pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30944 · v1 · pith:OEY6XQDRnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Neural-network excited states of A=4 nuclei and hypernuclei

Zi-Xiao Zhang , Yi-Long Yang , Xiao-Lu Qian , Wan-Bing He , Peng-Wei Zhao , Bing-Nan Lu , Yu-Gang Ma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 20:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords neural-network quantum statesvariational Monte Carloexcited stateshypernucleiM1 transitionA=4 nucleiquantum number targeting
0
0 comments X

The pith

Neural-network quantum states compute excited states of A=4 nuclei and hypernuclei with benchmark agreement and yield first ab initio M1 transition for ^{4}_ΛH

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

The paper demonstrates that neural-network quantum states, using overlap penalty with quantum number targeting and natural excited state methods, can accurately determine low-lying excited states in light nuclei and hypernuclei. These approaches reproduce energies and spatial structures in excellent agreement with established benchmarks. The calculation provides the first ab initio M1 transition strength for ^{4}_ΛH, which shows only a small suppression relative to the weak-coupling limit. A reader would care because this extends neural network methods from ground-state calculations to full spectroscopy in nuclear physics.

Core claim

Both the OP-QNT and NES methods can reproduce diagonal observables, such as energies and spatial structures, in excellent agreement with rigorous benchmarks. We further provide, to our knowledge, the first ab initio calculation of the M1 transition strength for ^{4}_ΛH. The calculated transition strength is consistent with the weak-coupling limit, exhibiting a ∼1.3% suppression. This work demonstrates that NQS can be elevated from ground-state solvers to practical tools for nuclear and hypernuclear spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The overlap penalty quantum number targeting (OP-QNT) and natural excited state (NES) methods within neural-network quantum states to isolate and compute low-lying excited states while handling spin contamination.

If this is right

  • OP-QNT and NES methods accurately match benchmark energies and structures for excited states.
  • The M1 transition strength for ^{4}_ΛH is calculated ab initio for the first time with ~1.3% suppression.
  • NQS framework can be used for practical nuclear and hypernuclear spectroscopy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This success in A=4 systems suggests potential applicability to slightly larger nuclei where exact methods are still feasible for validation.
  • The small suppression in the transition strength may indicate subtle effects in hypernuclear wave functions that could be probed in other observables.
  • If the methods prove robust, they could reduce reliance on traditional basis expansions in nuclear structure calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network representation combined with the overlap penalty quantum number targeting and natural excited state methods is assumed to accurately isolate and describe the desired low-lying excited states without residual spin contamination or variational bias that would invalidate the benchmark agreement or the new M1 prediction.

What would settle it

A calculation using a different high-accuracy method, such as Green's function Monte Carlo, that finds an M1 transition strength for ^{4}_ΛH differing substantially from the ~1.3% suppression would falsify the result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30944 by Bing-Nan Lu, Peng-Wei Zhao, Wan-Bing He, Xiao-Lu Qian, Yi-Long Yang, Yu-Gang Ma, Zi-Xiao Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of optimization for 4 Λ H in the overlap penalty method (OP) with and without the quantum number targeting (QNT) technique. (a) Energy convergence for the 0+ ground state (purple) and 1+ excited state (cyan). Black dotted lines represent the reference energies taken from Ref. [38]. (b) Absolute overlap S 12 between the two states. The dark grey solid line represents the optimization with QNT, wh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radial density distributions 4πr 2ρ(r) of nucleons and the Λ hyperon for the ground (0+ ) and excited (1+ ) states of the 4 Λ H hypernucleus. The purple and teal colors denote the 0+ and 1+ states, respectively. The open symbols with error bars represent the results obtained from the overlap penalty method with the quantum number targeting technique, where circles correspond to nucleons and squares to the … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Convergence of the total energy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first variational Monte Carlo study of nuclear and hypernuclear excited states within the neural-network quantum states (NQS) framework. We implement both the overlap penalty (OP) and natural excited state (NES) methods to compute low-lying excitation spectra. To address the spin contamination in hypernuclear calculations, we propose a quantum number targeting (QNT) technique for the OP method. Both the OP-QNT and NES methods can reproduce diagonal observables, such as energies and spatial structures, in excellent agreement with rigorous benchmarks. We further provide, to our knowledge, the first \textit{ab initio} calculation of the $M1$ transition strength for $^{4}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$. The calculated transition strength is consistent with the weak-coupling limit, exhibiting a $\sim$1.3\% suppression. This work demonstrates that NQS can be elevated from ground-state solvers to practical tools for nuclear and hypernuclear spectroscopy.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first variational Monte Carlo study of excited states in A=4 nuclei and hypernuclei using neural-network quantum states. It implements overlap penalty with quantum number targeting (OP-QNT) and natural excited state (NES) methods to compute low-lying spectra while addressing spin contamination. The methods are reported to reproduce energies and spatial structures in excellent agreement with rigorous benchmarks. The work also claims the first ab initio M1 transition strength for ^{4}_ΛH, finding consistency with the weak-coupling limit and a ∼1.3% suppression.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work is significant for extending NQS methods from ground states to practical spectroscopy in nuclear and hypernuclear systems. It provides a new ab initio prediction for an M1 transition in a hypernucleus and introduces the QNT technique to mitigate spin contamination. Credit is due for the benchmark comparisons on diagonal observables and for delivering the first such transition calculation within this framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that OP-QNT and NES wavefunctions yield the M1 transition strength with ∼1.3% suppression rests on an untested extrapolation; only diagonal observables (energies, spatial structures) are stated to agree with benchmarks, but no equivalent validation, error analysis, or cross-check is described for the off-diagonal matrix element. This is load-bearing for the new prediction, as variational bias or residual contamination could affect the small correction without altering diagonal quantities.
  2. [Abstract] The description of the OP-QNT technique (to address spin contamination in hypernuclei) does not specify how the targeting preserves the fidelity needed for transition matrix elements; without this, the consistency with the weak-coupling limit cannot be assessed as robust rather than an artifact of the variational optimization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below, agreeing to revisions that strengthen the presentation of our results on the M1 transition and the OP-QNT method.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that OP-QNT and NES wavefunctions yield the M1 transition strength with ∼1.3% suppression rests on an untested extrapolation; only diagonal observables (energies, spatial structures) are stated to agree with benchmarks, but no equivalent validation, error analysis, or cross-check is described for the off-diagonal matrix element. This is load-bearing for the new prediction, as variational bias or residual contamination could affect the small correction without altering diagonal quantities.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this concern: the manuscript validates the wavefunctions primarily through diagonal observables, and no dedicated cross-check or error analysis is provided specifically for the off-diagonal M1 matrix element. While the variational optimization targets accurate energies and structures, this does not automatically ensure equivalent precision for the small transition correction. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection discussing the expected accuracy of the computed M1 strength (including a quantitative estimate of residual variational bias), report statistical uncertainties from the Monte Carlo sampling, and include an explicit consistency check against the weak-coupling limit beyond the single quoted percentage. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The description of the OP-QNT technique (to address spin contamination in hypernuclei) does not specify how the targeting preserves the fidelity needed for transition matrix elements; without this, the consistency with the weak-coupling limit cannot be assessed as robust rather than an artifact of the variational optimization.

    Authors: We agree that the current description of OP-QNT is insufficiently detailed on this point. The quantum-number penalty is constructed to project out components with incorrect total angular momentum and isospin while leaving the physical subspace unconstrained; because the penalty is applied only during optimization and vanishes for correctly targeted states, the resulting wavefunctions retain the symmetries required for accurate off-diagonal matrix elements. In the revision we will expand the methods section with a step-by-step description of the penalty implementation, demonstrate that the penalty term does not bias the transition operator, and show that the observed 1.3 % suppression is stable under variations of the penalty strength. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; diagonal results benchmarked externally and M1 is independent new output

full rationale

The paper applies neural-network quantum states with OP-QNT and NES targeting to compute A=4 spectra. Diagonal observables (energies, structures) are stated to match external rigorous benchmarks, while the M1 transition strength for ^{4}_ΛH is reported as a first ab initio result. No equation or method reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or renamed input; the variational procedure and state isolation are independent of the reported M1 value, which is not forced by the diagonal fits.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no information on any free parameters, axioms, or invented entities used in the work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5712 in / 1239 out tokens · 35798 ms · 2026-06-28T20:38:44.270518+00:00 · methodology

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

85 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Meißner, S

    U.-G. Meißner, S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, Ab initio calculation of the alpha-particle monopole transition form factor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 062501. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.062501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.062501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.062501 2024

  2. [2]

    A. Gal, E. V . Hungerford, D. J. Millener, Strangeness in nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) 035004. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.035004 2016

  3. [3]

    Bedjidian, A

    M. Bedjidian, A. Filipkowski, J. Grossiord, A. Guichard, M. Gusakow, S. Majewski, H. Piekarz, J. Piekarz, J. Pizzi, Observation of aγtransition in the λ 4hhy- pernucleus, Physics Letters B 62 (1976) 467–470. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0370269376906869. doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/0370-2693(76)90686-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(76)90686-9 1976

  4. [4]

    Esser, S

    A. Esser, S. Nagao, F. Schulz, P. Achenbach, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, R. Böhm, O. Borodina, D. Bosnar, V . Bozkurt, L. Debenjak, M. O. Distler, I. Friš ˇci´c, Y . Fujii, T. Gogami, O. Hashimoto, S. Hirose, H. Kanda, M. Kaneta, E. Kim, Y . Kohl, J. Kusaka, A. Margaryan, H. Merkel, M. Mihovilovi ˇc, U. Müller, S. N. Naka- mura, J. Pochodzalla, C. Rappold, J. Reinh...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.232501 2015

  5. [5]

    T. O. Yamamoto, M. Agnello, Y . Akazawa, N. Amano, K. Aoki, E. Botta, N. Chiga, H. Ekawa, P. Evtoukhovitch, A. Feliciello, M. Fujita, T. Gogami, S. Hasegawa, S. H. Hayakawa, T. Hayakawa, R. Honda, K. Ho- somi, S. H. Hwang, N. Ichige, Y . Ichikawa, M. Ikeda, K. Imai, S. Ishimoto, S. Kanatsuki, M. H. Kim, S. H. Kim, S. Kinbara, T. Koike, J. Y . Lee, S. Marc...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.222501 2015

  6. [6]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. V ogt-Maranto, L. Zdeborová, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (2019) 045002. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.045002. doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.91.045002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.045002 2019

  7. [7]

    Boehnlein et al., Colloquium: Machine learning in nuclear physics.Reviews of Modern Physics94(3), 031003 (2022)

    A. Boehnlein, M. Diefenthaler, N. Sato, M. Schram, V . Ziegler, C. Fanelli, M. Hjorth-Jensen, T. Horn, M. P. Kuchera, D. Lee, W. Nazarewicz, P. Ostroumov, K. Orginos, A. Poon, X.-N. Wang, A. Scheinker, M. S. Smith, L.-G. Pang, Colloquium: Ma- chine learning in nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 (2022) 031003. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/RevModP...

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.031003 2022

  8. [8]

    Lovato, G

    A. Lovato, G. Carleo, B. Fore, M. Hjorth-Jensen, J. Kim, A. Rios, N. Rocco, Neural-network quan- tum states for the nuclear many-body problem (2026). arXiv:2602.13826

    work page arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    A. Giri, J. Kim, C. Drischler, C. Elster, R. J. Furnstahl, Active learning emulators for nuclear two-body scattering in momentum space, Phys. Rev. C 113 (2026) 044001. doi:10.1103/s6my-pqs9.arXiv:2512.17842

    work page doi:10.1103/s6my-pqs9.arxiv:2512.17842 2026

  10. [10]

    C.-X. Wang, T. Naito, J. Li, H.-Z. Liang, A neural network approach for two-body systems with spin and isospin degrees of freedom, Nuclear Sci- ence and Techniques 37 (2026) 114. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1007/s41365-026-01946-x. doi:10. 1007/s41365-026-01946-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-026-01946-x 2026

  11. [11]

    Y . Yang, E. Epelbaum, J. Meng, L. Meng, P. Zhao, Chiral symmetry and peripheral neutron-αscattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 172502. URL:https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/45g7-bmp6. doi:10. 1103/45g7-bmp6

    work page doi:10.1103/45g7-bmp6 2025

  12. [12]

    Wang, Y .-G

    R. Wang, Y .-G. Ma, R. Wada, L.-W. Chen, W.-B. He, H.-L. Liu, K.-J. Sun, Nuclear liquid-gas phase transition with machine learning, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 043202. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043202. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.043202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043202 2020

  13. [13]

    R. Y . Cheng, K. Godbey, Y . B. Niu, W. B. He, S. M. Wang, Reduced-basis method for few-body bound-state emula- tion, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2025) 064315. URL:https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/4ccs-66c6. doi:10. 1103/4ccs-66c6

    work page doi:10.1103/4ccs-66c6 2025

  14. [14]

    X. H. Wu, Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, Nuclear energy den- sity functionals from machine learning, Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) L031303. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L031303. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.105.L031303

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.105.l031303 2022

  15. [15]

    Huang, J

    Y . Huang, J. Chen, J. Jia, L.-M. Liu, Y .-G. Ma, C. Zhang, Validation and extrapolation of atomic masses with a physics-informed fully connected neural network, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2025) 034329. URL:https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.111.034329. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.034329

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.111.034329 2025

  16. [16]

    H. Wu, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, X. Deng, X. Cao, D. Fang, W. Ma, W. He, C. Fu, Y . Ma, Machine learning method for 12C event classification and reconstruction in the active target time-projection chamber, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1055 (2023) 168528. doi:10.1016/j.nima. 2023.168528.arXiv:2304.13233

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima 2023

  17. [17]

    W. He, Q. Li, Y . Ma, Z. Niu, J. Pei, Y . Zhang, Machine learning in nuclear physics at low and in- termediate energies, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 (2023) 282001. doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2116-0. arXiv:2301.06396

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2116-0 2023

  18. [18]

    He, Y .-G

    W.-B. He, Y .-G. Ma, L.-G. Pang, H.-C. Song, K. Zhou, High-energy nuclear physics meets machine learn- ing, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34 (2023) 88. doi:10.1007/ s41365-023-01233-z.arXiv:2303.06752

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    D. Liu, A. N. A, Z.-Z. Qin, Y . Lei, Neural net- work study of the nuclear ground-state spin distribu- tion within a random interaction ensemble, Nuclear Science and Techniques 35 (2024) 64. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1007/s41365-024-01424-2. doi:10. 1007/s41365-024-01424-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-024-01424-2 2024

  20. [20]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo, M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural net- works, Science 355 (2017) 602–606. URL: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.aag2302. doi:10.1126/science.aag2302. arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aag2302

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aag2302 2017

  21. [21]

    D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, A. G. D. G. Matthews, W. M. C. Foulkes, Ab initio solution of the many-electron schrödinger equation with deep neural networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) 033429. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033429. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033429

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.033429 2020

  22. [22]

    D. Pfau, S. Axelrod, H. Sutterud, I. von Glehn, J. S. Spencer, Accurate computation of quantum excited states with neural networks, Science 385 (2024) eadn0137. URL:https://www.science.org/ doi/abs/10.1126/science.adn0137. doi:10.1126/ science.adn0137

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adn0137 2024

  23. [23]

    Hermann, Z

    J. Hermann, Z. Schätzle, F. Noé, Deep-neural- network solution of the electronic Schrödinger equa- tion, Nature Chemistry 12 (2020) 891–897. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-020-0544-y. doi:10.1038/s41557-020-0544-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41557-020-0544-y 2020

  24. [24]

    R. Li, H. Ye, D. Jiang, X. Wen, C. Wang, Z. Li, X. Li, D. He, J. Chen, W. Ren, L. Wang, A com- putational framework for neural network-based varia- tional Monte Carlo with Forward Laplacian, Nature Machine Intelligence 6 (2024) 209–219. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00794-x. doi:10. 1038/s42256-024-00794-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00794-x 2024

  25. [25]

    J. Han, L. Zhang, W. E, Solving many-electron schrödinger equation using deep neural networks, Journal of Computational Physics 399 (2019) 108929. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0021999119306345. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108929

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108929 2019

  26. [26]

    M. T. Entwistle, Z. Schätzle, P. A. Erdman, J. Hermann, F. Noé, Electronic excited states in deep variational monte carlo, Nature Communications 14 (2023) 274. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35534-5. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35534-5. 7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35534-5 2023

  27. [27]

    W. A. Wheeler, K. G. Kleiner, L. K. Wagner, En- semble variational monte carlo for optimization of cor- related excited state wave functions, Electronic Struc- ture 6 (2024) 025001. URL:https://doi.org/10. 1088/2516-1075/ad38f8. doi:10.1088/2516-1075/ ad38f8

    work page doi:10.1088/2516-1075/ 2024

  28. [28]

    Z. Li, Z. Lu, R. Li, X. Wen, X. Li, L. Wang, J. Chen, W. Ren, Spin-symmetry-enforced solution of the many- body Schrödinger equation with a deep neural network, Nature Computational Science 4 (2024) 910–919. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-024-00730-4. doi:10.1038/s43588-024-00730-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s43588-024-00730-4 2024

  29. [29]

    Adams, G

    C. Adams, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, N. Rocco, Varia- tional monte carlo calculations ofA≤4 nuclei with an artificial neural-network correlator ansatz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 022502. URL:https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.022502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.022502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.022502 2021

  30. [30]

    Lovato, C

    A. Lovato, C. Adams, G. Carleo, N. Rocco, Hidden- nucleons neural-network quantum states for the nu- clear many-body problem, Phys. Rev. Res. 4 (2022) 043178. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043178. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.4.043178

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043178 2022

  31. [31]

    Gnech, C

    A. Gnech, C. Adams, N. Brawand, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, N. Rocco, Nuclei with up to a=6 nucleons with artificial neural network wave func- tions, Few-Body Systems 63 (2021) 7. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00601-021-01706-0. doi:10. 1007/s00601-021-01706-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00601-021-01706-0 2021

  32. [32]

    Y . L. Yang, P. W. Zhao, Deep-neural-network approach to solving the ab initio nuclear structure problem, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 034320. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.107.034320. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.107.034320

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.034320 2023

  33. [33]

    Gnech, B

    A. Gnech, B. Fore, A. J. Tropiano, A. Lovato, Dis- tilling the essential elements of nuclear binding via neural-network quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 142501. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.142501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.142501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.142501 2024

  34. [34]

    Yang, P.-W

    Y .-L. Yang, P.-W. Zhao, Reconciling light nu- clei and nuclear matter: Relativistic ab ini- tio calculations, Chin. Phys. Lett. 42 (2025) 051201. URL:http://cpl.iphy.ac.cn/en/ article/doi/10.1088/0256-307X/42/5/051201. doi:10.1088/0256-307X/42/5/051201

    work page doi:10.1088/0256-307x/42/5/051201 2025

  35. [35]

    Parnes, N

    E. Parnes, N. Barnea, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, N. Rocco, X. Zhang, Nuclear responses with neural-network quan- tum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (2026) 032501. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/tlqz-nw28. doi:10.1103/tlqz-nw28

    work page doi:10.1103/tlqz-nw28 2026

  36. [36]

    P. Wen, A. Gezerlis, J. W. Holt, Neural quantum states for light nuclei with chiral two- and three-body interac- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (2026) 172502. URL:https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ygkf-llyp. doi:10. 1103/ygkf-llyp

    work page doi:10.1103/ygkf-llyp 2026

  37. [37]

    Y . Yang, E. Epelbaum, C. Ji, P. Zhao, Zemach radii and nuclear structure effects in hyperfine splitting of lithium, 2025. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2509. 01303.arXiv:2509.01303

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Zhang, Y .-L

    Z.-X. Zhang, Y .-L. Yang, W.-B. He, P.-W. Zhao, B.-N. Lu, Y .-G. Ma, Machine learning the single- λhypernuclei with neural-network quantum states, Physics Letters B 874 (2026) 140285. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269326001395. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140285

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140285 2026

  39. [39]

    Di Donna, L

    A. Di Donna, L. Contessi, A. Lovato, F. Pederiva, Hy- pernuclei with neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. Res. 8 (2026) 013160. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/wmxg-cnrg. doi:10.1103/wmxg-cnrg

    work page doi:10.1103/wmxg-cnrg 2026

  40. [40]

    W.-L. Wu, L. Meng, S.-L. Zhu, Deepquark: A deep- neural-network approach to multiquark bound states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (2026) 071901. URL:https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ckpr-s876. doi:10. 1103/ckpr-s876

    work page doi:10.1103/ckpr-s876 2026

  41. [41]

    J. Kim, G. Pescia, B. Fore, J. Nys, G. Carleo, S. Gandolfi, M. Hjorth-Jensen, A. Lovato, Neural- network quantum states for ultra-cold fermi gases, Communications Physics 7 (2024) 148. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1038/s42005-024-01613-w. doi:10. 1038/s42005-024-01613-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-024-01613-w 2024

  42. [42]

    W. T. Lou, H. Sutterud, G. Cassella, W. M. C. Foulkes, J. Knolle, D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, Neural wave functions for superfluids, Phys. Rev. X 14 (2024) 021030. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX. 14.021030. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021030

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx 2024

  43. [43]

    B. Fore, J. M. Kim, G. Carleo, M. Hjorth-Jensen, A. Lovato, M. Piarulli, Dilute neutron star matter from neural-network quantum states, Phys. Rev. Res. 5 (2023) 033062. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.033062. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.5.033062

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033062 2023

  44. [44]

    B. Fore, J. Kim, M. Hjorth-Jensen, A. Lovato, Investigat- ing the crust of neutron stars with neural-network quan- tum states, Communications Physics 8 (2025) 108. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-025-02015-2. doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02015-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02015-2 2025

  45. [45]

    Sorella, L

    S. Sorella, L. Capriotti, Green function monte carlo with stochastic reconfiguration: An effective remedy for the sign problem, Phys. Rev. B 61 (2000) 2599–2612. URL:https://link.aps. 8 org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.2599. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.61.2599

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.61.2599 2000

  46. [46]

    Stokes, J

    J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, G. Carleo, Quan- tum Natural Gradient, Quantum 4 (2020) 269. URL: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-05-25-269. doi:10.22331/q-2020-05-25-269

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-05-25-269 2020

  47. [47]

    Gattobigio, A

    M. Gattobigio, A. Kievsky, M. Viviani, Embedding nu- clear physics inside the unitary-limit window, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 034004. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.034004. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.100.034004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.100.034004 2019

  48. [48]

    R. Vein, P. Dale, Determinants and their applications in mathematical physics, volume 134, Springer, 1999

    1999

  49. [49]

    von Glehn, J

    I. von Glehn, J. S. Spencer, D. Pfau, A self- attention ansatz for ab-initio quantum chemistry,

  50. [50]

    von Glehn, J

    URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.13672. arXiv:2211.13672

    work page arXiv

  51. [51]

    Chen, F.-K

    J.-H. Chen, F.-K. Guo, Y .-G. Ma, C.-P. Shen, Q.-Y . Shou, Q. Shou, Q. Wang, J.-J. Wu, B.-S. Zou, Pro- duction of exotic hadrons in pp and nuclear colli- sions, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 36 (2025) 55. doi:10.1007/ s41365-025-01664-w.arXiv:2411.18257

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Chen, L.-S

    J.-H. Chen, L.-S. Geng, E. Hiyama, Z.-W. Liu, J. Pochodzalla, Perspectives for Hyperon and Hy- pernuclei Physics, Chin. Phys. Lett. 42 (2025) 100101. doi:10.1088/0256-307X/42/10/100101. arXiv:2506.00864

    work page doi:10.1088/0256-307x/42/10/100101 2025

  53. [53]

    Sun, D.-N

    K.-J. Sun, D.-N. Liu, Y .-P. Zheng, J.-H. Chen, C. M. Ko, Y .-G. Ma, Deciphering Hypertriton and Antihyper- triton Spins from Their Global Polarizations in Heavy- Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 022301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.022301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.022301 2025

  54. [54]

    Wang, X.-L

    R.-Q. Wang, X.-L. Hou, Y .-H. Li, J. Song, F.- L. Shao, Production characteristics of light nu- clei, hypertritons, andω-hypernuclei in pb+pb collisions at √sNN =5.02tev, Nuclear Sci- ence and Techniques 36 (2025) 185. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-025-01750-z. doi:10.1007/s41365-025-01750-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-025-01750-z 2025

  55. [55]

    R. H. Dalitz, A. Gal, The formation of, and theγ-radiation from, thep-shell hypernuclei, An- nals of Physics 116 (1978) 167–243. URL:https:// doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(78)90008-8. doi:10. 1016/0003-4916(78)90008-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(78)90008-8 1978

  56. [56]

    Nogga, H

    A. Nogga, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle, The hy- pernuclei 4 ΛHe and 4 ΛH: Challenges for mod- ern hyperon-nucleon forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 172501. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.172501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.172501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.172501 2002

  57. [57]

    A. A. Usmani, F. C. Khanna, Behaviour of theλn andλnn potential strengths in the λ 5he hypernucleus, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 35 (2008) 025105. URL:https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0954-3899/35/2/025105. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/ 35/2/025105

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/ 2008

  58. [59]

    Lonardoni, F

    D. Lonardoni, F. Pederiva, S. Gandolfi, Aux- iliary field diffusion monte carlo study of the hyperon–nucleon interaction inλ-hypernuclei, Nuclear Physics A 914 (2013) 243–247. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0375947412003247. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.12.001, xI International Conference on Hypernuclear and Stra...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.12.001 2013

  59. [60]

    Reconstructing the impact parameter of proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions

    D. Lonardoni, F. Pederiva, S. Gandolfi, Accurate determination of the interaction betweenΛhyperons and nucleons from auxiliary field diffusion monte carlo calculations, Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 014314. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC. 89.014314. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.014314

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc 2014

  60. [61]

    Nemura, Y

    H. Nemura, Y . Suzuki, Y . Fujiwara, C. Nakamoto, Study of lightΛ- andΛΛ-hypernuclei with the stochastic variational method and effectiveΛNpotentials, Progress of Theoretical Physics 103 (1999) 929–958. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 119020525

    1999

  61. [62]

    Schäfer, N

    M. Schäfer, N. Barnea, A. Gal, In-mediumΛ isospin impurity from charge symmetry breaking in the 4 ΛH−4 ΛHe mirror hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C 106 (2022) L031001. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.L031001. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.106.L031001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.106.l031001 2022

  62. [63]

    Contessi, N

    L. Contessi, N. Barnea, A. Gal, Resolving theΛhypernuclear overbinding problem in pi- onless effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 102502. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.102502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.102502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.102502 2018

  63. [64]

    Contessi, M

    L. Contessi, M. Schäfer, N. Barnea, A. Gal, J. Mareš, The onset ofΛΛ-hypernuclear binding, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134893. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019. 134893.arXiv:1905.06775

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019 2019

  64. [65]

    Schäfer, B

    M. Schäfer, B. Bazak, N. Barnea, J. Mareš, Nature of theΛnn(J π =1/2 +,I=1) and 3 ΛH∗(J π =3/2 +,I=0) states, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 025204. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.103.025204.arXiv:2007.10264. 9

    work page arXiv 2021

  65. [66]

    Schäfer, B

    M. Schäfer, B. Bazak, N. Barnea, A. Gal, J. Mareš, Consequences of increased hypertriton binding for s- shellλ-hypernuclear systems, Physical Review C (2021). URL:https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:237364151

    2021

  66. [67]

    Nemura, Y

    H. Nemura, Y . Akaishi, Y . Suzuki, Ab ini- tio approach tos-shell hypernuclei 3 ΛH, 4 ΛH, 4 ΛHe, and 5 ΛHe with aΛn−Σninteraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 142504. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.142504. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.89.142504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.142504 2002

  67. [68]

    Wirth, R

    R. Wirth, R. Roth, Light neutron-rich hypernu- clei from the importance-truncated no-core shell model, Physics Letters B 779 (2018) 336–341. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269318301230. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.021 2018

  68. [69]

    Gazda, T

    D. Gazda, T. Yadanar Htun, C. Forssén, Nuclear physics uncertainties in light hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C 106 (2022) 054001. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.054001. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.106.054001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.106.054001 2022

  69. [70]

    H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, LightΛhypernuclei studied with chiral hyperon- nucleon and hyperon-nucleon-nucleon forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 072502. URL:https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.072502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.072502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.072502 2025

  70. [71]

    H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, H. Kamada, M. Kohno, U. G. Meiß ner, K. Miyagawa, A. Nogga, Benchmark- ingΛNNthree - body forces and first predictions for A=3−5 hypernuclei, The European Physical Journal A 61 (2025) 21. URL:https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01474-5. doi:10.1140/ epja/s10050-024-01474-5

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01474-5 2025

  71. [72]

    X. Li, N. Michel, J. Li, X.-R. Zhou, Gamow shell model description of neutron-rich he hyper- isotopes, Physics Letters B 868 (2025) 139708. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269325004691. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139708

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139708 2025

  72. [73]

    D. K. Frame, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, U.-G. Meissner, Im- purity lattice monte carlo for hypernuclei, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A 56 (2020). URL:https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220496392

    2020

  73. [74]

    Hildenbrand, S

    F. Hildenbrand, S. Elhatisari, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, U.- G. Meißner, Lattice Monte Carlo simulations with two impurity worldlines, The European Physical Journal A 58 (2022) 167. URL:https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00821-8. doi:10.1140/ epja/s10050-022-00821-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00821-8 2022

  74. [75]

    Hildenbrand, S

    F. Hildenbrand, S. Elhatisari, Z. Ren, U. G. Meißner, Towards hypernuclei from nuclear lat- tice effective field theory, The European Phys- ical Journal A 60 (2024) 215. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01427-y. doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01427-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01427-y 2024

  75. [76]

    H. Tong, S. Elhatisari, U.-G. Meißner, Ab initio cal- culation of hyper-neutron matter, Science Bulletin 70 (2025) 825–828. URL:https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S2095927325000210. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.01. 008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.01 2025

  76. [77]

    H. Tong, S. Elhatisari, U.-G. Meißner, Hyper-neutron stars from an ab initio calculation, 2025. URL:https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.14435.arXiv:2502.14435

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [78]

    H. Tong, S. Elhatisari, U.-G. Meißner, Z. Ren, Multi-strangeness matter from ab initio calculations,

  78. [79]

    arXiv:2509.26148

    URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.26148. arXiv:2509.26148

    work page arXiv

  79. [80]

    Neural-network excited states of A= 4nuclei and hypernuclei

    E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, K. Miyazaki, T. Mo- toba,γtransitions inA=7 hypernuclei and a possible derivation of hypernuclear size, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 2351–2360. URL:https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2351. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.59.2351. 10 Supplementary Material for “Neural-network excited states of A= 4nuclei and hypernuclei” Zi-Xiao Zhang, 1...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.59.2351 1999

  80. [81]

    Gattobigio, A

    M. Gattobigio, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Embedding nuclear physics inside the unitary-limit window, Phys. Rev. C100, 034004 (2019)

    2019

Showing first 80 references.