Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Finite-temperature criticality through quantum annealing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum annealer, calibrated in situ and stopped early in its schedule, samples effective Boltzmann distributions of the 2D Ising ferromagnet and recovers the exact critical temperature and universal exponents.

desk verdict A credible, well-executed benchmark showing calibrated quantum annealers can reproduce 2D Ising criticality, with a few validation gaps that a proper revision should close. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07167 v1 pith:CJ3LNPV6 submitted 2025-07-09 cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph

Gianluca Teza , Francesco Campaioli , Marco Avesani , Oren Raz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph MSC 82B2082B2782B8081P68 PACS 05.50.+q05.70.Jk64.60.F03.67.Ac
keywords quantumannealingfinite-temperaturecriticality2DIsingmodelBindercumulantfinite-sizescalingBoltzmannsamplingtemperaturecalibrationtransverse-field
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

This paper claims that a quantum annealer, despite its noise and thermal drift, can be programmed to act as a faithful finite-temperature sampler for a large classical spin system. The authors halt the anneal at an intermediate point, calibrate the device temperature before every run, and embed a toroidal 2D Ising ferromagnet of up to 2640 spins on the hardware graph. The sampled ensembles yield a Binder cumulant crossing at an effective coupling $J_c = 0.108 \pm 0.007$ and finite-size scaling exponents $\nu = 1.05 \pm 0.08$, $\beta = 0.09 \pm 0.01$, $\gamma = 1.83 \pm 0.09$, all consistent with the exact 2D Ising values. If correct, this establishes a working recipe for using current annealing hardware to study finite-temperature criticality in models that resist classical simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the early-terminated annealing schedule combined with per-run temperature calibration. The hardware schedule is described by $\hat H(s) = -\frac{A(s)}{2}\sum_i \hat\sigma^x_i + \frac{B(s)}{2}\left(\sum_i h_i \hat\sigma^z_i + \sum_{i,j} J_{ij} \hat\sigma^z_i \hat\sigma^z_j\right)$; halting at $s^*=0.5$ keeps $A(s^*)/B(s^*) \approx 0.05$, so the system is effectively classical yet not frozen. The calibration estimates the freeze-out temperature $T^{\rm est}_{\rm FO}$ from single-qubit excitation probabilities and rescales the programmed energy $J$ by $\delta = T^{\rm est}_{\rm FO}/T^{\rm nom}_{\rm FO}$, so that all system sizes are sampled at the same effective temperature. The analysis machinery is the Binder cumulant $b_N(J) = \frac{1}{2}\left(3 - \langle M^4\rangle/\langle M^2\rangle^2\right)$ whose size-independent crossing fixes $J_c$, followed by finite-size scaling collapses of $\langle |m|\rangle L^{\beta/\nu}$ and $\chi L^{-\gamma/\nu}$.

What would settle it

Measure an observable that was not used in the calibration or in the Binder analysis, such as the energy histogram or the specific heat, and compare it with classical Monte Carlo sampling of the same Hamiltonian at the inferred effective temperature; if the annealer's energy distribution deviates from the Boltzmann prediction, or if different observables imply different effective temperatures, the single-ensemble assumption fails and the critical exponents could be artifacts of the collapse procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that freeze-out, the practical obstacle that prevents quantum annealers from reaching thermal equilibrium, can be turned into a feature rather than a bug. By stopping the anneal at $s^* = 0.5$, where the transverse-field scale is still $A(s^*)/B(s^*) \approx 0.05$, and by estimating the QPU's effective temperature in situ from single-qubit thermalization problems, the authors obtain spin configurations distributed according to an effective Boltzmann distribution of the classical 2D Ising Hamiltonian. Analyzing these samples with the Binder cumulant and finite-size scaling collapses recovers the exact critical point and exponents $\nu=1$, $\beta=1/8$, $\gamma=7/4$ within error bars. The same setup is then used to demonstrate two dynamical phenomena: transverse-field-accelerated relaxation after a quench, and transverse-field-assisted escape from a metastable ferromagnetic state, with an inferred barrier height of roughly $60\,k_B T_{\rm QPU}$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis assumes that halting the machine halfway through its schedule leaves the spins in a single equilibrium distribution described by one effective temperature, rather than a mixture of states frozen out of equilibrium.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same protocol extends to any model that maps to an Ising Hamiltonian, including frustrated magnets, spin glasses, and lattice gauge theories, since the calibration and early-termination steps do not depend on the model.
  • Finite-size scaling can now be performed on annealer samples at thousands of spins, a size regime previously out of reach for thermal sampling on quantum processing units.
  • The two dynamical demonstrations quantify how a transverse field accelerates relaxation and enables escape from metastable states, providing a controlled experimental probe of quantum annealing's dynamical capabilities.
  • The per-run temperature calibration removes the dominant systematic bias that corrupted earlier Boltzmann-sampling studies, making annealer results reproducible across runs and sessions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the single-Boltzmann assumption would compare energy histograms from the annealer against classical Monte Carlo at the inferred $T_{\rm eff}$; agreement would rule out a schedule-dependent ensemble.
  • If the early-termination point is truly immaterial, the extracted $J_c$ should be stable when $s^*$ is varied within a window around 0.5, a prediction the paper does not test.
  • The success of this recipe suggests annealers could serve as thermodynamic simulators for sign-problematic models, provided the embedding overhead remains manageable — an extension the paper gestures toward but does not demonstrate.
  • The inferred barrier height of about 80 $\mu$eV could be cross-checked against the device's quoted qubit parameters, linking the two dynamical demonstrations to the thermal calibration quantitatively.
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. This manuscript reports an experimental study of finite-temperature criticality using a D-Wave Advantage quantum annealer. The authors embed toroidal 2D Ising ferromagnets of sizes N = 112, 600, and 2640 spins, halt the anneal at s* = 0.5, apply in situ temperature calibration based on single-qubit freeze-out measurements, and analyze Binder cumulants and finite-size scaling of magnetization and susceptibility. They report a Binder crossing at Jc = 0.108 ± 0.007 with crossing value bN(Jc) = 0.91 ± 0.04, and exponents ν = 1.05 ± 0.08, β = 0.09 ± 0.01, γ = 1.83 ± 0.09, which they interpret as consistent with the exact 2D Ising universality class. The paper also presents two dynamical demonstrations: transverse-field-accelerated relaxation from a disordered state and transverse-field-assisted escape from a metastable state.

Significance. The central claim—that a calibrated quantum annealer can sample effective Boltzmann distributions and resolve finite-temperature criticality in a 2500+ spin embedded Ising system—is, if correct, a notable advance for analog quantum simulation. The paper's strengths are the choice of an exactly solvable benchmark, the large system sizes, the explicit in situ temperature compensation, the use of multiple randomized gauges, and the bootstrap error analysis. The reported Binder crossing and scaling collapses are visually clean, and the extracted ν and γ agree well with exact values. However, the load-bearing equilibrium assumption is not independently validated, and the statistically significant deviation of β from 1/8 warrants scrutiny. The work is therefore promising but requires additional controls before the conclusions can be regarded as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Finite-temperature sampling; Eq. (1) and Binder cumulant section] The claim that halting at s* = 0.5 yields a single effective Boltzmann distribution for the classical Ising Hamiltonian rests on citation [43] and on an a posteriori validation using the same Binder cumulant crossings and scaling collapses from which Jc and the exponents are extracted. Because A(s*)/B(s*) ≈ 0.05, the transverse field is non-negligible and the readout is a projection of a quantum state; freeze-out is also known to depend on system size and coupling [41,42]. A Binder crossing and finite-size collapse could, in principle, be reproduced by a non-equilibrium or schedule-dependent ensemble. Please provide an independent test, for example a direct comparison of the sampled magnetization distribution (and ideally two-point correlations) against classical Monte Carlo at the calibrated effective temperature, or a demonstration that the extracted Jc and exponents are invariant under variation of s* and of the annealing time.
  2. [Finite-temperature sampling, temperature calibration] The correction factor δ is estimated from single-qubit freeze-out at sFO = 0.612 and then applied to multi-spin runs at s* = 0.5. Freeze-out depends on the energy landscape and system size, so this extrapolation is not automatically valid. If δ carries a J- or N-dependent bias, the calibrated coupling values and the position of the Binder crossing could shift systematically. Please validate the effective temperature on the multi-spin system itself, for instance by comparing measured single-site or nearest-neighbor statistics with Monte Carlo at the inferred T_eff, or by performing the same criticality analysis for at least two independent temperature-calibration procedures.
  3. [Critical exponents and finite-size scaling, Eq. (6)] The susceptibility is defined as χ = N(⟨m²⟩ − ⟨|m|⟩²), whereas the standard linear-response susceptibility in the symmetric phase is χ = N(⟨m²⟩ − ⟨m⟩²) = N⟨m²⟩. Replacing ⟨m⟩ by ⟨|m|⟩ changes the subtracted quantity and can bias χ and therefore γ. Please use the standard definition, or justify the modified definition and show numerically (e.g., with Monte Carlo data for the same lattice shapes) that it does not alter the extracted γ.
  4. [Critical exponents and finite-size scaling, Fig. 3] The extracted β = 0.09 ± 0.01 is about 3.5σ below the exact 1/8, while ν and γ are within 1σ. The text calls this "slightly" deviating, but at the reported precision this is a statistically significant discrepancy and may be the first sign of a biased ensemble (for instance, imperfect ordering on the largest lattices or a calibration-induced shift). Please report the collapse residuals and discuss whether β moves toward 1/8 under the recommended independent equilibrium test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Pinning criticality via Binder cumulants] In the sentence "The accuracy of the cumulant crossing further supports our choice of sf", the symbol should be s*, not sf.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The phrase "at for Γ/J ≪ 1" should read "for Γ/J ≪ 1".
  3. [Conclusions] The phrase "can accurately resolve finite-temperature criticality in complex many-body systems carefully" has a misplaced adverb; it should be "can carefully resolve".
  4. [Embedding the 2D Ising model] The three system sizes have aspect ratios 1.75, 1.5, and ≈1.36, which is not the "approximate Lx/Ly ≈ 1.5" stated in the text; since the critical Binder cumulant can depend on aspect ratio, please justify that the variation is negligible for the crossing analysis.
  5. [Pinning criticality via Binder cumulants] The estimate Tcrit = 2.04 ± 0.13 is quoted as "in line with quantum Monte Carlo predictions [50]", but the comparison is not shown; a brief quantitative comparison would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Jc and the exponents are measured against independent Onsager benchmarks, and the a posteriori validation of s*=0.5 is a falsifiable consistency check rather than a fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks rather than circular. The critical coupling Jc is obtained from a Binder-cumulant crossing across three independently embedded system sizes, and the exponents nu, beta, and gamma are obtained from finite-size collapse optimization of magnetization and susceptibility; these are standard fitting measurements, not quantities fixed by the input assumptions. The equilibrium-sampling premise at s*=0.5 is stated explicitly as a physical assumption ("Sampling at this intermediate point yields distributions consistent with thermal equilibrium [43]") and then tested a posteriori: a Binder crossing and data collapse either occur or fail, so the consistency check is falsifiable and not a definitional equivalence. The in-situ temperature correction delta is inferred from independent single-qubit thermalization calibrations at s_FO=0.612, not from the critical data it is used to interpret. The self-citations present ([48], [70]) concern standard or auxiliary results and are not load-bearing. Residual freeze-out, transverse-field mixing, and possible calibration bias are real correctness risks at this hardware operating point, but they would be sources of systematic error in a genuine measurement, not evidence that the claimed results reduce to their inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hardware-behavior assumptions (Boltzmann sampling at s*=0.5, transferability of single-qubit temperature calibration), standard finite-size scaling hypotheses, and embedding-specific assumptions about leakage and gauge averaging. No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted quantities are the measured critical parameters themselves and calibration factors, not hidden inputs to the model.

free parameters (5)
  • s* (anneal halt point) = 0.5
    Chosen by hand so that A(s*)/B(s*) ≈ 0.05; the effective temperature and the equilibrium assumption depend on this choice.
  • Temperature correction factor δ = per-run estimate from single-qubit freeze-out calibration
    Used to rescale the coupling J across runs; fitted to single-qubit excitation probabilities and assumed to apply to many-body problems.
  • Critical coupling Jc = 0.108 ± 0.007
    Extracted from Binder cumulant crossing; defines the scaling variable τ and enters the Tcrit estimate. It is a measured quantity, not a model input, but the scaling analysis depends on it.
  • Critical exponents (ν, β, γ) = 1.05 ± 0.08, 0.09 ± 0.01, 1.83 ± 0.09
    Obtained by optimizing finite-size data collapse; these are the paper's central results, but they are extracted by a fitting procedure from the same data.
  • Superspin internal coupling strength = 15-20 times the inter-superspin coupling
    Chosen to enforce logical qubit coherence; affects magnetic leakage and calibration requirements.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Finite-size scaling hypothesis: near criticality, observables depend only on τ L^{1/ν} (Eqs. 5-6).
    Standard statistical physics result [54,55] used to extract exponents via data collapse.
  • domain assumption Sampling at s*=0.5 yields an equilibrium Boltzmann distribution at an effective temperature.
    Core hardware-behavior assumption; cited to [43] but not independently verified for many-body systems; validated only a posteriori on the same data.
  • domain assumption Single-qubit temperature calibration transfers to multi-spin systems.
    The correction factor δ estimated from single-qubit thermalization problems is applied to all couplings in the 2640-spin lattice; crosstalk or many-body effects could break this.
  • domain assumption The residual transverse field at s*=0.5 leaves the system in the classical 2D Ising universality class.
    A(s*)/B(s*)≈0.05 is small but nonzero; the paper compares to QMC for a related model but uses classical Onsager exponents as the benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper Superspin embedding and leakage compensation do not introduce biases mimicking criticality.
    Strong internal couplings (15-20x) and local field offsets are calibrated to remove magnetic leakage; residual embedding bias could affect Binder cumulants.
  • domain assumption Randomized gauge transformations average out spatial hardware asymmetries.
    The paper relies on spin-flip gauge averaging [38,39] to justify treating different spatial regions as statistically identical; this assumes hardware noise is reproducible across gauges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-temperature criticality through quantum annealing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJ3LNPV6

@misc{pith2026250707167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-temperature criticality through quantum annealing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJ3LNPV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07167}
}
read the original abstract

Critical phenomena at finite temperature underpin a broad range of physical systems, yet their study remains challenging due to computational bottlenecks near phase transitions. Quantum annealers have attracted significant interest as a potential tool for accessing finite temperature criticality beyond classical reach, but their utility in precisely resolving criticality has remained limited by noise, hardware constraints, and thermal fluctuations. Here we overcome these challenges, showing that careful calibration and embedding allow quantum annealers to capture the full finite-temperature critical behavior of the paradigmatic two-dimensional Ising ferromagnet. By tuning the energy scale of the system and mitigating device asymmetries, we sample effective Boltzmann distributions and extract both the critical temperature and the associated critical exponents. Our approach opens the study of equilibrium and non-equilibrium critical phenomena in a broad class of systems at finite temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07167 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Validation and calibration of quantum hardware through the many-body quantum Mpemba effect

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fast and slow engineered relaxation (the many-body quantum Mpemba effect) on six-atom neutral-atom processors provides a computational-basis benchmark of device quality and separates detuning from amplitude calibratio...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [25]

    Sathe, A

    P. Sathe, A. D. King, S. M. Mniszewski, C. Cof- frin, C. Nisoli, and F. Caravelli, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13625 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [43]

    A. Y. Lokhov, M. Vuffray, S. Misra, and M. Chertkov, Science advances 4, e1700791 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    Goldenfeld, Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renormalization Group (CRC Press, 2018)

    N. Goldenfeld, Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renormalization Group (CRC Press, 2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [2]

    P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Con- densed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  5. [3]

    D. R. Tilley, Superfluidity and Superconductivity (Insti- tute of Physics Publishing, 1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [4]

    Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    J. Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  7. [5]

    Tokura, Rep

    Y. Tokura, Rep. Prog. Phys. 69, 797 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [6]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 457 (2015)

    2015

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  2. [8]

    K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12, 75 (1974)

    1974

  3. [9]

    R. H. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 86 (1987)

    1987

  4. [10]

    Langfeld, P

    K. Langfeld, P. Buividovich, P. E. L. Rakow, and J. Roscoe, Phys. Rev. E 106, 054139 (2022)

    2022

  5. [11]

    Wei, Phys

    Z.-C. Wei, Phys. Rev. B 110, 075146 (2024)

    2024

  6. [12]

    Gonz´ alez-Garc ´ ıa, S

    S. Gonz´ alez-Garc ´ ıa, S. Sang, T. H. Hsieh, S. Boixo, G. Vi- dal, A. C. Potter, and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235102 (2024)

    2024

  7. [13]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, et al. , PRX Quan- tum 2, 017003 (2021)

    2021

  8. [14]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  9. [15]

    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, Nature 568, 207 (2019)

    2019

  10. [16]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  11. [17]

    M. W. Johnson, M. H. S. Amin, S. Gildert, T. Lanting, F. Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Jo- hansson, P. Bunyk, E. M. Chapple, C. Enderud, J. P. Hilton, K. Karimi, E. Ladizinsky, N. Ladizinsky, T. Oh, and G. Rose, Nature 473, 194 (2011)

    2011

  12. [18]

    M. H. S. Amin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 130503 (2008)

    2008

  13. [20]

    Shibukawa, R

    R. Shibukawa, R. Tamura, and K. Tsuda, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 043050 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Buffoni and M

    L. Buffoni and M. Campisi, Quantum Science and Tech- nology 5, 035013 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    A. D. King, J. Carrasquilla, J. Raymond, I. Ozfidan, E. Andriyash, A. J. Berkley, M. Reis, T. Lanting, R. Har- ris, G. Poulin-Lamarre, A. Y. Smirnov, C. Rich, F. Al- tomare, P. Bunyk, J. Whittaker, L. Swenson, E. Hoskin- son, Y. Sato, M. Volkmann, E. Ladizinsky, M. Johnson, J....

    2018

  16. [23]

    B. Heim, T. F. Rønnow, S. V. Isakov, and M. Troyer, Science 348, 215 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    S. N. Hearth, S. C. Morampudi, and C. R. Laumann, Phys. Rev. B 105, 195101 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    A. D. King, S. Suzuki, J. Raymond, A. Zucca, T. Lant- ing, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, S. Ejtemaee, E. Hoskin- son, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, C. Rich, Y. Sato, J. D. Whittaker, J. Yao, R. Harris, D. A. Lidar, H....

    2022

  19. [27]

    Mishra, T

    A. Mishra, T. Albash, and D. A. Lidar, npj Quantum Inf. 8, 139 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Onsager, Phys

    L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 65, 117 (1944)

    1944

  21. [29]

    Y. Zhao, Z. Ma, Z. He, H. Liao, Y.-C. Wang, J. Wang, and Y. Li, Nat. Commun. 15, 1234 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, R. Molavi, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, C. Rich, Y. Sato, N. Tsai, M. Volkmann...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Z. Bian, F. Chudak, R. Israel, B. Lackey, W. G. Macready, and A. Roy, Front. ICT 3, 14 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    S. A. Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Powell, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034501 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    D-Wave Systems, Annealing implementation and controls—d-wave system documentation (2023), ac- cessed: 2025-06-05

    2023

  26. [34]

    P. I. Bunyk, E. M. Hoskinson, M. W. Johnson, E. Tolka- cheva, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, R. Harris, J. P. Hilton, T. Lanting, and A. J. Przybysz, IEEE Trans. Appl. Su- percond. 24, 1 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    J. King, Z. Zhu, M. Mohseni, T. Lanting, B. Altshuler, H. G. Katzgraber, and A. D. King, Nat. Commun. 13, 1116 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Kaneda and Y

    K. Kaneda and Y. Okabe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2134 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Chern, K

    K. Chern, K. Boothby, J. Raymond, P. Farr´ e, and A. D. King, Front. Comput. Sci 5, 1238988 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    D. C. Mattis, Phys. Lett. A 56, 421 (1976)

    1976

  31. [39]

    Boothby, P

    K. Boothby, P. Bunyk, J. Raymond, and A. Roy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00133 10.48550/arXiv.2003.00133 (2020)

    2020 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nelson, M

    J. Nelson, M. Vuffray, A. Y. Lokhov, T. Albash, and C. Coffrin, Physical Review Applied 17, 044046 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    A. D. King, W. Bernoudy, I. Beterov, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, M. Golden, E. Hoskinson, J. Job, T. Lant- ing, and J. Raymond, Physical Review Letters 124, 9 090502 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Marshall, D

    J. Marshall, D. Venturelli, I. Hen, and E. G. Rieffel, Phys- ical Review Applied 11, 044083 (2019)

    2019

  35. [44]

    Benedetti, J

    M. Benedetti, J. Realpe-G´ omez, R. Biswas, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022308 (2016)

    2016

  36. [45]

    Raymond, S

    J. Raymond, S. Yarkoni, and E. Andriyash, Front. ICT 3, 23 (2016)

    2016

  37. [46]

    Park and H

    H. Park and H. Lee, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 91, 074001 (2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    Binder, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 43, 119 (1981)

    K. Binder, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 43, 119 (1981)

    1981

  39. [48]

    Teza and A

    G. Teza and A. L. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 127102 (2025)

    2025

  40. [49]

    Binder and D

    K. Binder and D. W. Heermann, Monte Carlo Simulation in Statistical Physics: An Introduction (Springer, 2010)

    2010

  41. [50]

    Hesselmann and S

    S. Hesselmann and S. Wessel, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155157 (2016)

    2016

  42. [51]

    Selke and L

    W. Selke and L. N. Shchur, Eur. Phys. J. B 51, 223 (2006)

    2006

  43. [52]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Boot- strap (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994)

    1994

  44. [53]

    L. P. Kadanoff, Statistical physics: statics, dynamics and renormalization (World Scientific, 2000)

    2000

  45. [54]

    M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1516 (1972)

    1972

  46. [55]

    Ballesteros, L

    H. Ballesteros, L. Fern´ andez, V. Mart ´ ın-Mayor, and A. Mu˜ noz Sudupe, Phys. Lett. B387, 125 (1996)

    1996

  47. [56]

    D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B 13, 2997 (1976)

    1976

  48. [57]

    S. M. Bhattacharjee and F. Seno, Journal of Physics A 34, 6375 (2001)

    2001

  49. [58]

    Mandr` a, Z

    S. Mandr` a, Z. Zhu, and H. G. Katzgraber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 070502 (2017)

    2017

  50. [59]

    Yaacoby, N

    R. Yaacoby, N. Schaar, L. Kellerhals, O. Raz, D. Her- melin, and R. Pugatch, Phys. Rev. E105, 035305 (2022)

    2022

  51. [60]

    R. R. P. Singh and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. E96, 022139 (2017)

    2017

  52. [61]

    Miyazaki and H

    R. Miyazaki and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E 87, 032154 (2013)

    2013

  53. [62]

    Bernaschi, I

    M. Bernaschi, I. Gonz´ alez-Adalid Pemart ´ ın, V. Mart ´ ın- Mayor, and G. Parisi, Nature 631, 749 (2024)

    2024

  54. [63]

    Balducci, A

    F. Balducci, A. Gambassi, A. Lerose, A. Scardicchio, and C. Vanoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 120601 (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    Balducci, A

    F. Balducci, A. Gambassi, A. Lerose, A. Scardicchio, and C. Vanoni, Phys. Rev. B 107, 024306 (2023)

    2023

  56. [65]

    Friedman, Phys

    Z. Friedman, Phys. Rev. B 17, 1429 (1978)

    1978

  57. [66]

    E. R. Livine and V. Bonzom, Phys. Rev. D 111, 046003 (2025)

    2025

  58. [67]

    Sahay, M

    R. Sahay, M. D. Lukin, and J. Cotler, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021078 (2025)

    2025

  59. [68]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, and G. M. Andolina, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031001 (2024)

    2024

  60. [69]

    Donelli, S

    B. Donelli, S. Gherardini, R. Marino, F. Campaioli, and L. Buffoni, Phys. Rev. E 111, L062102 (2025)

    2025

  61. [70]

    G. Teza, J. Bechhoefer, A. Lasanta, O. Raz, and M. Vucelja, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01758 10.48550/arXiv.2502.01758 (2025)

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    Kochsiek, F

    S. Kochsiek, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. A 106, 012207 (2022)

    2022

  63. [72]

    Rattacaso, D

    D. Rattacaso, D. Jaschke, M. Ballarin, I. Siloi, and S. Montangero, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00077 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00077 (2024)

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    Zambon and G

    G. Zambon and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 200401 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.