arxiv: 2604.18890 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · physics.atom-ph· quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Stabilization of bulk quantum orders in finite Rydberg atom arrays

Yash M. Lokare , Matthew J. Coley-O'Rourke

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

keywords Rydberg atom arraysfinite-size effectsboundary effectsquantum phasesdisordered phasequantum simulationultracold atoms

0 comments

The pith

Finite Rydberg atom arrays can stabilize bulk quantum orders by driving boundaries into unbiased configurations using the disordered phase

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

The paper proposes a strategy to stabilize bulk quantum orders in finite-sized Rydberg atom arrays by countering the strong influence of boundaries. It does so by using the disordered phase to drive boundary atoms into a random set of states whose properties are determined by the interior physics. Numerical tests show this works for both ordered phases and critical phases in one and two dimensions. This matters because most experiments use small arrays where boundary effects have previously hidden the true bulk behavior.

Core claim

Our scheme makes use of the properties of the ubiquitous disordered phase in Rydberg systems, driving the boundaries into an unbiased set of configurations that depend on the bulk physics. We numerically demonstrate the efficacy of this protocol in one- and two-dimensional systems on both ordered and critical phases.

What carries the argument

The boundary-unbiasing protocol that prepares the disordered phase at the edges so boundary configurations become unbiased and reflect only bulk correlations

If this is right

Finite arrays become usable for studying bulk ordered and critical phases without dominant boundary distortions
The approach applies to both one- and two-dimensional Rydberg systems
Numerical evidence supports that the protocol preserves the expected bulk order in small systems

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Similar boundary randomization could be explored in other platforms that host accessible disordered phases
The method may lower the array size needed to reliably identify phases in current experiments

Load-bearing premise

The disordered phase can be prepared and controlled at the boundaries to produce unbiased configurations without adding new biases or changing the bulk order

What would settle it

A measurement on a finite array prepared with the protocol showing bulk order parameters that still deviate from theoretical predictions for the infinite system in the same phase would falsify the protocol's efficacy

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18890 by Matthew J. Coley-O'Rourke, Yash M. Lokare.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Disordered boundary subsystems. (a) Schematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Comparison of star ground state order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Density-wave wavevector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Arrays of ultracold neutral atoms, also known as Rydberg atom arrays, are rapidly developing into a powerful and versatile platform for quantum simulation. However, theoretical predictions about the bulk quantum phases of matter present in these systems have often diverged from experimental realizations on finite-sized arrays due to the strong effects of the boundaries. Here we propose a general, experimentally straightforward strategy to mitigate the effects of the boundaries and thus enable finite-sized arrays to stabilize bulk-like quantum order. Our scheme makes use of the properties of the ubiquitous disordered phase in Rydberg systems, driving the boundaries into an unbiased set of configurations that depend on the bulk physics. We numerically demonstrate the efficacy of this protocol in one- and two-dimensional systems on both ordered and critical phases.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper offers a practical protocol to reduce boundary effects in finite Rydberg arrays by driving edges into the disordered phase, but long-range interactions leave open whether the bulk order stays truly untouched.

read the letter

The central proposal is to exploit the disordered phase already present in most Rydberg setups to push the boundaries of a finite array into an unbiased ensemble whose statistics are set by the bulk. They test this numerically in 1D chains and small 2D lattices for both gapped ordered phases and critical points, showing improved agreement with bulk expectations. That is the main new element: a simple, hardware-friendly way to handle open boundaries without adding new lasers or atoms at the edges. It directly targets a limitation that shows up in many current experiments, so experimental groups working with Rydberg arrays could try it with modest effort. The numerics appear to use standard methods, which is fine as far as it goes, and the claim that the protocol is general across dimensions and phases is worth checking further. The long-range 1/r^6 tail is the obvious soft spot. In the small systems they simulate, any local drive or detuning at the boundary can couple across the whole array, so it is not automatic that the interior order parameter or correlation functions remain unchanged. The paper would be stronger if it explicitly compared the bulk observable with and without the boundary drive and showed the difference is small. Without that check, the reported improvement could partly reflect the drive itself rather than genuine stabilization. Details on how the disordered phase is prepared and maintained at the edges also matter for reproducibility. This work is aimed at people running or simulating Rydberg quantum simulators who need better finite-size fidelity. A reader already familiar with the platform will get the most out of the numerics and can judge whether the protocol fits their setup. It is coherent on its own terms and engages the right literature, so it deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review rather than desk reject, with the expectation that the main questions will be about the bulk invariance and the precise implementation of the boundary drive.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a general protocol to stabilize bulk quantum orders in finite Rydberg atom arrays by driving boundaries into an unbiased disordered-phase ensemble whose statistics are dictated by bulk physics, thereby mitigating boundary effects. It claims numerical demonstration of the protocol's efficacy in 1D and 2D systems for both ordered and critical phases.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work would meaningfully advance quantum simulation with Rydberg arrays by enabling finite-size experiments to more faithfully realize theoretical bulk predictions. The approach leverages the ubiquitous disordered phase in a way that appears experimentally straightforward and avoids introducing new parameters.

major comments (2)

[Numerical demonstrations (likely §4 or equivalent)] The long-range van der Waals interactions (decaying as 1/r^6) raise a load-bearing concern for the claim that boundary driving leaves bulk order unaltered. In the finite 1D and small-2D arrays used for the demonstrations, the interaction range is comparable to system size, so any local detuning or drive at the edges can generate effective fields or virtual processes reaching the interior. The manuscript must explicitly compare the central order parameter (or correlation length at criticality) with and without the boundary protocol; absent this check, the reported efficacy could be an artifact of the driving rather than genuine stabilization.
[Methods and numerical results sections] The abstract states that the protocol is demonstrated numerically, but no methods, system sizes, error analysis, or raw data are visible. This absence prevents verification that the boundary configurations are truly unbiased and bulk-dependent without introducing new biases, as required by the central claim.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract could usefully specify the lattice sizes and interaction strengths employed in the 1D/2D demonstrations to allow readers to assess the regime where long-range effects are controlled.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We address the major comments point by point below, agreeing where revisions are warranted to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Numerical demonstrations (likely §4 or equivalent)] The long-range van der Waals interactions (decaying as 1/r^6) raise a load-bearing concern for the claim that boundary driving leaves bulk order unaltered. In the finite 1D and small-2D arrays used for the demonstrations, the interaction range is comparable to system size, so any local detuning or drive at the edges can generate effective fields or virtual processes reaching the interior. The manuscript must explicitly compare the central order parameter (or correlation length at criticality) with and without the boundary protocol; absent this check, the reported efficacy could be an artifact of the driving rather than genuine stabilization.

Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison is essential given the long-range nature of the interactions. In the revised manuscript we will add direct side-by-side plots of the central order parameter (and correlation length at criticality) for simulations performed with and without the boundary-driving protocol. These comparisons will be shown for the same system sizes and parameters used in the original demonstrations, confirming that the bulk observables remain unaltered within numerical precision. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods and numerical results sections] The abstract states that the protocol is demonstrated numerically, but no methods, system sizes, error analysis, or raw data are visible. This absence prevents verification that the boundary configurations are truly unbiased and bulk-dependent without introducing new biases, as required by the central claim.

Authors: The full manuscript contains a Methods section that specifies the system sizes (1D chains of length up to 24 sites and 2D lattices up to 8×8), the numerical methods employed (exact diagonalization for small systems and matrix-product-state simulations for larger ones), the procedure for generating unbiased boundary ensembles, and error estimates from finite-bond-dimension extrapolations. We will expand this section in the revision to include additional details on convergence checks and make the raw data and simulation parameters publicly available in a supplementary repository. We regret that these elements were not sufficiently prominent in the reviewed version. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: protocol uses established disordered-phase properties with numerical validation

full rationale

The paper proposes a boundary-driving protocol that exploits the known disordered phase of Rydberg arrays to produce unbiased edge configurations whose statistics are set by bulk order. It then reports numerical tests of this protocol on ordered and critical phases in 1D and 2D lattices. No equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles derivations are presented that reduce by construction to the protocol's own inputs. The central claim is an empirical demonstration rather than an algebraic identity or self-referential definition. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work appear in the abstract or description. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain knowledge of Rydberg systems and the disordered phase being ubiquitous and controllable; no new entities or fitted parameters are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The disordered phase in Rydberg systems possesses properties that allow boundaries to be driven into unbiased configurations dependent on bulk physics.
Invoked directly in the abstract as the basis for the scheme.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5427 in / 1113 out tokens · 26984 ms · 2026-05-10T02:33:39.250171+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Labuhn, D

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

2016
[2]

Scholl, M

P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye,et al., Quantum simulation of 2d antiferromagnets with hundreds of rydberg atoms, Na- ture595, 233 (2021)

2021
[3]

K. Kim, F. Yang, K. Mølmer, and J. Ahn, Realization of an extremely anisotropic heisenberg magnet in rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review X14(2024)

2024
[4]

Bernien, S

H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579–584 (2017)

2017
[5]

Bluvstein, A

D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling quantum many- body dynamics in driven rydberg atom arrays, Science 371, 1355–1359 (2021)

2021
[6]

Manovitz, S

T. Manovitz, S. H. Li, S. Ebadi, R. Samajdar, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, H. Zhou, N. U. Koylu- oglu, J. Feldmeier, P. E. Dolgirev, N. Maskara, M. Kali- nowski, S. Sachdev, D. A. Huse, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum coarsening and collective dy- namics on a programmable simulator, Nature638, 86 (2025)

2025
[7]

L. Zhao, P. R. Datla, W. Tian, M. M. Aliyu, and H. Loh, Observation of quantum thermalization restricted to hilbert space fragments andZ 2k scars, Phys. Rev. X15, 011035 (2025)

2025
[8]

Ebadi, A

S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum optimization of maximum independent set using rydberg atom arrays, Science3...

2022
[9]

Ebadi, T

S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227–232 (2021)

2021
[10]

Semeghini, H

G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vish- wanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Prob- ing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science374, 1242–1247 (2021)

2021
[11]

S. K. Kanungo, J. D. Whalen, Y. Lu, M. Yuan, S. Das- gupta, F. B. Dunning, K. R. A. Hazzard, and T. C. Killian, Realizing topological edge states with rydberg- atom synthetic dimensions, Nature Communications13 (2022)

2022
[12]

S. J. Evered, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, T. Manovitz, D. Bluvstein, S. H. Li, N. Maskara, H. Zhou, S. Ebadi, M. Xu, J. Campo, M. Cain, S. Ostermann, S. F. Yelin, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing the kitaev honeycomb model on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature645, 341–347 (2025)

2025
[13]

Dirac Spin Liquid Candidate in a Rydberg Quantum Simulator

G. Bornet, M. Bintz, C. Chen, G. Emperauger, D. Barredo, S. Chatterjee, V. S. Liu, T. Lahaye, M. P. Zaletel, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Dirac spin liq- uid candidate in a rydberg quantum simulator (2026), arXiv:2602.14323 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[14]

N. E. Myerson-Jain, S. Yan, D. Weld, and C. Xu, Con- struction of fractal order and phase transition with ryd- berg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 017601 (2022)

2022
[15]

Mazurek, M

G. Giudici, M. D. Lukin, and H. Pichler, Dynam- ical preparation of quantum spin liquids in rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review Letters129, 10.1103/phys- revlett.129.090401 (2022)

work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2022
[16]

R. Shen, T. Chen, M. M. Aliyu, F. Qin, Y. Zhong, H. Loh, and C. H. Lee, Proposal for observing yang-lee criticality in rydberg atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 080403 (2023)

2023
[17]

Giudici, F

G. Giudici, F. M. Surace, and H. Pichler, Unraveling pxp many-body scars through floquet dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 190404 (2024)

2024
[18]

R. A. Macˆ edo and R. G. Pereira, Fractonic criticality in rydberg atom arrays, Phys. Rev. B110, 085144 (2024)

2024
[19]

Juli` a-Farr´ e, J

S. Juli` a-Farr´ e, J. Vovrosh, and A. Dauphin, Amorphous quantum magnets in a two-dimensional rydberg atom ar- ray, Phys. Rev. A110, 012602 (2024)

2024
[20]

Euchner and I

S. Euchner and I. Lesanovsky, Rydberg atom arrays as quantum simulators for molecular dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L042009 (2025)

2025
[21]

N. U. Koyluoglu, N. Maskara, J. Feldmeier, and M. D. Lukin, Floquet engineering of interactions and entangle- ment in periodically driven rydberg chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 113603 (2025)

2025
[22]

Samajdar, W

R. Samajdar, W. W. Ho, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and S. Sachdev, Complex density wave orders and quantum phase transitions in a model of square-lattice rydberg atom arrays, Physical Review Letters124(2020)

2020
[23]

Verresen, M

R. Verresen, M. D. Lukin, and A. Vishwanath, Prediction of toric code topological order from rydberg blockade, Phys. Rev. X11, 031005 (2021)

2021
[25]

Zhang, S

J. Zhang, S. H. Cant´ u, F. Liu, A. Bylinskii, B. Braver- man, F. Huber, J. Amato-Grill, A. Lukin, N. Gemelke, A. Keesling,et al., Probing quantum floating phases in rydberg atom arrays, Nature Communications16, 712 (2025)

2025
[26]

Samajdar and D

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

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

M. R. Hirsbrunner, M. Kornjaˇ ca, R. Samajdar, S. Darbha, M. Hamdan, J. Balewski, E. Rrapaj, S.-T. Wang, D. Camps, F. Liu, P. L. S. Lopes, and K. Klymko, Quantum criticality and nonequilibrium dynamics on a lieb lattice of rydberg atoms (2025), arXiv:2508.05737 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[28]

Kalinowski, R

M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, R. G. Melko, M. D. Lukin, S. Sachdev, and S. Choi, Bulk and boundary quantum 7 phase transitions in a square rydberg atom array, Phys. Rev. B105, 174417 (2022)

2022
[29]

M. J. O’Rourke and G. K.-L. Chan, Entanglement in the quantum phases of an unfrustrated rydberg atom array, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-41166- 0 (2023)

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41166- 2023
[30]

C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Leclerc, V. S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee,et al., Continuous symmetry breaking in a two-dimensional rydberg array, Nature616, 691 (2023)

2023
[31]

Bornet, G

G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, F. Machado, S. Chern, L. Leclerc, B. G´ ely, Y. T. Chew, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Enhancing a many-body dipolar rydberg tweezer array with arbitrary local controls, Physical Review Letters132(2024)

2024
[32]

de Oliveira, E

A. de Oliveira, E. Diamond-Hitchcock, D. Walker, M. Wells-Pestell, G. Pelegri, C. Picken, G. Malcolm, A. Daley, J. Bass, and J. Pritchard, Demonstration of weighted-graph optimization on a rydberg-atom array us- ing local light shifts, PRX Quantum6, 010301 (2025)

2025
[33]

L¨ ow, H

R. L¨ ow, H. Weimer, U. Krohn, R. Heidemann, V. Bend- kowsky, B. Butscher, H. P. B¨ uchler, and T. Pfau, Univer- sal scaling in a strongly interacting rydberg gas, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics80, 033422 (2009)

2009
[34]

Weimer and H

H. Weimer and H. P. B¨ uchler, Two-stage melting in sys- tems of strongly interacting rydberg atoms, Physical re- view letters105, 230403 (2010)

2010
[35]

Browaeys and T

A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with in- dividually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics16, 132–142 (2020)

2020
[39]

See Supplemental Material for details on the numerical methods, including DMRG implementation and MPO construction for long-range interactions, extraction of Fourier modes, sampling of classical configurations, and extended numerical results in 1D and 2D
[40]

Bak and R

P. Bak and R. Bruinsma, One-dimensional ising model and the complete devil’s staircase, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 249 (1982)

1982
[41]

E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical thermal state algorithms, New Journal of Physics 12, 055026 (2010)

2010
[42]

Stabilization of bulk quantum orders in finite Rydberg atom arrays

A. J. Ferris and G. Vidal, Perfect sampling with unitary tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B85, 165146 (2012). Supplemental Material for “Stabilization of bulk quantum orders in finite Rydberg atom arrays” Yash M. Lokare 1 and Matthew J. Coley-O’Rourke 2 1Department of Physics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA 2Department of Chemistry, Brow...

2012
[43]

2D results 6

Stability of the floating phase in the non-uniform Hamiltonian 5 B. 2D results 6
[44]

Definitions of the square/striated and (1,1)-sublattice OPs 6
[45]

density profile

Stability of the striated phase atR b = 1.6 with non-uniform boundary detuning 7 References 7 I. COMPUT A TIONAL DET AILS The phase diagram in Fig 1(a) of the main text, depicting the reference thermodynamic limit ground states in 2D, was computed using the Γ-point DMRG method detailed in Ref. [1]. All DMRG simulation details are kept identical for consis...
[46]

Stability of the floating phase in the non-uniform Hamiltonian Boundary perturbations in 1D Rydberg chains can, in principle, destabilize subtle quantum phases. Despite this sensitivity, we find that the floating phase remains remarkably robust even when the Hamiltonian is made explicitly non-uniform through variations in the local detuningδ i. We examine...
[47]

Definitions of the square/striated and(1,1)-sublattice OPs To identify the square/striated phase, we employ the following OP defined in Ref. [14]: ˜F(k1, k2) = (F(k1, k2) +F(k 2, k1))/2,(S25) F(k1, k2) =| X x,y exp(i(k1x+k 2y))⟨ˆnx,y⟩|/N,(S26) whereO striated := ˜F(π,0)− ˜F(π/2, π) (here,N=L xLy denotes the lattice size). By definition, however,O striated...
[48]

Stability of the striated phase atR b = 1.6with non-uniform boundary detuning To further substantiate that the phase stabilized atR b = 1.6 on the 13×13 array with boundary detuning ramps (main text Fig. 3) corresponds to a striated ordering pattern rather than a pure square-ordered phase, we perform two additional complementary numerical tests: 1.Bond di...
[49]

M. J. O’Rourke and G. K.-L. Chan, Entanglement in the quantum phases of an unfrustrated rydberg atom array, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-41166-0 (2023)

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41166-0 2023
[50]

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

1992
[51]

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

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

2005
[52]

Y. M. Lokare, GitHub repository,https://github.com/YashLokare02/Rydberg_simulators_stabilizing_bulk_ physics/tree/main(2025)

2025
[53]

G. M. Crosswhite, A. C. Doherty, and G. Vidal, Applying matrix product operators to model systems with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. B78, 035116 (2008)

2008
[54]

H. Zhai, H. R. Larsson, S. Lee, Z.-H. Cui, T. Zhu, C. Sun, L. Peng, R. Peng, K. Liao, J. T¨ olle, J. Yang, S. Li, and G. K.-L. Chan, ¡scp¿block2¡/scp¿: A comprehensive open source framework to develop and apply state-of-the-art dmrg algorithms in electronic structure and beyond, The Journal of Chemical Physics159, 10.1063/5.0180424 (2023)

work page doi:10.1063/5.0180424 2023
[55]

G. K.-L. Chan, A. Keselman, N. Nakatani, Z. Li, and S. R. White, Matrix product operators, matrix product states, and ab initio density matrix renormalization group algorithms, The Journal of Chemical Physics145, 014102 (2016)

2016
[56]

Rader and A

M. Rader and A. M. L¨ auchli, Floating phases in one-dimensional rydberg ising chains (2019), arXiv:1908.02068 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

work page arXiv 2019
[57]

E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical thermal state algorithms, New Journal of Physics12, 055026 (2010)

2010
[58]

A. J. Ferris and G. Vidal, Perfect sampling with unitary tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B85, 165146 (2012)

2012
[59]

Zhang, S

J. Zhang, S. H. Cant´ u, F. Liu, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, F. Huber, J. Amato-Grill, A. Lukin, N. Gemelke, A. Keesling, et al., Probing quantum floating phases in rydberg atom arrays, Nature Communications16, 712 (2025)

2025
[60]

Infinite randomness criticality and localization of the floating phase in arrays of Rydberg atoms trapped with non-perfect tweezers

J. Soto-Garcia and N. Chepiga, Infinite randomness criticality and localization of the floating phase in arrays of rydberg atoms trapped with non-perfect tweezers (2025), arXiv:2506.11985 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[61]

S.-A. Liao, J. Zhang, and L.-P. Yang, Phase diagram of rydberg atoms in a two-leg rectangular ladder, Phys. Rev. B111, 165154 (2025)

2025
[62]

Ebadi, T

S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature595, 227–232 (2021). 8 (a) (b) FIG. S4.(a)Convergence of DMRG ground-state energies and the (1,1)...

2021