, 2018

    Lisa Glaser, Denjoe O’Connor, and Sumati Surya. Finite size scaling in 2d causal set quantum gravity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35(4):045006, 2018

    2018

  13. [22]

    The hartle–hawking wave function in 2d causal set quantum gravity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(6):065003, 2016

    Lisa Glaser and Sumati Surya. The hartle–hawking wave function in 2d causal set quantum gravity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(6):065003, 2016

    2016

  14. [23]

    Constructing an interval of minkowski space from a causal set.Classical and Quantum Grav- ity, 23(4):L29, 2006

    Joe Henson. Constructing an interval of minkowski space from a causal set.Classical and Quantum Grav- ity, 23(4):L29, 2006

    2006

  15. [24]

    Onset of the asymptotic regime for finite orders.arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.05902, 2015

    Joe Henson, David P Rideout, Rafael D Sorkin, and Sumati Surya. Onset of the asymptotic regime for finite orders.arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.05902, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Asymptotic enumeration of partial orders on a finite set.Transac- tions of the American Mathematical Society, 205:205– 220, 1975

    Daniel J Kleitman and Bruce L Rothschild. Asymptotic enumeration of partial orders on a finite set.Transac- tions of the American Mathematical Society, 205:205– 220, 1975

    1975

  17. [26]

    Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo

    David Layden, Guglielmo Mazzola, Ryan V Mishmash, Mario Motta, Pawel Wocjan, Jin-Sung Kim, and Sarah Sheldon. Quantum-enhanced markov chain monte carlo. Nature, 619(7969):282–287, 2023

    2023

  18. [27]

    American Mathematical Soc., 2017

    David A Levin and Yuval Peres.Markov chains and mix- ing times, volume 107. American Mathematical Soc., 2017

    2017

  19. [28]

    Suppression of non-manifold- like sets in the causal set path integral.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35(2):024002, 2017

    SP Loomis and S Carlip. Suppression of non-manifold- like sets in the causal set path integral.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35(2):024002, 2017

    2017

  20. [29]

    Hamiltonian sim- ulation by qubitization.Quantum, 3:163, 2019

    Guang Hao Low and Isaac L Chuang. Hamiltonian sim- ulation by qubitization.Quantum, 3:163, 2019

    2019

  21. [30]

    Entropy and the link action in the causal set path-sum.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38(4):045017, 2020

    Abhishek Mathur, Anup Anand Singh, and Sumati Surya. Entropy and the link action in the causal set path-sum.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38(4):045017, 2020

    2020

  22. [31]

    Equa- tion of state calculations by fast computing machines

    Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W Rosenbluth, Marshall N Rosenbluth, Augusta H Teller, and Edward Teller. Equa- tion of state calculations by fast computing machines. The journal of chemical physics, 21(6):1087–1092, 1953

    1953

  23. [32]

    It may have very quick thermaliza- tion for small instances, but is reported to slow down at approximatelyN≈50

    A method for sampling causal sets has been developed that samples the space of such graphs, before performing transitive reduction. It may have very quick thermaliza- tion for small instances, but is reported to slow down at approximatelyN≈50. [private communication, S. Surya, 2025.]

    2025

  24. [33]

    HereN(or the total volume of the spacetime as its con- tinuum counterpart) serves as the natural time parame- ter

  25. [34]

    In the case of a Hamiltonian expressed as Pauli strings, this simplifies to the sum of squares of the coefficients of the strings

  26. [35]

    Bounding the speedup of the quantum-enhanced markov-chain monte carlo algorithm

    Alev Orfi and Dries Sels. Bounding the speedup of the quantum-enhanced markov-chain monte carlo algorithm. Physical Review A, 110(5):052414, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    Evidence for a continuum limit in causal set dynamics.Physical Review D, 63(10):104011, 2001

    David P Rideout and Rafael D Sorkin. Evidence for a continuum limit in causal set dynamics.Physical Review D, 63(10):104011, 2001

    2001

  28. [37]

    Classical sequential growth dynamics for causal sets.Physical Re- view D, 61(2):024002, 1999

    David Porter Rideout and Rafael D Sorkin. Classical sequential growth dynamics for causal sets.Physical Re- view D, 61(2):024002, 1999

    1999

  29. [38]

    Spacetime and causal sets.Relativity and gravitation: Classical and quantum, pages 150–173, 1991

    Rafael D Sorkin. Spacetime and causal sets.Relativity and gravitation: Classical and quantum, pages 150–173, 1991

    1991

  30. [39]

    Quantum mechanics as quantum mea- sure theory.Modern Physics Letters A, 9(33):3119–3127, 1994

    Rafael D Sorkin. Quantum mechanics as quantum mea- sure theory.Modern Physics Letters A, 9(33):3119–3127, 1994

    1994

  31. [40]

    Quantum measure theory and its inter- pretation.arXiv preprint gr-qc/9507057, 1995

    Rafael D Sorkin. Quantum measure theory and its inter- pretation.arXiv preprint gr-qc/9507057, 1995

    1995 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Does locality fail at intermediate length- scales.arXiv preprint gr-qc/0703099, 2007

    Rafael D Sorkin. Does locality fail at intermediate length- scales.arXiv preprint gr-qc/0703099, 2007

    2007 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Evidence for the continuum in 2d causal set quantum gravity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29(13):132001, 2012

    Sumati Surya. Evidence for the continuum in 2d causal set quantum gravity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29(13):132001, 2012

    2012

  34. [43]

    The causal set approach to quantum grav- ity.Living Reviews in Relativity, 22:1–75, 2019

    Sumati Surya. The causal set approach to quantum grav- ity.Living Reviews in Relativity, 22:1–75, 2019

    2019

  35. [44]

    Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and monte carlo simulations.Physics Letters A, 146(6):319– 323, 1990

    Masuo Suzuki. Fractal decomposition of exponential operators with applications to many-body theories and monte carlo simulations.Physics Letters A, 146(6):319– 323, 1990

    1990

  36. [45]

    Qulacs: a fast and versatile quantum circuit simu- lator for research purpose.Quantum, 5:559, 2021

    Yasunari Suzuki, Yoshiaki Kawase, Yuya Masumura, Yuria Hiraga, Masahiro Nakadai, Jiabao Chen, Ken M Nakanishi, Kosuke Mitarai, Ryosuke Imai, Shiro Tamiya, et al. Qulacs: a fast and versatile quantum circuit simu- lator for research purpose.Quantum, 5:559, 2021

    2021

  37. [46]

    over-fitting

    Nosiphiwo Zwane, Niayesh Afshordi, and Rafael D. Sorkin. Cosmological tests of Everpresent Λ.Class. Quant. Grav., 35(19):194002, 2018. Appendix A: Action and Hamiltonian in arbitrary dimension Unlike the Einstein-Hilbert action, the BD action is dimension-dependent. That is, i...

    2018

Pith tools

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