Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Odd-numbered antiferromagnetic rings produce W states; a Rydberg simulator realizes them with fidelity 0.77.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:55 UTC pith:WH3BYQF2

load-bearing objection Frustrated-ring W-state preparation on 11 Rydberg atoms is credible, but the 'certified' fidelity is a model-conditioned estimate, not a rigorous lower bound. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.17974 v2 pith:WH3BYQF2 submitted 2025-10-20 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Experimental preparation of W states through frustration on a programmable quantum simulator

Alberto Giuseppe Catalano , Ceren Da\u{g} , Gianpaolo Torre , Salvatore Marco Giampaolo , Fabio Franchini This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Mn
keywords W statetopological frustrationRydberg atom arrayBayesian tomographymultipartite entanglementadiabatic state preparationfidelity estimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that W states—equal superpositions of one excitation localized on any of L sites—can be prepared deterministically by cooling an antiferromagnetic ring with an odd number of atoms into its ground state. Topological ring frustration makes that ground state a symmetric superposition of kink states, which is equivalent to a W state up to a Clifford circuit or an ancilla. The authors implement this on a programmable Rydberg atom array for rings of 5 to 11 atoms, and certify a lower-bound fidelity of about 0.77 for the largest system. Because a perfect x-basis rotation is impossible while Rydberg interactions are always on, they develop a Bayesian tomography scheme that uses classical noisy simulations as a prior and experimental bit-string statistics after imperfect rotations as likelihood, inferring the off-diagonal coherence needed for the fidelity estimate. The result matters because it offers a scalable, deterministic route to a practical class of multipartite entangled states, along with a certification method that avoids exponential tomography cost.

Core claim

We show that an odd-sized antiferromagnetic ring, whose ground state is a gapless superposition of kink states due to topological frustration, hosts a state equivalent to a W state, and we prepare it adiabatically on a Rydberg atom simulator. We certify the entanglement with a fidelity estimator that uses only z-basis populations and x-basis correlators, with the off-diagonal part inferred through a Bayesian update conditioned on classical simulations that match experimental bit-string statistics. For a ring of 11 atoms we obtain a certified lower-bound fidelity of 0.774, well above the separable threshold of 1/L, and numerical simulations indicate the protocol scales to tens of atoms with n

What carries the argument

Topological ring frustration: placing an odd number of spins on a ring with antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interactions forces a single ferromagnetic domain wall (a kink); quantum fluctuations delocalize that kink, producing the superposition |KS⟩ = (1/√L) Σₖ |k⟩_AFM, which approximates the W state. This mechanism bypasses the no-go result that no local gapped Hamiltonian has a W state as its unique ground state, because the frustrated ring is gapless in the thermodynamic limit. The certification relies on the fidelity estimator F_e = (1/L)(Σₖ pₖ + Tr(ρ_exp P_x)), where P_x sums x-correlators over even contiguous segments, and on a Bayesian weighting w_j ∝ ∏_α exp(−N^(α) D_KL(f^(α)||t^(α

Load-bearing premise

The inferred fidelity depends on the classical simulation with its noise model (dephasing rate, atom motion, readout errors) accurately reproducing the real imperfect rotation sequence; if that model is wrong, the claimed lower bound could be biased.

What would settle it

Run the same Bayesian two-basis estimation on a small system (L=3 or 5) where full quantum state tomography is feasible, and check whether the inferred fidelity matches the tomography result within uncertainty; alternatively, measure the x-basis correlators directly using a gate-based rotation (where interactions can be turned off) and compare with the Bayesian-inferred values.

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

If this is right

  • W states can be generated deterministically (not probabilistically) on neutral-atom platforms, with measured fidelity around 0.77 for 11 atoms and the potential to scale to tens of atoms as plate sizes and coherence improve.
  • W states with an even number of atoms become accessible by preparing an odd ring and converting via a Clifford circuit or an ancilla qubit, as detailed in the supplementary material.
  • Certification of W fidelity requires only two measurement bases and a number of state preparations that grows linearly with qubit count, avoiding the exponential cost of full state tomography.
  • The Bayesian inference method can certify observables that are not directly measurable on analog quantum simulators whenever a trustworthy classical noisy model exists, extending beyond W states to other correlated many-body states.
  • Because the reported fidelity is a lower bound—the rotation sequence introduces additional errors—the true state quality is higher, strengthening its usefulness for quantum communication protocols such as teleportation and secret sharing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The fidelity lower bound is only as trustworthy as the classical noise model (dephasing rate, atom motion, readout errors); a systematic misspecification could bias the inferred coherence, so a model-agnostic cross-check would make the certification more robust.
  • The kink state |KS⟩ differs from an exact W state at finite size; while the paper argues most algorithms tolerate this, protocols that require the precise W amplitudes (e.g., certain secret-sharing schemes) would need the explicit conversion step.
  • The frustration mechanism might generalize to prepare other families of delocalized-excitation states by tuning interaction ranges or adding next-nearest-neighbor couplings, potentially yielding weighted superpositions beyond the uniform W state.
  • As hardware fidelity improves, the bottleneck shifts from state preparation to certification; the reliance on simulation priors could be relaxed in hybrid devices that allow gate-based rotations, offering an independent validation of the reported fidelities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and experimentally implements a protocol to prepare W-type states in a Rydberg atom array using topological ring frustration: an odd-numbered ring with antiferromagnetic interactions has a degenerate manifold of kink states whose equal superposition is related to a W state. The authors report z-basis populations for L=5,7,9,11 atoms on the Aquila device, and use a Bayesian inference scheme, based on classical simulations with noise parameters, to estimate the off-diagonal coherence and hence a fidelity F_e ≈ 0.774 for L=11. They also claim that the required number of measurements is linear in system size, and that numerical simulations indicate scalability to larger systems.

Significance. If the protocol and the fidelity estimate hold, this is a valuable step toward deterministic preparation of multipartite entangled W states in a scalable neutral-atom platform, and the proposed two-basis estimator plus simulation-assisted Bayesian tomography is a useful addition to the certification toolbox. The paper is commendable for making the data public, using bootstrap error bars, and being transparent in the Fig. 4 caption that the fidelity is conditioned on theoretical simulations. However, the headline 'certified lower bound' is not actually certified: the off-diagonal term is inferred through a classical noise model rather than directly measured, and the same model is used to construct the prior. The strength of the experimental claim therefore depends on model validity, which is not quantitatively assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [State validation and Bayesian inference, Eqs. (7)-(8), Fig. 4] The headline fidelity for L=11 (F_e=0.774) is not directly measured. Because the GRAPE rotation has operator fidelity below 0.3, Tr(ρ_exp P_x) is inferred from a posterior over Q=100 simulated density matrices whose weights w_j are built from KL divergences between measured and simulated post-rotation bit-string distributions. The likelihood uses a specific noise model (Lindblad dephasing in Eq. (10), Gaussian atom displacements, readout confusion); if the true noise contains processes outside this family—correlated laser noise, non-Markovian dephasing, calibration drift—the posterior can be biased. No sensitivity analysis or posterior predictive check is presented, and the figure caption itself says 'conditioned on the theoretical simulations.' The abstract and conclusion call the fidelities 'certified lower bounds,' which is too strong. Please add posterior predictive checks and vary t
  2. [Prior calibration and circularity, Fig. 4(a)-(b)] The prior is selected using z-basis experimental populations (the Fig. 4 caption states that the shaded 'prior distribution... is created using just the diagonal (z-basis) experimental data'), and the same classical simulations are then used to predict the off-diagonal term. The rotated-basis data reweight the simulated states but do not provide an independent check of the model's ability to predict coherence. This does not invalidate the method, but it should be acknowledged explicitly; an independent measurement (e.g., a different rotation angle or a direct coherence witness) is needed to support the 'certified lower bound' language.
  3. [Eqs. (3)-(4) and target state definition] The prepared state |KS> in Eq. (3) is a superposition of kink states with (L-1)/2 Rydberg excitations, not the single-excitation W state of Eq. (1). The text asserts equivalence via Clifford circuits or an ancilla, but the mapping is not shown in the main text. Yet Eq. (4) is said to give 'fidelity relative to a perfect W state.' A reader cannot verify that Fe in Eq. (4) equals the fidelity to a W state (or to |KS> after the mapping). Please derive Eq. (4) explicitly or clarify that the quoted fidelities are to |KS>, and state what this implies for the W-state claim in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion refer to 'W states' and 'certified lower bounds' without qualification. Since the prepared state is |KS> and the fidelity is simulation-conditioned, please use 'W-type' or add the appropriate caveats in the abstract.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The KL divergence D_KL(f||t) uses empirical frequencies f; bins with zero counts will make the expression undefined unless regularized. Describe how zero-count outcomes are handled in the numerical implementation.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'Infidelity (that it, 1−F_th)' should read '(that is, 1−F_th)'.
  4. [Methods] The sentence 'the optimization landscape does not scale with the dimension of the physical Hilbert space, but rather with the number of parameters employed' is misleading: the underlying tensor-network simulation still has a bond dimension that must grow with system size. Clarify that the Bayesian update is low-dimensional, not the simulation itself.
  5. [Table I] The entry 'Ωrot = 7.97±0.5,1' is ambiguous. Please specify the three experimental values and the error convention separately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the fidelity estimate is model-based Bayesian inference with independent rotated-basis data; model dependence is a caveat, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. Eq. (4) combines measured z-basis populations p_k with an off-diagonal term Tr(rho_exp P_x). Because interactions cannot be turned off during the rotation, the paper does not claim to measure this term directly; instead Eqs. (5)-(8) define Bayesian weights from rotated-basis experimental data: w_j ∝ exp(-N D_KL(f||t(rho_j))), using Q=100 simulated density matrices as prior support. The target fidelity is not an input to the prior, and the posterior is updated with an independent dataset; Fig. 4(b) shows the posterior narrows the prior spread, so the result is not forced by the z-basis fit alone. The main limitation is model dependence, as the caption states 'Measured W state fidelity conditioned on the theoretical simulations.' If the noise model (local dephasing Eq. (10), atom motion, readout errors) is misspecified, the inferred coherence and the lower-bound claim could be biased. That is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity. Self-citations on frustration and the kink-to-W mapping are not load-bearing: the protocol is supported by the paper's own numerical simulations, the external no-go theorem Ref. [32], and by the described Clifford/ancilla mapping. No equation reduces to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central fidelity claim rests on a classical simulation model with several calibrated/fitted parameters (dephasing rate, position spread, readout errors, fluctuations). The protocol itself uses known physics (frustration), so the additional load is the noise model and its parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Dephasing rate γ (Lindblad equation) = not stated in main text
    Appears in Eq. (10); its value must be chosen to reproduce experimental decay; not specified in main text, so it is a hidden free parameter calibrated to the data.
  • Atom position spread δx=δy = 0.15 µm
    Chosen in simulation to model thermal motion; affects the bit-string distributions and inferred fidelity.
  • Readout error confusion matrix = not stated
    Used to mitigate readout errors; calibrated from experiment but is a parameter entering the model.
  • Rabi frequency / detuning fluctuation parameters = from calibration
    Shot-to-shot fluctuations included in simulation; fitted from calibration data.
  • Gap scaling exponent α = 1.87 ± 0.11
    Fitted to numerical optimal time scaling; supports the claim of polynomial scaling but is a fitted quantity.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The state |KS> is equivalent to a W state via Clifford circuits or an ancilla qubit (SM)
    The prepared state is not exactly |W>; the fidelity is defined w.r.t. a perfect W state, so the equivalence must be assumed; details are in the supplementary material not reviewed here.
  • domain assumption Only kink strings |k>_AFM appear in the z-basis support
    Used to derive the fidelity estimator Eq. (4); the paper states this was checked experimentally, but the estimator is exact only if the support is exactly these strings.
  • domain assumption The Lindblad master equation with dephasing (Eq. 10) captures the dominant decoherence
    The Bayesian inference relies on the simulation being a faithful model of the experiment; if additional error channels exist, the inferred off-diagonal coherence is biased.
  • domain assumption Tensor network simulations with χ=64 are converged for the noisy L=11 dynamics
    No convergence analysis is shown in the main text; truncation error could affect the prior distribution.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15489 in / 12205 out tokens · 91976 ms · 2026-08-04T08:55:01.984561+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

$W$ states are a central class of multipartite entangled states with applications in quantum information processing, yet their scalable and deterministic preparation remains challenging. Here we propose a protocol based on {\it topological ring frustration}, where an antiferromagnetic ring with an odd number of sites hosts a delocalized excitation corresponding to a $W$ state. We implement this protocol on a Rydberg atom array -- a programmable quantum simulator -- generating $W$ states of up to 11 atoms. Our results demonstrate a fidelity of $\mathcal{F} \approx 0.77$, and numerical simulations indicate scalability to larger system sizes accessible with near-term hardware improvements. To enable certification of these many-body entangled states, we introduce a novel and efficient Bayesian tomography method that, leveraging on classical simulations, enables their certification with a cost that avoids the exponential scaling of full tomography. These results establish topological frustration as a practical mechanism for engineering multipartite entanglement and provide a scalable route toward the certification of correlated quantum many-body states in quantum simulators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.17974 by Alberto Giuseppe Catalano, Ceren Da\u{g}, Fabio Franchini, Gianpaolo Torre, Salvatore Marco Giampaolo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental setup to generate W state through frustration and expose the generated many￾body entanglement (a) The setup geometry image taken by the Rydberg atom array Aquila [33] where bright dots are atoms in their ground states forming a ring geometry with odd parity system size. Lattice distance is marked by a, and it is set to a = 7.1µm in this specific image of L = 11 atoms. An anti-ferromagnetic kin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Numerical simulation of the W state prepara￾tion protocol (a) The numerical fidelity of state preparation Fth as a function of the system size, for atom spacing a = 6 µm, Rabi frequency Ω = 15 rad/µs and total evolution time of tF = 1, 2, 4 µs. (b) Infidelity (that it, 1 − Fth), of the state preparation for slower protocols, and (c) corresponding time needed to achieve an infidelity smaller than 10−3 as a … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Experimental results of W state preparation protocol with chain sizes L = 5 − 11. The populations of the prepared state, where gray and red boxes are the raw and error-mitigated data [65], see Methods for information on utilized error mitigation. The black error bars are computed via bootstrapping the experimental bit strings [66, 67]. The dashed-black horizontal lines mark 1/L, which is the popula￾tion va… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measured W state fidelity conditioned on the theoretical simulations (a) Kullback-Leibler diver￾gence between experimental and numerical distributions. The blue squares refer to the KL divergence between the bit-string distributions, i.e., the the outcomes of the projective measure￾ment on the quantum state after the main pulse sequence. The yellow diamonds represent the KL divergence between the distribut… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Gour, G

    Chitambar, E. & Gour, G. Quantum resource theories. Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019). URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.025001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.025001 2019

  2. [2]

    Plbnio, M. B. & Virmani, S. An introduction to en- tanglement measures.Quantum Info. Comput.7, 1–51 (2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    & Horodecki, K

    Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M. & Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement.Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865–942 (2009). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.865 2009

  4. [4]

    & Zurek, W

    Ollivier, H. & Zurek, W. H. Quantum discord: A mea- sure of the quantumness of correlations.Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 017901 (2001). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.017901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.017901 2001

  5. [5]

    & Ve- dral, V

    Modi, K., Brodutch, A., Cable, H., Paterek, T. & Ve- dral, V. The classical-quantum boundary for correla- tions: Discord and related measures.Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1655–1707 (2012). URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1655

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.84.1655 2012

  6. [6]

    & Plenio, M

    Baumgratz, T., Cramer, M. & Plenio, M. B. Quan- tifying coherence.Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 140401 (2014). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.113.140401

    2014

  7. [7]

    & Plenio, M

    Streltsov, A., Adesso, G. & Plenio, M. B. Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource.Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041003 (2017). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.89.041003

    2017

  8. [8]

    & Campbell, E

    Howard, M. & Campbell, E. Application of a re- source theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quan- tum computing.Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 090501 (2017). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.118.090501

    2017

  9. [9]

    Leone, L., Oliviero, S. F. E. & Hamma, A. Sta- bilizer r´ enyi entropy.Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.050402

    2022

  10. [10]

    & Cirac, J

    D¨ ur, W., Vidal, G. & Cirac, J. I. Three qubits can be en- tangled in two inequivalent ways.Physical Review A62 (2000). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA. 62.062314

    doi:10.1103/physreva 2000

  11. [11]

    M., Horne, M

    Greenberger, D. M., Horne, M. A. & Zeilinger, A.Go- ing Beyond Bell’s Theorem, 69–72 (Springer Nether- lands, Dordrecht, 1989). URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1007/978-94-017-0849-4_10

    1989

  12. [13]

    & Chao-Jing, T

    Jian, W., Quan, Z. & Chao-Jing, T. Quantum secure communication scheme with w state.Communications in Theoretical Physics48, 637 (2007). URLhttps:// dx.doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/48/4/013

    work page doi:10.1088/0253-6102/48/4/013 2007

  13. [14]

    URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219749908004195

    Chen, X.-B.et al.Controlled quantum secure direct communication with w state.International Journal of Quantum Information06, 899–906 (2008). URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219749908004195

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749908004195 2008

  14. [15]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.204

    Gr¨ afe, M.et al.On-chip generation of high-order single- photon w-states.Nature Photonics8, 791–795 (2014). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.204

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.204 2014

  15. [16]

    & Kurizki, G

    Da˘ g, C., Niedenzu, W., M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, O. & Kurizki, G. Multiatom quantum coherences in micromasers as fuel for thermal and nonthermal machines.Entropy18, 244 (2016). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3390/e18070244

    work page doi:10.3390/e18070244 2016

  16. [17]

    & Saffman, M

    Ebert, M., Kwon, M., Walker, T. & Saffman, M. Coher- ence and rydberg blockade of atomic ensemble qubits. Physical Review Letters115(2015). URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.093601

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.093601 2015

  17. [18]

    K., Lund, A

    Vijayan, M. K., Lund, A. P. & Rohde, P. P. A ro- bust W-state encoding for linear quantum optics.Quan- tum4, 303 (2020). URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331/ q-2020-08-03-303

    2020

  18. [19]

    Grover, L. K. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack.Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 325– 328 (1997). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.79.325

    1997

  19. [20]

    & Kenigsberg, D

    Biham, E. & Kenigsberg, D. Grover’s quantum search algorithm for an arbitrary initial mixed state.Phys. Rev. 10 A66, 062301 (2002). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062301

    doi:10.1103/physreva.66.062301 2002

  20. [21]

    & Biham, O

    Shapira, D., Shimoni, Y. & Biham, O. Algebraic analysis of quantum search with pure and mixed states.Phys. Rev. A71, 042320 (2005). URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.042320

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.71.042320 2005

  21. [22]

    F.et al.Control and measurement of three- qubit entangled states.Science304, 1478–1480 (2004)

    Roos, C. F.et al.Control and measurement of three- qubit entangled states.Science304, 1478–1480 (2004). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1097522

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1097522 2004

  22. [23]

    URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04279

    H¨ affner, H.et al.Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions.Nature438, 643–646 (2005). URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04279

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04279 2005

  23. [24]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09071

    Kim, K.et al.Quantum simulation of frustrated ising spins with trapped ions.Nature465, 590–593 (2010). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09071

    doi:10.1038/nature09071 2010

  24. [25]

    & Weinfurter, H

    Eibl, M., Kiesel, N., Bourennane, M., Kurtsiefer, C. & Weinfurter, H. Experimental realization of a three-qubit entangledwstate.Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 077901 (2004). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.92.077901

    2004

  25. [26]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qute.201900015

    Cruz, D.et al.Efficient quantum algorithms for ghz and w states, and implementation on the ibm quantum com- puter.Advanced Quantum Technologies2(2019). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/qute.201900015

    doi:10.1002/qute.201900015 2019

  26. [27]

    & Neumann, N

    Buhrman, H., Folkertsma, M., Loff, B. & Neumann, N. M. P. State preparation by shallow circuits using feed forward.Quantum8, 1552 (2024). URLhttps://doi. org/10.22331/q-2024-12-09-1552

    doi:10.22331/q-2024-12-09-1552 2024

  27. [28]

    & Cirac, J

    Piroli, L., Styliaris, G. & Cirac, J. I. Approximat- ing many-body quantum states with quantum circuits and measurements.Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 230401 (2024). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.133.230401

    2024

  28. [29]

    C., Zemlevskiy, N

    Farrell, R. C., Zemlevskiy, N. A., Illa, M. & Preskill, J. Digital quantum simulations of scattering in quan- tum field theories using w states (2025). URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.03111. 2505.03111

    arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Saffman, M., Walker, T. G. & Mølmer, K. Quantum information with rydberg atoms.Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313–2363 (2010). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2313

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.2313 2010

  30. [31]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.aax9743

    Omran, A.et al.Generation and manipulation of schr¨ odinger cat states in rydberg atom arrays.Sci- ence365, 570–574 (2019). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.aax9743

    doi:10.1126/science.aax9743 2019

  31. [32]

    & Thorngren, R.wstate is not the unique ground state of any local hamiltonian (2023)

    Gioia, L. & Thorngren, R.wstate is not the unique ground state of any local hamiltonian (2023). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10716

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [33]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2306.11727

    Wurtz, J.et al.Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer (2023). URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2306.11727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [34]

    & Chen, Q.-H

    Dong, J.-J., Li, P. & Chen, Q.-H. The a-cycle prob- lem for transverse ising ring.Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2016, 113102 (2016). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/ 2016/11/113102

    doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ 2016

  34. [35]

    M., Kui´ c, D

    Mari´ c, V., Giampaolo, S. M., Kui´ c, D. & Franchini, F. The frustration of being odd: how boundary con- ditions can destroy local order.New Journal of Physics 22, 083024 (2020). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1367-2630/aba064

    2020

  35. [36]

    Mari´ c, V., Giampaolo, S. M. & Franchini, F. Quan- tum phase transition induced by topological frustra- tion.Communications Physics3(2020). URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42005-020-00486-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-020-00486-z 2020

  36. [37]

    G., Giampaolo, S

    Catalano, A. G., Giampaolo, S. M., Morsch, O., Giovan- netti, V. & Franchini, F. Frustrating quantum batteries. PRX Quantum5(2024). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PRXQuantum.5.030319

    2024

  37. [38]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812799371_0009

    Toulouse, G.Theory of the frustration effect in spin glasses: I, 99–103 (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1986). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812799371_0009

    doi:10.1142/9789812799371_0009 1986

  38. [39]

    & Vicari, E

    Campostrini, M., Pelissetto, A. & Vicari, E. Quantum transitions driven by one-bond defects in quantum ising rings.Phys. Rev. E91, 042123 (2015). URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.91.042123

    doi:10.1103/physreve.91.042123 2015

  39. [40]

    M., Ramos, F

    Giampaolo, S. M., Ramos, F. B. & Franchini, F. The frustration of being odd: universal area law violation in local systems.Journal of Physics Communications 3, 081001 (2019). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 2399-6528/ab3ab3

    2019

  40. [41]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhys.15.4.131

    Odavi´ c, J.et al.Complexity of frustration: A new source of non-local non-stabilizerness.SciPost Physics15(2023). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhys.15.4.131

    2023

  41. [42]

    G.et al.Magic phase transition and non- local complexity in generalizedwstate (2024)

    Catalano, A. G.et al.Magic phase transition and non- local complexity in generalizedwstate (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19457. 2406.19457

    arXiv 2024

  42. [43]

    W., Ji, Z., Wu, X

    Haah, J., Harrow, A. W., Ji, Z., Wu, X. & Yu, N. Sample- optimal tomography of quantum states. InProceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’16, 913–925 (Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016). URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2897518.2897585

    arXiv 2016

  43. [44]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02849

    Talath, H.et al.Three-qubit w state tomography via full and marginal state reconstructions on ibm osaka (2025). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02849

    arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    & Preskill, J

    Huang, H.-Y., Kueng, R. & Preskill, J. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments.Nature Physics16, 1050–1057 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7

    doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7 2020

  45. [46]

    Nature Reviews Physics5, 9–24 (2023)

    Elben, A.et al.The randomized measurement toolbox. Nature Reviews Physics5, 9–24 (2023). URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2

    doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00535-2 2023

  46. [47]

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0370157324003326

    Cie´ sli´ nski, P.et al.Analysing quantum systems with randomised measurements.Physics Reports1095, 1– 48 (2024). URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0370157324003326. Analysing quantum systems with randomised measurements

    2024

  47. [48]

    Bertoni, C.et al.Shallow shadows: Expectation estima- tion using low-depth random clifford circuits.Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 020602 (2024). URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.020602

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.020602 2024

  48. [49]

    URLhttps://doi

    Hu, H.-Y.et al.Demonstration of robust and efficient quantum property learning with shallow shadows.Nature Communications16, 2943 (2025). URLhttps://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-025-57349-w

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-57349-w 2025

  49. [50]

    & Piroli, L

    Cioli, R., Ercolessi, E., Ippoliti, M., Turkeshi, X. & Piroli, L. Approximate inverse measurement channel for shallow shadows.Quantum9, 1698 (2025). URLhttps://doi. org/10.22331/q-2025-04-08-1698

    doi:10.22331/q-2025-04-08-1698 2025

  50. [51]

    Nature534, 667–670 (2016)

    Labuhn, H.et al.Tunable two-dimensional arrays of sin- gle rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models. Nature534, 667–670 (2016). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nature18274

    doi:10.1038/nature18274 2016

  51. [52]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature24622

    Bernien, H.et al.Probing many-body dynamics on a 51- atom quantum simulator.Nature551, 579–584 (2017). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature24622. 11

    doi:10.1038/nature24622 2017

  52. [53]

    & Ahn, J

    Kim, H., Park, Y., Kim, K., Sim, H.-S. & Ahn, J. Detailed balance of thermalization dynamics in rydberg-atom quantum simulators.Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 180502 (2018). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.120.180502

    2018

  53. [54]

    & Hazzard, K

    Zhang, Z., Yuan, M., Sundar, B. & Hazzard, K. R. A. Motional decoherence in ultracold-rydberg-atom quan- tum simulators of spin models.Phys. Rev. A110, 053321 (2024). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.110.053321

    2024

  54. [55]

    B., Ma, H., Eugenio, P

    Dag, C. B., Ma, H., Eugenio, P. M., Fang, F. & Yelin, S. F. Emergent disorder and sub-ballistic dynamics in quantum simulations of the ising model using ryd- berg atom arrays (2024). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2411.13643. 2411.13643

    arXiv 2024

  55. [56]

    URLhttps://www.nature

    Ga¨ etan, A.et al.Observation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the rydberg blockade regime.Na- ture Physics5, 115 (2009). URLhttps://www.nature. com/articles/nphys1183

    2009

  56. [57]

    Catalano, A. G. Numerically efficient unitary evolution for hamiltonians beyond nearest-neighbors (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05198

    arXiv 2024

  57. [58]

    & Montangero, S

    Doria, P., Calarco, T. & Montangero, S. Optimal control technique for many-body quantum dynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 190501 (2011). URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.190501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.190501 2011

  58. [59]

    & Glaser, S

    Khaneja, N., Reiss, T., Kehlet, C., Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, T. & Glaser, S. J. Optimal control of coupled spin dy- namics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient as- cent algorithms.Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296–305 (2005). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jmr.2004.11.004

    doi:10.1016/j 2005

  59. [60]

    MacKay, D. J. C.Information theory, inference and learning algorithms(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, England, 2003)

    2003

  60. [61]

    Schack, R., Brun, T. A. & Caves, C. M. Quantum bayes rule.Physical Review A64(2001). URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.014305

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.64.014305 2001

  61. [64]

    M., Law, K

    Lukens, J. M., Law, K. J. H., Jasra, A. & Lougovski, P. A practical and efficient approach for bayesian quantum state estimation.New Journal of Physics22, 063038 (2020). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ ab8efa

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ 2020

  62. [65]

    Bravyi, S., Sheldon, S., Kandala, A., Mckay, D. C. & Gambetta, J. M. Mitigating measurement er- rors in multiqubit experiments.Phys. Rev. A103, 042605 (2021). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.103.042605

    2021

  63. [66]

    Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jack- knife.The Annals of Statistics7, 1–26 (1979)

    Efron, B. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jack- knife.The Annals of Statistics7, 1–26 (1979)

    1979

  64. [67]

    & Tibshirani, R

    Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. J.An Introduction to the Bootstrap(Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 1994)

    1994

  65. [68]

    Marcuzzi, M.et al.Facilitation dynamics and localization phenomena in rydberg lattice gases with position disor- der.Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 063606 (2017). URLhttps:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.063606

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.063606 2017

  66. [69]

    Cover, T. M. & Thomas, J. A.Elements of Information Theory(Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006), 2 edn

    2006

  67. [70]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2405.21019

    Lukin, A.et al.Quantum quench dynamics as a shortcut to adiabaticity (2024). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2405.21019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [71]

    & Montangero, S

    Lloyd, S. & Montangero, S. Information theoretical anal- ysis of quantum optimal control.Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 010502 (2014). URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.113.010502

    2014

  69. [72]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10

    Bluvstein, D.et al.A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays.Nature 604, 451–456 (2022). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-022-04592-6

    2022

  70. [73]

    Levine, H.et al.Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms.Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  71. [74]

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.15376

    Fang, F.et al.Probing critical phenomena in open quan- tum systems using atom arrays (2024). URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.15376. 2402.15376

    arXiv 2024

  72. [75]

    & Lahaye, T

    de L´ es´ eleuc, S., Barredo, D., Lienhard, V., Browaeys, A. & Lahaye, T. Analysis of imperfections in the coherent optical excitation of single atoms to rydberg states.Phys. Rev. A97, 053803 (2018). URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.053803

    doi:10.1103/physreva.97.053803 2018

  73. [76]

    Kozlej, T., Pelegri, G., Pritchard, J. D. & Daley, A. J. Adiabatic state preparation and thermalization of simu- lated phase noise in a rydberg spin hamiltonian (2025). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04595. 2505.04595

    arXiv 2025

  74. [77]

    & Santini, A

    Collura, M., Lami, G., Ranabhat, N. & Santini, A. Tensor Network Techniques for Quantum Computation (SISSA Medialab s.r.l., 2024). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.22323/9788898587049

    doi:10.22323/9788898587049 2024

  75. [78]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2019.167998

    Paeckel, S.et al.Time-evolution methods for matrix- product states.Annals of Physics411, 167998 (2019). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2019.167998

    arXiv 2019

  76. [79]

    & Murray, S.Elements of Quantum Optics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007)

    Meystre, P. & Murray, S.Elements of Quantum Optics (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007)

    2007