Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 67 references

Quantum annealing in SU(3) multiplet space with nonlocal drivers

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes an su(3)-based quantum annealing framework in which two nonlocal drivers, with a carefully chosen path in parameter space, circumvent energy-gap closures that cause first-order transitions in rugged energy landscapes.

desk verdict A genuinely new su(3) annealing framework with careful numerics, but the central comparative claim is softer than the abstract suggests and the gap-avoidance demonstration leans on hand-picked paths. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13366 v1 pith:AMRTGAEF submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph

Yang Wei Koh This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumannealingsu(3)Liealgebrafirst-orderphasetransitionenergygapclosurenonlocaldriversruggedlandscapeCasimirinvarianttwo-driver
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

The paper aims to show that quantum annealing can overcome first-order transitions—the exponential slowdown caused by energy-gap closures—by working in the multiplet space of su(3), a Lie algebra with more drivers than the usual spin-based su(2) transverse field. It constructs three rugged energy landscapes from the commuting Cartan generators and anneals them with two of the su(3) ladder-operator drivers. The central result is that a suitable path in the two-driver parameter space avoids gap closures, and the nonlocal matrix elements of the drivers transport the wave function out of local minima. Compared with transverse-field or antiferromagnetic drivers, the su(3) drivers reach the global minimum more reliably on these landscapes. If the mechanism is real, it offers a route to escape first-order transitions without exponentially large Hilbert spaces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the su(3) Lie algebra, whose eight generators include two commuting Cartan elements T3 and U3 (used to build rugged energy landscapes) and six ladder operators; the quadratic Casimir operator C1 is conserved, so the dynamics stays in a finite multiplet of dimension dm(p,q) = (p+1)(q+1)(p+q+2)/2. The key mechanism is the nonlocal structure of the drivers Ux and Vx: their matrix representations have non-zero entries far from the diagonal, connecting distant states directly. A two-parameter family H(τ,s) = (1-s)[(1-τ)HP - τ driver1] - s driver2 gives a gap landscape Δ(τ,s); the paper's strategy is to choose an annealing path in (τ,s) that avoids the small-gap regions, allo

What would settle it

Annealing the same three landscapes with a local two-driver Hamiltonian (e.g., Jx plus (Jx)^2) using hand-curated paths of the same type; if the residual energy matches the su(3) result and the gap stays open, the nonlocal-transport mechanism is unnecessary. Alternatively, showing that small perturbations of the hand-curated su(3) paths recreate gap closures would indicate the circumvention is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Quantum annealing driven by su(3) generators, within a single irreducible representation labeled by (p,q), can circumvent energy-gap closures that normally force first-order transitions. The two diagonal generators T3 and U3 define rugged energy surfaces; the ladder operators Tx, Ux, and Vx act as drivers. Because Ux and Vx have matrix elements connecting distant basis states, the wave function can be transported nonlocally out of local minima. By mapping the gap in the two-driver parameter space (τ,s) and choosing a path that detours around small-gap regions, the anneal reaches the global minimum. The paper demonstrates this for three landscapes and shows that the transverse-field driver al

Load-bearing premise

The claim that su(3) drivers are genuinely more effective rests on the assumption that the advantage comes from the driver structure itself, not merely from the freedom to choose a two-parameter path; the paper does not run a controlled comparison that separates these two factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the su(3) framework works as described, annealing can be performed in multiplet spaces of dimension polynomial in (p,q), avoiding the exponential Hilbert space of full spin glasses while still exhibiting rugged, glass-like energy surfaces.
  • A two-parameter annealing schedule with a path that detours around small-gap regions becomes a practical alternative to linear schedules whenever a gap landscape can be computed.
  • On the three landscapes studied, the transverse-field driver alone stagnates, and adding an antiferromagnetic +(Jx)^2 driver leaves unavoidable zero-gap 'chasms'; the su(3) drivers remain gapped, so they provide a viable alternative in such cases.
  • The layered structure of (p,q) multiplets with p,q > 0 gives the wave function auxiliary layers through which it can diffuse, potentially improving exploration of the energy landscape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's comparison does not separate the effect of nonlocality from the effect of having a second annealing parameter; a fair test would anneal the same landscapes with a local two-driver pair (e.g., Jx plus Jx^2) along hand-curated paths of comparable complexity, potentially showing that the extra parameter freedom, not nonlocality, clears the gaps.
  • The hand-curated paths are existence proofs on three specific landscapes; an automatic path finder over the gap landscape, such as a shortest-path algorithm, could make the method practical and would test whether the detours generalize to other instances.
  • The proposed commutator measure m(HD)=||[HP,HD]||_F suggests a driver-selection rule: choose drivers that maximize non-commutativity; one could test whether this criterion predicts the success of su(3) drivers on other landscapes.
  • The same construction extends naturally to su(N) for N>3, where more Cartan generators and ladder operators allow even richer landscapes and more possible driver pairs; whether nonlocal transport remains advantageous there is an open question.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum annealing framework based on su(3) generators, working within a single Casimir-conserving irreducible multiplet to keep the Hilbert space manageable. Three problem Hamiltonians are built from the Cartan subalgebra (T3, U3), giving rugged energy landscapes. The author studies two-driver annealing Hamiltonians and shows, via numerically computed gap landscapes, that hand-chosen paths in (τ, s) parameter space avoid the gap closures that occur with a single driver. Time-dependent Schrödinger evolution with DOP853 is used to compute residual energies, and comparisons are made with transverse-field Jx annealing and with Jx+(Jx)^2 annealing. The central claims are that su(3) drivers circumvent gap closures and are 'more effective' than traditional drivers for rugged landscapes.

Significance. If the claims were fully substantiated, the paper would offer a useful intermediate framework between fully connected su(2) models and exponentially large spin glasses, with a concrete mechanism for avoiding first-order transitions. The numerical work is careful: DOP853 with tight tolerances, several multiplet sizes, and residual-energy scaling are reported; the unitary-equivalence argument in Eq. (17) is clean. However, the evidence as presented does not support the strongest comparative and mechanistic conclusions. The paths are hand-curated from the same gap landscapes used to evaluate success, no path data are provided, and the 'more effective' claim is contradicted by the paper's own Landscape I data for several multiplet sizes. The paper's contribution at this stage is a set of existence demonstrations on three specific landscapes, not a validated general method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. IV–VI and IX] The central claim that 'energy gap closures can be circumvented via a suitable path' is demonstrated only with paths that are 'curated manually by hand' from the same gap heat maps used to verify success (Figs. 5(b), 8, 12(a); Sec. IX). No numerical path data, code, or algorithmic rule are supplied, so the results cannot be reproduced or ported to new instances. The Dijkstra method of Ref. [34] is cited but not applied. The existence proof is therefore conditional on unstated, hand-selected input and has a post-selection flavor. Please provide explicit path data or an automated path-finding procedure.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. VII; Fig. 18(b)] The abstract states that su(3) drivers 'are more effective in attaining the global minimum' than transverse-field annealing. For Landscape I, the paper's own data show the opposite for several multiplet sizes: Fig. 18(b) reports that Jx wins for p=14, 17, and 20, while su(3) wins for p=18 and 21; the text even calls the performance 'erratic.' The comparative claim should be restricted to Landscapes II and III, or the mixed Landscape I result should be explicitly acknowledged as partial counter-evidence rather than as support for 'generally more effective.'
  3. [Sec. III; Sec. VIII; Fig. 19] The advantage of su(3) drivers is attributed to nonlocal transport, but nonlocality is not isolated from the extra annealing parameter and the freedom to hand-tune paths. The comparisons are against single-parameter Jx, or against Jx+(Jx)^2, and the only two-parameter comparison with a local secondary driver (antiferromagnetic) fails by construction of its gap landscape (Fig. 20). H(8)/H(9) (Jx+Ux) still contain the nonlocal operator Ux, so Fig. 19 does not separate 'two su(3) drivers' from 'nonlocality' either. Sec. III itself concedes that Ux and Vx are local along tilted su(2) multiplets, so the claimed nonlocality is basis-dependent. A controlled experiment with a banded, local two-parameter driver of matched spectral range, or a basis-invariant locality measure, is needed to support the causal mechanism.
  4. [Secs. V–VIII] The scaling claims ('remain gapped with increasing multiplet size') are made for several p values, but the manuscript does not state whether the same hand-curated path s(τ) is reused for every p or re-curated for each multiplet. If paths are re-curated from each new gap landscape, the 'representative in general' claim is a selection artifact and not a predictive scaling statement. The protocol for path selection per multiplet must be specified, and if re-curation was required, the scaling conclusion should be withdrawn or substantially weakened.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] Typography and grammar: 'The rest the paper' (Sec. I) is missing 'of'; 'different layers are are interconnected' (Sec. VI) has a duplicated 'are'; 'pvalue' in Fig. 18 legend should be 'p value.'
  2. [Sec. III; Eq. (30)] The term 'nonlocal' is defined by matrix bandwidth in a particular Shurtleff basis, but the paper later notes that the same operators are local along tilted su(2) multiplets. The terminology should be made explicitly basis-dependent, and Eq. (30), ||[HP,HD]||F, is basis-invariant and therefore does not measure nonlocality as defined in Sec. III. This should be clarified to avoid conflating commutator magnitude with nonlocal transport.
  3. [Figs. 5(b), 8, 12(a)] The heat-map color scale is clipped at 0.08 in Fig. 5(b) but the clip level is not stated in the caption. Similar clipping appears in later gap-landscape figures; please state the clipping threshold in each caption so the reader can interpret 'cool colors.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Hand-curated annealing paths are drawn from the same gap heat maps used to verify gap avoidance, so the central circumvention claim reduces to the input gap landscape.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 5(b); repeated in Sec. V (Fig. 8), Sec. VI (Fig. 12(a)); admitted in Sec. IX]
    "To accentuate the small-gap region, the value of ∆(τ, s) is clipped at 0.08. Dashed curves show the annealing paths. The 1-driver path (yellow) traverses the small-gap region, while the 2-driver path (blue) avoids it. … It is possible to circumvent the bottleneck region by making a detour, say, along the dashed curve labeled s(τ) (curated manually by hand). … In our treatment, the 2-driver paths s(τ) were curated manually by hand. This is somewhat tedious and may be impractical in actual applications. It is also prone to subjectivity."

    The no-closure result is not a prediction from a first-principles path rule; the path s(τ) is hand-drawn directly from the computed ∆(τ,s) heat map so that it avoids the blue small-gap regions. Evaluating ∆ along the chosen path then reproduces the property used to choose it: the absence of closures is the selection criterion, not an outcome. The same applies to the 'curated manually' paths in Figs. 8 and 12(a). The central abstract claim—'energy gap closures can be circumvented via a suitable path'—therefore reduces by construction to the input observation that the gap map contains a connected corridor from start to end. The subsequent residual-energy success along that route is likewise an adiabatic consequence of following a gapped corridor, not independent evidence for the su(3) mechan

full rationale

Most of the paper is a numerical exploration, and there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem: the su(3) algebra and Shurtleff matrix code are external tools, and Durkin and Seki/Nishimori are cited only as future or alternative path-finding methods. The genuine circular element is the construction of the 2-driver paths. The paper explicitly says the paths were 'curated manually by hand' and 'prone to subjectivity' (Sec. IX). Because the path is drawn on the plot of ∆(τ,s) so as to avoid the cool-colored closure regions, the later statement that 'the energy gap does not close along this path' (Sec. IV.B) restates the selection rule rather than testing it. The same pattern is used for Landscapes II and III. Thus the headline existence claim is partly equivalent to its input. This does not make the numerical annealing dynamics or the multiplet-size scaling worthless: those are genuine computations that would be needed to separate adiabatic following from tunneling or nonlocal transport. But as a demonstration that 'su(3) drivers are more effective,' the comparison is confounded because the su(3) success is shown only along hand-picked routes while the Jx baseline is run on a fixed schedule; a matched local second driver with the same path freedom is not tested. That latter issue is a control/mechanism gap rather than circularity. Overall score 6: one partial by-construction reduction of the central circumvention claim, with independent numerical content remaining.

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

The ledger shows the paper's real inputs: public representation-theory matrices, three hand-designed landscapes, and three hand-drawn annealing paths. The paths are the true free parameters of the central demonstration—they are selected from the gap heat maps and never tabulated. No new physical entities (particles, forces, conserved quantities) are introduced; the 'nonlocal transport' mechanism and the use of multiplet layers as auxiliary diffusion channels are interpretations of standard su(3) structure, not invented entities. The major unexamined assumption is the physical relevance of the 1D index ordering on which the nonlocality claim rests.

free parameters (4)
  • Annealing path s_I(tau) for Landscape I = not tabulated; drawn by hand in Fig. 5(b)
    Chosen post hoc from the gap heat map to avoid small-gap regions; the central claim that gap closures are circumvented depends on this choice.
  • Annealing path s_II(tau) for Landscape II = not tabulated; drawn by hand in Fig. 8
    Hand-curated to detour around the vertical gap-closure strip at tau ≈ 0.478; success along the path is partly selected by construction.
  • Annealing path s_III(tau) for Landscape III = not tabulated; drawn by hand in Fig. 12(a)
    Chosen to descend along the 'gentler gradient' whitish region rather than crossing the V-closure; the lifting of the V-closure is verified along this hand-picked path.
  • Problem Hamiltonian coefficients for Landscapes I–III = coefficients fixed to ±1/n~ (n~ = sqrt(dm - 1))
    The three landscapes (T3^2+U3^2, -(T3^2+U3^2), -U3^2) are hand-constructed motifs; claims about 'rugged landscapes' depend on these choices being representative rather than specially easy or hard.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Shurtleff's algorithm produces the correct irreducible matrix representations of su(3) generators used in all numerics.
    Every Hamiltonian and driver matrix in Secs. II–VIII is built from these representations; an error or inconsistent labeling there would propagate through all gap and dynamics results (Secs. II, IV–VI, App. A).
  • ad hoc to paper The one-dimensional state-index ordering in Shurtleff's labeling defines the physically relevant notion of 'distance' between states.
    The nonlocality claim of Sec. III ('matrix elements that connect distant states directly') depends on this ordering; the same U± and V± moves are nearest-neighbor translations in the 2D weight diagram (Fig. 2), which the author acknowledges in Sec. III.
  • standard math The adiabatic theorem is applicable: slow passage with open gap implies ground-state tracking, and R(T) ~ T^-2 is the adiabatic signature.
    Used to interpret the residual-energy scaling of Landscape II (Sec. V) as evidence of effective annealing, citing Suzuki-Okada [20] and Morita [28].
  • ad hoc to paper The class of problem Hamiltonians built from the Cartan subalgebra (T3, U3) captures the 'most salient characteristics of spin glasses,' namely many-valleyed structure.
    The three landscapes are asserted to be representative motifs (bowl with rugged interior, inter-basin barrier, multi-layered surface); this representative-ness is a design assumption, not derived from spin-glass statistics (Sec. I).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum annealing in SU(3) multiplet space with nonlocal drivers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AMRTGAEF

@misc{pith2026260713366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum annealing in SU(3) multiplet space with nonlocal drivers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AMRTGAEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13366}
}
abstract

A theoretical framework for quantum annealing based on $\mathfrak{su}(3)$ algebra is proposed, and applied to the problem of overcoming first-order transitions in rugged energy landscapes. Conservation of the Casimir invariant means that one can work with irreducible representations of $\mathfrak{su}(3)$, avoiding the exponentially large Hilbert spaces of spin glass systems. In this framework, quantum drivers exhibit nonlocal properties in the sense that during annealing the wave function can be transported far away from a local minimum, thereby avoiding being trapped by it. We consider Hamiltonians with two quantum drivers and studied them numerically. It is shown that energy gap closures can be circumvented via a suitable path in the parameter space of the two drivers. Comparison with more traditional annealing driven by transverse field and antiferromagnetic operators suggests that $\mathfrak{su}(3)$ drivers are more effective in attaining the global minimum of rugged energy landscapes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13366 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy landscapes studied in this work. Panels (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Irreducible representation of the angular momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Quantum drivers of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy gaps of Landscape I. (a) Solid line (red) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Wave functions of Landscape I. Probability densi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Residual energies of Landscape I. Open circles (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ground state eigenfunction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Gap landscape of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Time evolution of probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Ground state eigenfunction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Energy gaps of Landscape III. (a) Gap landscape of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Time evolution of cumulated density ˜ϱ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Time evolution of probability density on Layer 6 of Landscape III, for the annealing shown in Fig. 13. Here, the area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Time evolution of layer probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. (a) Residual energies for annealings of Landscapes I to III using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Comparing the residual energies for Landscape I, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Effects of multiplet size on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Comparing the performances of different annealing Hamiltonians for Landscapes II (left) and III (right). Each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Failure of the antiferromagnetic driver +( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_20.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Labeling of basis vectors for the (6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_22.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Mapping the basis vectors of an irreducible repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [34]

    G. A. Durkin, Phys. Rev. A99, 032315 (2019)

    2019

  2. [1]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E58, 5355 (1998)

    1998

  3. [2]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, Science292, 472 (2001)

    2001

  4. [3]

    Das and B

    A. Das and B. K. Chakrabarti, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1061 (2008)

    2008

  5. [4]

    Das and S

    A. Das and S. Suzuki, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics224, 5 (2015)

    2015

  6. [5]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    Hauke, H

    P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Rep. Prog. Phys.83, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    Venturelli, S

    D. Venturelli, S. Mandr` a, S. Knysh, B. O’Gorman, R. Biswas, and V. Smelyanskiy, Phys. Rev. X5, 031040 (2015)

    2015

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Boixo, V

    S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, A. Shabani, S. V. Isakov, M. Dykman, V. S. Denchev, M. H. Amin, A. Y. Smirnov, M. Mohseni, and H. Neven, Nat. Commun.7, 10327 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    V. S. Denchev, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, N. Ding, R. Bab- bush, V. N. Smelyanskiy, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Phys. Rev. X6, 031015 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    Harris et al., Science361, 162 (2018)

    R. Harris et al., Science361, 162 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Nishimura, H

    K. Nishimura, H. Nishimori, and H. G. Katzgraber, Phys. Rev. A102, 042403 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Bando, Y

    Y. Bando, Y. Susa, H. Oshiyama, N. Shibata, M. Ohzeki, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz, D. A. Lidar, S. Suzuki, A. del Campo, and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033369 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    A. D. King et al., Nature (London)617, 61 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    A. D. King et al., Science388, 199 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    Abel and M

    S. Abel and M. Spannowsky, PRX Quantum2, 010349 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    S. Arai, H. Oshiyama, and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042403 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Morita and H

    S. Morita and H. Nishimori, J. Math. Phys.49, 125210 (2008)

    2008

  11. [18]

    Kimura and H

    Y. Kimura and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. A106, 062614 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Kimura and H

    Y. Kimura and H. Nishimori, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56, 165304 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Suzuki and M

    S. Suzuki and M. Okada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.74, 1649 (2005)

    2005

  14. [21]

    Takahashi, Phys

    K. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. A95, 012309 (2017)

    2017

  15. [22]

    Takahashi, J

    K. Takahashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 061002 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    J¨ org, F

    T. J¨ org, F. Krzakala, J. Kurchan, A. C. Maggs, and J. Pujos, Europhys. Lett.89, 40004 (2010)

    2010

  17. [24]

    Bapst and G

    V. Bapst and G. Semerjian, J. Stat. Mech. P06007 (2012)

    2012

  18. [25]

    Seki and H

    Y. Seki and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E85, 051112 (2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    Seoane and H

    B. Seoane and H. Nishimori, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 435301 (2012)

    2012

  20. [27]

    Okuyama, Y

    M. Okuyama, Y. Yamanaka, H. Nishimori, and M. M. Rams, Phys. Rev. E92, 052116 (2015)

    2015

  21. [28]

    Morita, J

    S. Morita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.76, 104001 (2007)

    2007

  22. [29]

    Matsuura, S

    S. Matsuura, S. Buck, V. Senicourt, and A. Zaribafiyan, Phys. Rev. A103, 052435 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    Susa and H

    Y. Susa and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. A103, 022619 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Y. W. Koh and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. A105, 062435 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Seki and H

    Y. Seki and H. Nishimori, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.48, 335301 (2015)

    2015

  26. [33]

    Nishimori and K

    H. Nishimori and K. Takada, Front. ICT4, (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Albash, Phys

    T. Albash, Phys. Rev. A99, 042334 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Takada, Y

    K. Takada, Y. Yamashiro, and H. Nishimori, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.89, 044001 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Y. W. Koh and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. A101, 052304 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Takada, S

    K. Takada, S. Sota, S. Yunoki, B. Pokharel, H. Nishimori, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043013 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    J¨ org, F

    T. J¨ org, F. Krzakala, J. Kurchan, and A. C. Maggs, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 147204 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    A. P. Young, S. Knysh, and V. N. Smelyanskiy, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 170503 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    A. P. Young, S. Knysh, and V. N. Smelyanskiy, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 020502 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Knysh, Nat

    S. Knysh, Nat. Commun.7, 12370 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Y. W. Koh, Phys. Rev. B97, 094417 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    C. W. Liu, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 147203 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Rajak, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. E97, 022146 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    V. N. Smelyanskiy, K. Kechedzhi, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, H. Neven, and B. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. X10, 011017 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    We use the notationsu(n) to denote Lie algebra

  40. [48]

    GasiorowiczElementary Particle Physics(John Wiley & Sons., New York, 1966)

    S. GasiorowiczElementary Particle Physics(John Wiley & Sons., New York, 1966)

    1966

  41. [49]

    Pfeifer,The Lie Algebras su(N): An Introduction (Birkh¨ auser, Berlin, 2003)

    W. Pfeifer,The Lie Algebras su(N): An Introduction (Birkh¨ auser, Berlin, 2003). See p. 79 for Casimir oper- ator andd m(p, q)

    2003

  42. [50]

    Georgi,Lie Algebras in Particle Physics: From Isospin to Unified Theories(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2019)

    H. Georgi,Lie Algebras in Particle Physics: From Isospin to Unified Theories(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    T. Roy, Z. Li, E. Kapit, and D. Schuster, Phys. Rev. Applied19, 064024 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    N. Goss, S. Ferracin, A. Hasim, A. Carignan-Dugas, J. M. Kreikebaum, R. K. Naik, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi , npj Quantum Inf.10, 101 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Bottrill, M

    G. Bottrill, M. Pandey, and O. Di Matteo, arXiv:2308.08050v1 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Goto, Sci

    H. Goto, Sci. Rep.6, 21686 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Goto, Phys

    H. Goto, Phys. Rev. A93, 050301(R) (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    H. Goto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 061015 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Takahashi, J

    K. Takahashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.91, 044003 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Miyazaki, Phys

    R. Miyazaki, Phys. Rev. A105, 062457 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Ohzeki, Sci

    M. Ohzeki, Sci. Rep.7, 41186 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Shurtleff, arXiv:0908.3864 (2023)

    R. Shurtleff, arXiv:0908.3864 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Shurtleff, viXra:2409.0060 (2024)

    R. Shurtleff, viXra:2409.0060 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Hukushima and K

    K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.65, 1604 (1996)

    1996

  55. [63]

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

    1987

  56. [64]

    Nishimori and Y

    H. Nishimori and Y. Nonomura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.65, 3780 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    Numerical integration was performed using the solve ivp function from the SciPy library, with ‘method’ set to ‘DOP853’, and both ‘rtol’ and ‘atol’ to ‘1e-11’

  58. [66]

    Kumeda, D

    Y. Kumeda, D. J. Wales, and L. J. Munro, Chem. Phys. Lett.341, 185 (2001)

    2001

  59. [67]

    Botet and R

    R. Botet and R. Jullien, Phys. Rev. B28, 3955 (1983)

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.