Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 115 references

Learning interactions between Rydberg atoms

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors prove a bijection between spin-spin correlations and interaction parameters in the transverse-field Ising model, and show a graph neural network learns it on small arrays and extrapolates to larger ones.

desk verdict Solid Rydberg-TFIM Hamiltonian learning paper with a correct full-matrix bijection proof, but the componentwise/local-input claims go beyond the proof and need an explicit test. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12019 v2 pith:LH3SL54J submitted 2024-12-16 quant-ph

Olivier Simard , Anna Dawid , Joseph Tindall , Michel Ferrero , Anirvan M. Sengupta , Antoine Georges This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords HamiltonianlearningRydbergatomarraysgraphneuralnetworkstransverse-fieldIsingmodelspin-spincorrelationsbijectiontheoremDMRGextrapolation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the interaction parameters of a Rydberg-atom transverse-field Ising simulator can be read off from measured spin-spin correlations, and that a graph neural network can learn that map on small simulated systems and carry it to larger and differently shaped arrays. The load-bearing theoretical result is a bijection theorem: for fixed nonzero transverse field and fixed detuning, the ground-state correlation functions $c_{i,j}=\langle \hat{S}^z_i \hat{S}^z_j\rangle$ determine the interaction matrix $J_{i,j}$ uniquely, and vice versa. If this is right, local correlation measurements in principle suffice to reconstruct the Hamiltonian, and the remaining imprecision is a statistical estimation problem rather than a fundamental one. The authors demonstrate numerically that a size-invariant GNN trained on $4\times4$ through $6\times6$ arrays extrapolates to $9\times9$ and rectangular shapes with only a small error increase, and that combining $z$- and $x$-basis correlators from about 10,000 projective snapshots keeps average distance errors near 10%.

What carries the argument

The theorem is the central object. It generalizes the Hohenberg-Kohn bijection between density and potential, and the Henderson uniqueness theorem for pair correlations, to the Ising interaction matrix. Its proof rests on a lemma: with $\Omega\neq0$ the TFIM ground state is unique and has nonvanishing amplitude on every classical spin configuration, so that any supposed equality of two different interaction matrices would have to hold on an overcomplete set of $2^N$ equations; summing over configurations forces the couplings to coincide. The GNN machinery that carries this into practice is a graph neural network with PNA layers and shared task networks that predict a distance from pairs of node embeddings and edge correlators, making the architecture invariant to system size.

What would settle it

Train the same GNN on the same $4\times4$, $5\times5$, and $6\times6$ exact data and test it on a Rydberg array whose true atomic positions are independently calibrated by a different method; if predicted nearest-neighbor distances deviate by more than the claimed roughly 10% at 10,000 snapshots, the transferability claim would be refuted. A more direct test of the theorem: prepare two different disorder configurations whose estimated correlators agree within shot noise, and show that the bijection-based inversion assigns them the same interactions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the Hohenberg-Kohn-Henderson theorem for the transverse-field Ising model: for the Hamiltonian $\hat H = \Omega\sum_i \hat\sigma^x_i + \delta\sum_i \hat\sigma^z_i + \sum_{i<j} J_{i,j}\hat\sigma^z_i\hat\sigma^z_j$ with fixed $\Omega\neq0$ and fixed $\delta$, there is a bijection between the set of $J$-representable correlation functions $c_{i,j}=\langle \hat S^z_i \hat S^z_j\rangle$ and the interaction parameters $J_{i,j}$. The proof uses stoquasticity and irreducibility to show the ground state is unique and has nonzero amplitude on every $\hat\sigma^z$ basis configuration, then applies the variational principle to rule out two different $J$ matrices sharing the same correlators. On the machine-learning side, the claim is that a principal-neighborhood-aggregation graph neural network, with size-independent task networks, learns the local map from magnetization and nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor correlators to atomic distances on small DMRG-generated ground states and extrapolates to larger and rectangular arrays.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme assumes that the correlations measured in the experiment are exactly the ground-state correlations of a transverse-field Ising model at the same fixed field and detuning used in training, and that what the network learns on small arrays still holds on larger and rectangular ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With exact correlators, measuring only nearest-neighbor spin correlations should uniquely determine all nearest-neighbor couplings, hence the relative atomic distances.
  • A GNN trained on small square arrays extrapolates to larger square and rectangular arrays, so training data can be generated classically at small sizes and applied to experimental systems beyond DMRG's reach.
  • With snapshot data, combining $z$- and $x$-basis correlators from roughly 10,000 projective measurements brings mean absolute errors on distances near 10%.
  • Graph preprocessing gives an advantage over a direct multi-layer perceptron, especially where edge effects matter.
  • Including more system sizes and staying near the quantum critical region in the $\Omega$ history improves extrapolation and prediction error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bijection holds beyond the TFIM as the authors conjecture, the same correlator-to-coupling inversion could be used for other stoquastic or irreducible Hamiltonians, turning Hamiltonian learning into a regression on local observables.
  • A practical consequence the paper leaves implicit: the learned map could be run in reverse as a diagnostic of optical-tweezer positioning error, and the same snapshot budget could be allocated adaptively across $\Omega$ values near criticality to reduce uncertainty.
  • A testable extension would be to add disorder in $\Omega$ or $\delta$ and check whether the GNN can separate homogeneous-field errors from positional disorder, which the current protocol does not distinguish.
  • The near-critical $\Omega$ sweet spot suggests active-learning strategies: choose measurement fields where correlator variance is largest rather than using a fixed history.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a graph neural network (GNN) approach to learning the interaction parameters of a transverse-field Ising model (TFIM) realized by Rydberg atom arrays. The GNN is trained on DMRG-generated observables — local magnetizations and nearest-neighbor/next-nearest-neighbor spin correlators — for small square arrays (4x4 to 6x6) and is reported to extrapolate to larger and rectangular arrays up to 9x9 with small prediction errors. The authors also prove a theorem in Appendix A establishing a bijection between the full set of two-point ground-state correlation functions and the interaction matrix for fixed nonzero transverse field and fixed detuning. The manuscript claims that this theorem provides a theoretical foundation for the learning algorithm and, in particular, that nearest-neighbor correlation functions suffice to determine nearest-neighbor couplings and atomic displacements. A companion numerical study examines training scenarios, snapshot-size effects, comparison with a multilayer perceptron, and the scaling of errors with the number of projective measurements.

Significance. If the claims held as stated, this would be a significant contribution: it would provide a scalable and fast Hamiltonian-learning protocol for Rydberg simulators, with a concrete path toward feedback control of optical tweezers. The numerical work is extensive and carefully executed, and the authors make the data and code available on Zenodo and GitHub, which is a clear strength. The full-matrix bijection theorem is a genuine formal result and is proved by a coherent Perron-Frobenius/variational argument. However, the paper's central theoretical justification overreaches: the theorem does not support the componentwise or NN-only uniqueness claims used to motivate the GNN's local input representation. The practical transferability across system sizes is demonstrated empirically but is not proven; the authors partly acknowledge this in the conclusions, but the abstract and Sec. II B present the theorem as a stronger foundation than it is. With appropriate reframing, the numerical study and the full-matrix theorem remain valuable, but the current form needs substantial revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [II B and Appendix A] The theorem in Appendix A proves that the map from the full interaction matrix J to the full matrix of two-point correlators c (all pairs i<j) is injective for fixed Omega != 0 and fixed delta. The manuscript repeatedly makes stronger componentwise statements, e.g., "any two-body correlation function ci,j ... is uniquely mapped to a corresponding Hamiltonian interaction term Ji,j" and "NN correlation functions suffice to uniquely determine NN couplings" (Sec. II B, restated in the first paragraph of Appendix A). These do not follow from the theorem: injectivity of the full-matrix map does not imply injectivity of a coordinate projection, and two different interaction matrices with identical NN/NNN correlators but different NN couplings are not excluded. Since the GNN input (Sec. II C 2) consists of local magnetizations and NN/NNN correlators across an Omega-history, not the full c matrix, the theorem does not guarantee single-valuedness of the map the GNN learns. The numerical results on the sampled disorder distribution are evidence but do not rule out collisions. Please either prove the restricted injectivity (or provide a citation that does) or weaken the theoretical claims to match what the theorem actually establishes.
  2. [III C and Appendix A] The bijection theorem is conditional on the correlation matrix being exactly J-representable, i.e., the exact ground-state correlator of a TFIM at fixed Omega and delta. In the snapshot protocol that the paper targets, correlation functions are estimated from finitely many projective measurements and are generically not exactly J-representable. The theorem therefore does not strictly apply to the experimental scenario, and the sentence in Sec. II B that "This result serves as a theoretical foundation for reconstructing Hamiltonians from experimentally measured correlation functions" overstates the proof's reach. The snapshot results should be explicitly framed as an empirical robustness study whose relationship to the theorem is heuristic, not a direct consequence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II C 4] References to "Sec. A" should be to "Appendix A" (two occurrences).
  2. [Eq. (4)] The Hadamard operator H_Hd should be defined explicitly as a tensor product of single-site Hadamard gates; the current wording "the involutive Hadamard operator defined in the Z-basis" is ambiguous.
  3. [Data availability] The heading appears as "DA T A A V AILABILITY", which is a typographical error.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The phrase "neural network correlations" should likely be "neural-network correlators" or "spin-spin correlations".
  5. [Abstract] The sentence "We prove a theorem establishing a bijective correspondence between the correlation functions and the interaction parameters" should specify "the full set of two-point correlation functions" to avoid implying a componentwise bijection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation loop: the TFIM bijection theorem is proved independently, and the GNN extrapolation is a genuine supervised generalization test rather than a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. Appendix A proves, for fixed nonzero Omega and fixed delta, a bijection between the full J-representable correlation matrix c_{i,j} and the interaction matrix J_{i,j}; the proof uses Perron-Frobenius, the variational principle, and an explicit reducio ad absurdum, and it nowhere assumes the GNN or its outputs. The GNN is trained on DMRG-generated local magnetizations and NN/NNN correlators (Sec. II C 2) and predicts relative displacements; test data are generated by the same model but at larger and rectangular sizes outside the training distribution, so the reported extrapolation is a genuine test of generalization, not a parameter fitted to the tested data. Two non-circular caveats should be recorded. First, Sec. II B overreads the theorem when it claims 'any two-body correlation function ... is uniquely mapped to a corresponding Hamiltonian interaction term' and that 'NN correlation functions suffice to uniquely determine NN couplings': injectivity of the full-matrix map does not imply injectivity of the NN/NNN coordinate projection, so the theorem does not by itself guarantee the componentwise map the GNN learns. This is a logical overreach or correctness risk, not a circular step. Second, one sentence in Sec. II C 4 says 'the GNN edge-feature space is made of copies of the exchange interactions Ji,j,' which, if taken literally, would make the prediction reduce to inverting J = C6/R^6; however, Sec. II C 2 and all training-scenario descriptions define the edge features as spin-spin correlation functions chi, and the MLP comparison confirms the network inputs are correlators, so this is a textual inconsistency rather than a construction-level circularity. The snapshot protocol's finite-sample correlators are not exactly J-representable, so the theorem does not strictly apply there; again this is a validity gap, not a derivation loop. The only self-citation touching the argument is Ref. [97] (Georges among the authors) noting that neural networks can learn Hohenberg-Kohn maps; it is motivational and not load-bearing. Overall, no step reduces by definition to its own input, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem is self-contained given stoquasticity and J-representability; the ML results depend on DMRG-generated datasets, the chosen Omega-history, disorder range, and a learned GNN map. No new physical entities are postulated. The main burden is that the empirical validation is entirely in-house, using DMRG data, so transfer to experiment is unverified.

free parameters (4)
  • GNN trainable weights (theta, theta-prime, theta-double-prime) = not enumerated; optimized via AdamW over 550 epochs
    The predictive map from correlators to distances is learned, not derived; every numerical result depends on this fit. The total parameter count is not reported.
  • Transverse-field history Omega-vector = 10 values from -100 to 100 rad/µs in steps of 200/9 rad/µs
    Chosen by hand to span both phases of the phase diagram; performance depends strongly on this choice, with a sweet spot near Omega approximately equal to J.
  • Disorder range Delta-S = uniform in [-0.1, 0.1] µm per atom
    The training and test distributions assume this range of optical tweezer position errors; it is not fit to experimental data.
  • Nominal nearest-neighbor spacing a = 10 µm
    Sets the interaction scale J approximately equal to 10 rad/µs; chosen to match experimental setups, not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption J-representability: the measured two-point correlation matrix is assumed to come from some interaction matrix J.
    Needed for the bijection theorem in Appendix A; finite-snapshot estimates are not exactly J-representable, so the theorem does not strictly apply to the snapshot protocol.
  • domain assumption Fixed nonzero transverse field Omega and fixed detuning delta (delta = 0 in the numerics).
    The theorem is restricted to fixed Omega nonzero and fixed delta; the GNN is trained and tested only at delta = 0, so different detuning regimes are not covered.
  • domain assumption DMRG ground states approximate the true ground states within the stated truncation errors.
    All labels and input correlators come from DMRG (Appendix E), so the learned mapping inherits DMRG convergence errors.
  • domain assumption The interaction is exactly C6/R^6 with known C6 and no additional Hamiltonian terms.
    The target distances are inferred through this functional form; unmodeled interactions or corrections would bias the inference.
  • domain assumption Disorder realizations in the test set are drawn from the same uniform distribution as the training set.
    Extrapolation claims are only for this distribution; no experimental data tests distribution shift.
  • domain assumption The local relationship between correlators and distances is approximately transferable across system sizes and shapes.
    The scalability claim in Sec III B 1 assumes small-cluster training generalizes; physically motivated by 1/R^6 locality but not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning interactions between Rydberg atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LH3SL54J

@misc{pith2026241212019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning interactions between Rydberg atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LH3SL54J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12019}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum simulators have the potential to solve quantum many-body problems that are beyond the reach of classical computers, especially when they feature long-range entanglement. To fulfill their prospects, quantum simulators must be fully controllable, allowing for precise tuning of the microscopic physical parameters that define their implementation. We consider Rydberg-atom arrays, a promising platform for quantum simulations. Experimental control of such arrays is limited by the imprecision on the optical tweezers positions when assembling the array, hence introducing uncertainties in the simulated Hamiltonian. In this work, we introduce a scalable approach to Hamiltonian learning using graph neural networks (GNNs). We employ the Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG) to generate ground-state snapshots of the transverse field Ising model realized by the array, for many realizations of the Hamiltonian parameters. Correlation functions reconstructed from these snapshots serve as input data to carry out the training. We demonstrate that our GNN model has a remarkable capacity to extrapolate beyond its training domain, both regarding the size and the shape of the system, yielding an accurate determination of the Hamiltonian parameters with a minimal set of measurements. We prove a theorem establishing a bijective correspondence between the correlation functions and the interaction parameters in the Hamiltonian, which provides a theoretical foundation to our learning algorithm. Our work could open the road to feedback control of the positions of the optical tweezers, hence providing a decisive improvement of analog quantum simulators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12019 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ). Interestingly, adding another task network spe￾cializing in predicting NNN distances worsened the GNN performance compared to using the same task network for predicting NN and NNN distances. Appendix D: Details on the numerical implementation and hyperparameters us…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Graph neural network A GNN is a neural network architecture that processes data represented as a graph [79]. This architecture is es- pecially attractive for tackling physical problems as the GNN processes the data in a physics-inspired way, emu- lating interactions between nodes in a graph. Moreover, the GNN layer is invariant to the input size and has m...

  2. [2]

    Physical inputs The input layer to the GNN is fed with samples built in the following way. On the one hand, the node features consist of local magnetization expectations Mi = ⟨ˆσz i ⟩0;⃗Ω, with ˆσz i the Pauli diagonal operator at site i (in the Z- basis), for a sequence of transverse field ⃗Ω [85]. On the other hand, the edge features consist of NN spin-...

  3. [3]

    Schemes to estimate correlation functions All the physical observables considered, namely the magnetization and spin-spin correlation functions, are computed using DMRG [68, 69]. There are two dis- tinct ways to evaluate observables from a converged Ma- trix Product State (MPS) wavefunction obtained via DMRG: exactly via direct contraction of the tensor n...

  4. [4]

    These train- ing scenarios are listed in Table I and described in the following, in order

    Training scenarios We have devised several training scenarios in this work to compare different types of input data and architec- tures and select the best learning procedure. These train- ing scenarios are listed in Table I and described in the following, in order. To start with, i) the local magne- tization ⟨ˆσz i ⟩0;⃗Ω, piled up across ⃗Ω, is inputted ...

  5. [5]

    II C 4, Table I, we use three main metrics to eval- uate performance

    Metrics While investigating the scenarios listed above in Sec. II C 4, Table I, we use three main metrics to eval- uate performance. Throughout this work, the figure lay- out orders the metrics from top to bottom. Hence, we first plot in figures the coefficient of determination R2, defined as R2 = 1 − P i(yi − ˆyi)2 P i(yi − ¯yi)2 , (5) which qualifies th...

  6. [6]

    4 the indicative metrics for all training scenarios covered in Sec

    GNN scalability and comparison between training scenarios We illustrate in Fig. 4 the indicative metrics for all training scenarios covered in Sec. II C (see Table. I), fol- lowing through the figure layout described in Sec. II C 5. The error bars show the standard error on the GNN met- ric results based on a set of five independently trained GNNs within ...

  7. [7]

    4, we only considered cases where histories of Ω are used to en- rich both the edge and node features in the graphs

    Effect of ⃗Ω-histories In the training scenarios covered in Fig. 4, we only considered cases where histories of Ω are used to en- rich both the edge and node features in the graphs. Of course, one can wonder what happens if one selects solely one value of Ω and if some Ω’s have higher information content for the Hamiltonian learning task than the oth- ers...

  8. [8]

    Additional studies We also study the GNN extrapolation dependence on the physical system sizes included in the training dataset. In Appendix B, we show that unsurprisingly the GNN trained on a training dataset including a larger variety of system sizes performs and extrapolates better than when trained on smaller physical systems. Surprisingly, the smalle...

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    III, are compared against each other in Fig

    Comparison between best training scenarios The two best cases computed using Z-observable mea- surements, presented in Sec. III, are compared against each other in Fig. 7, namely the cases #3 and #5 (see Table I). Furthermore, since when dealing with snapshots to estimate corr...

  2. [10]

    8, we compare the predictive errors and scaling of the GNN (full lines) and a simple MLP of the same architecture as the GNN’s task network (dashed lines)

    Comparison between the GNN and the MLP performance In Fig. 8, we compare the predictive errors and scaling of the GNN (full lines) and a simple MLP of the same architecture as the GNN’s task network (dashed lines). The same MLP is trained to predict an NN distance be- tween a ...

  3. [11]

    9 the standard de- viation of the difference between the network predictions and targets for various snapshot sample sizes ( Nsmpl) for all cluster sizes (solid curves)

    Snapshot size effect To check if the GNN performance on snapshot data correlates with the dataset size according to the cen- tral limit theorem, we plot in Fig. 9 the standard de- viation of the difference between the network predictions and targets for various snapshot sample...

  4. [12]

    L. W. Cheuk, M. A. Nichols, M. Okan, T. Gers- dorf, V. V. Ramasesh, W. S. Bakr, T. Lompe, and M. W. Zwierlein, Quantum-gas microscope for fermionic atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 193001 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases , Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Lamata, A

    L. Lamata, A. Parra-Rodriguez, M. Sanz, and E. Solano, Digital-analog quantum simulations with su- perconducting circuits, Adv. Phys.: X 3, 1457981 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Tomza, K

    M. Tomza, K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, Z. Idziaszek, and P. S. Julienne, Cold hybrid ion-atom systems , Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035001 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play , Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms , Nat. Phys. 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin sys- tems with trapped ions , Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021). 14

    2021

  11. [19]

    M. A. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Condensed Matter Theory of Dipolar Quantum Gases , Chem. Rev. 112, 5012 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays , Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice , Nature 462, 74–77 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic Mott insulator , Nature 467, 68–72 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Nandy, M

    S. Nandy, M. Schmitt, M. Bukov, and Z. Lenarˇ ciˇ c,Re- constructing effective Hamiltonians from nonequilibrium thermal and prethermal steady states , Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023160 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Haller, J

    E. Haller, J. Hudson, A. Kelly, D. A. Cotta, B. Peaude- cerf, G. D. Bruce, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom imaging of fermions in a quantum-gas microscope , Nat. Phys. 11, 738–742 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms , Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    DeMille, Quantum Computation with Trapped Polar Molecules, Phys

    D. DeMille, Quantum Computation with Trapped Polar Molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 067901 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and computing with Rydberg-interacting qubits , A VS Quan- tum Sci. 3, 023501 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks , Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Bongs, M

    K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. Vovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Con- don, E. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich, and A. Roura, Taking atom interferometric quantum sen- sors from the laboratory to real-world applications , Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 731 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Eisert, D

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum cer- tification and benchmarking, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 382–390 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Carrasco, A

    J. Carrasco, A. Elben, C. Kokail, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives of Quantum Verification, PRX Quantum 2, 010102 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Qi and D

    X.-L. Qi and D. Ranard, Determining a local Hamilto- nian from a single eigenstate , Quantum 3, 159 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Bairey, I

    E. Bairey, I. Arad, and N. H. Lindner, Learning a Local Hamiltonian from Local Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 020504 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Bairey, C

    E. Bairey, C. Guo, D. Poletti, N. H. Lindner, and I. Arad, Learning the dynamics of open quantum sys- tems from their steady states , New J. Phys. 22, 032001 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Kokail, B

    C. Kokail, B. Sundar, T. V. Zache, A. Elben, B. Vermer- sch, M. Dalmonte, R. van Bijnen, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum Variational Learning of the Entanglement Hamil- tonian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 170501 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Z. Li, L. Zou, and T. H. Hsieh, Hamiltonian Tomogra- phy via Quantum Quench , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 160502 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Olsacher, T

    T. Olsacher, T. Kraft, C. Kokail, B. Kraus, and P. Zoller, Hamiltonian and Liouvillian learning in weakly-dissipative quantum many-body systems , Quan- tum Sci. Technol. 10, 015065 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Wang, D.-L

    S.-T. Wang, D.-L. Deng, and L.-M. Duan, Hamilto- nian tomography for quantum many-body systems with arbitrary couplings, New J. Phys. 17, 093017 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    T. J. Evans, R. Harper, and S. T. Flam- mia, Scalable Bayesian Hamiltonian learning (2019), arXiv:1912.07636 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Landa, D

    H. Landa, D. Meirom, N. Kanazawa, M. Fitzpatrick, and C. J. Wood, Experimental Bayesian estimation of quantum state preparation, measurement, and gate er- rors in multiqubit devices , Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013199 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Wiebe, C

    N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Hamiltonian Learning and Certification Using Quantum Resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190501 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gentile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. O’Brien, J. G. Rarity, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Experimental quantum Hamiltonian learning , Nat. Phys. 13, 551–555 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Wilde, A

    F. Wilde, A. Kshetrimayum, I. Roth, D. Hangleiter, R. Sweke, and J. Eisert, Scalably learning quantum many-body Hamiltonians from dynamical data (2022), arXiv:2209.14328 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Heightman, E

    T. Heightman, E. Jiang, and A. Ac ´ ın, Solv- ing The Quantum Many-Body Hamiltonian Learning Problem with Neural Differential Equations (2024), arXiv:2408.08639 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Stilck Fran¸ ca, L

    D. Stilck Fran¸ ca, L. A. Markovich, V. V. Dobrovitski, A. H. Werner, and J. Borregaard, Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit Hamiltonians , Nat. Comm. 15, 311 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    A. Gu, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Practical Hamiltonian learning with unitary dynamics and Gibbs states , Nat. Comm. 15, 312 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    K¨ aming, A

    N. K¨ aming, A. Dawid, K. Kottmann, M. Lewenstein, K. Sengstock, A. Dauphin, and C. Weitenberg, Un- supervised machine learning of topological phase transi- tions from experimental data , Mach. Learn.: Sci. Tech- nol. 2, 035037 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Gebhart, R

    V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, E. M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezz` e, and C. Bonato, Learning quantum systems , Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 141 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Dawid, J

    A. Dawid, J. Arnold, B. Requena, A. Gresch, M. P lodzie´ n, K. Donatella, K. A. Nicoli, P. Stornati, R. Koch, M. B¨ uttner, R. Oku la, G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, R. A. Vargas-Hern´ andez, A. Cervera-Lierta, J. Carrasquilla, V. Dunjko, M. Gabri´ e, P. Huembeli, E. van Nieuwen- burg, F. Vi...

    2025

  43. [51]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, J. Carrasquilla, M. Troyer, R. Melko, and G. Carleo, Neural-network quantum state tomography, Nat. Phys. 14, 447 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Carrasquilla, G

    J. Carrasquilla, G. Torlai, and R. G. Melko, Recon- structing quantum states with generative models , Nat. 15 Mach. Intell. 1, 155 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Torlai, B

    G. Torlai, B. Timar, E. P. Van Nieuwenburg, H. Levine, A. Omran, A. Keesling, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. D. Lukin, R. G. Melko, and M. Endres, Integrating Neural Networks with a Quantum Simula- tor for State Reconstruction , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 19 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Ahmed, C

    S. Ahmed, C. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz, F. Nori, and A. F. Kockum, Quantum State Tomography with Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 140502 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Lange, M

    H. Lange, M. Kebriˇ c, M. Buser, U. Schollw¨ ock, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Adaptive Quantum State Tomography with Active Learning , Quantum 7, 1129 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Z. An, J. Wu, M. Yang, D. L. Zhou, and B. Zeng, Uni- fied quantum state tomography and Hamiltonian learn- ing: A language-translation-like approach for quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 014037 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, Y.-H. Liu, and S. D. Huber, Learning phase transitions by confusion , Nat. Phys. 13, 435–439 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Liu and E

    Y.-H. Liu and E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg,Discriminative Cooperative Networks for Detecting Phase Transitions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 176401 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Greplova, A

    E. Greplova, A. Valenti, G. Boschung, F. Sch¨ afer, N. L¨ orch, and S. D. Huber,Unsupervised identification of topological phase transitions using predictive models , New J. Phys. 22, 045003 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Morita, R

    S. Morita, R. Kaneko, and M. Imada, Quantum Spin Liquid in Spin 1/2 J1–J2 Heisenberg Model on Square Lattice: Many-Variable Variational Monte Carlo Study Combined with Quantum-Number Projections , J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84, 024720 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Patel, E

    Z. Patel, E. Merali, and S. J. Wetzel, Unsupervised learning of Rydberg atom array phase diagram with Siamese neural networks , New J. Phys. 24, 113021 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Miles, R

    C. Miles, R. Samajdar, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Pich- ler, S. Sachdev, M. D. Lukin, M. Greiner, K. Q. Wein- berger, and E.-A. Kim, Machine learning discovery of new phases in programmable quantum simulator snap- shots, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013026 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Cybi´ nski, J

    K. Cybi´ nski, J. Enouen, A. Georges, and A. Dawid, Speak so a physicist can understand you! TetrisCNN for detecting phase transitions and order parameters , in Machine Learning and Physical Sciences Workshop at the 38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Neu...

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    T. Xin, S. Lu, N. Cao, G. Anikeeva, D. Lu, J. Li, G. Long, and B. Zeng, Local-measurement-based quan- tum state tomography via neural networks, npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019), arXiv:1807.07445

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Valenti, E

    A. Valenti, E. van Nieuwenburg, S. Huber, and E. Gre- plova, Hamiltonian learning for quantum error correc- tion, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033092 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    L. Che, C. Wei, Y. Huang, D. Zhao, S. Xue, X. Nie, J. Li, D. Lu, and T. Xin, Learning quantum Hamilto- nians from single-qubit measurements , Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023246 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Genois, J

    ´E. Genois, J. A. Gross, A. D. Paolo, N. J. Steven- son, G. Koolstra, A. Hashim, I. Siddiqi, and A. Blais, Quantum-Tailored Machine-Learning Characterization of a Superconducting Qubit , PRX Quantum 2, 040355 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Valenti, G

    A. Valenti, G. Jin, J. L´ eonard, S. D. Huber, and E. Gre- plova, Scalable Hamiltonian learning for large-scale out- of-equilibrium quantum dynamics , Phys. Rev. A 105, 023302 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    R. Koch, D. van Driel, A. Bordin, J. L. Lado, and E. Greplova, Adversarial Hamiltonian learning of quan- tum dots in a minimal Kitaev chain , Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 044081 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Karjalainen, Z

    N. Karjalainen, Z. Lippo, G. Chen, R. Koch, A. O. Fumega, and J. L. Lado, Hamiltonian Inference from Dynamical Excitations in Confined Quantum Magnets , Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024054 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Slagle, Y

    K. Slagle, Y. Liu, D. Aasen, H. Pichler, R. S. K. Mong, X. Chen, M. Endres, and J. Alicea, Quantum spin liq- uids bootstrapped from Ising criticality in Rydberg ar- rays, Phys. Rev. B 106, 115122 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous Electron Gas, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964)

    1964

  65. [73]

    Hu, S.-S

    W.-J. Hu, S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, and D. N. Sheng, Competing spin-liquid states in the spin- 1 2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 92, 140403 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    Wietek and A

    A. Wietek and A. M. L¨ auchli, Chiral spin liquid and quantum criticality in extended S = 1 2 Heisenberg mod- els on the triangular lattice , Phys. Rev. B 95, 035141 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    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 , Nature 534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    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, A. M. L¨ auchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of Rydberg atoms , Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quan- tum computing with neutral atoms , Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Barredo, H

    D. Barredo, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, and C. S. Adams, Coherent Excitation Transfer in a Spin Chain of Three Rydberg Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 113002 (2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    Scholl, H

    P. Scholl, H. J. Williams, G. Bornet, F. Wallner, D. Barredo, L. Henriet, A. Signoles, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, S. Geier, A. Tebben, A. Salzinger, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lahaye, M. Weidem¨ uller, and A. Browaeys, Mi- crowave Engineering of Programmable XXZ Hamilto- nians in Arrays of Rydb...

    2022

  72. [80]

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

    1992

  73. [81]

    S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  74. [82]

    Levy, Electron densities in search of Hamiltonians , Phys

    M. Levy, Electron densities in search of Hamiltonians , Phys. Rev. A 26, 1200 (1982)

    1982

  75. [83]

    Englisch and R

    H. Englisch and R. Englisch, Hohenberg-Kohn theorem and non-V-representable densities , Physica A: Statisti- 16 cal Mechanics and its Applications 121, 253 (1983)

    1983

  76. [84]

    V. T. Tran, L. Lewis, H.-Y. Huang, J. Kofler, R. Kueng, S. Hochreiter, and S. Lehner, Using shadows to learn ground state properties of quantum Hamiltonians , in Machine Learning and Physical Sciences Workshop at the 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Ne...

    2022

  77. [85]

    Garrigue, Hohenberg–Kohn Theorems for Interac- tions, Spin and Temperature , J

    L. Garrigue, Hohenberg–Kohn Theorems for Interac- tions, Spin and Temperature , J. Stat. Phys. 177, 415 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Henderson, A uniqueness theorem for fluid pair cor- relation functions, Phys

    R. Henderson, A uniqueness theorem for fluid pair cor- relation functions, Phys. Lett. A 49, 197 (1974)

    1974

  79. [87]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. Divincenzo, R. Oliveira, and B. M. Terhal, The complexity of stoquastic local Hamiltonian problems, Quantum Inf. Comput. 8, 361 (2008)

    2008

  80. [88]

    Crosson and J

    E. Crosson and J. Bowen, Quantum ground state isoperimetric inequalities for the energy spectrum of lo- cal Hamiltonians (2017), arXiv:1703.10133 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Corso, L

    G. Corso, L. Cavalleri, D. Beaini, P. Li` o, and P. Veliˇ ckovi´ c,Principal Neighbourhood Aggregation for Graph Nets (2020), arXiv:2004.05718 [cs.LG]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization (2019), arXiv:1711.05101 [cs.LG]

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    P. W. Battaglia, J. B. Hamrick, V. Bapst, A. Sanchez- Gonzalez, V. Zambaldi, M. Malinowski, A. Tacchetti, D. Raposo, A. Santoro, R. Faulkner, C. Gulcehre, F. Song, A. Ballard, J. Gilmer, G. Dahl, A. Vaswani, K. Allen, C. Nash, V. Langston, C. Dyer, N. Heess, D. Wierstra, P. Ko...

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Cranmer, A

    M. Cranmer, A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, P. Battaglia, R. Xu, K. Cranmer, D. Spergel, and S. Ho, Discovering sym- bolic models from deep learning with inductive biases , Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2020-December, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.11287

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    (decay of the spin coupling as 1 /R6 i,j). The train- ing input data was the local magnetization, the nearest- neighbor (NN) and next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) corre- lation functions, and the targets were NN and NNN rela- tive distances between atoms in the array, depending on t...

    2024

  86. [94]

    Shlomi, P

    J. Shlomi, P. Battaglia, and J.-R. Vlimant, Graph neural networks in particle physics , Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 2, 021001 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    Cranmer, C

    M. Cranmer, C. Cui, D. B. Fielding, S. Ho, A. Sanchez- Gonzalez, K. Stachenfeld, T. Pfaff, J. Godwin, P. Battaglia, and D. Kochkov, Disentangled sparsity networks for explainable AI , in ICLR Workshop on Sparse Neural Networks , Vol. 7 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    Lemos, N

    P. Lemos, N. Jeffrey, M. Cranmer, S. Ho, and P. Battaglia, Rediscovering orbital mechanics with ma- chine learning , Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 4, 045002 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    V. P. Dwivedi, C. K. Joshi, A. T. Luu, T. Laurent, Y. Bengio, and X. Bresson, Benchmarking Graph Neu- ral Networks (2022), arXiv:2003.00982 [cs.LG]

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Minimally entan- gled typical thermal state algorithms , New J. Phys. 12, 055026 (2010)

    2010

  91. [99]

    A. J. Ferris and G. Vidal, Perfect sampling with unitary tensor networks , Phys. Rev. B 85, 165146 (2012)

    2012

  92. [100]

    Lam, High-dimensional covariance matrix estima- tion, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 12, e1485 (2020)

    C. Lam, High-dimensional covariance matrix estima- tion, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 12, e1485 (2020)

    2020

  93. [101]

    A. M. Sengupta and P. P. Mitra, Distributions of singu- lar values for some random matrices , Phys. Rev. E 60, 3389 (1999)

    1999

  94. [102]

    Laloux, P

    L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, J.-P. Bouchaud, and M. Potters, Noise dressing of financial correlation matrices , Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1467 (1999)

    1999

  95. [103]

    Laloux, P

    L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, M. Potters, and J.-P. Bouchaud, Random matrix theory and financial correlations, Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance 3, 391 (2000)

    2000

  96. [104]

    Ledoit and M

    O. Ledoit and M. Wolf, The power of (non-) linear shrinking: A review and guide to covariance matrix es- timation, J. Financ. Econom. 20, 187 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Buhrman, S

    H. Buhrman, S. Gharibian, Z. Landau, F. L. Gall, N. Schuch, and S. Tamaki, Beating the Natural Grover Bound for Low-Energy Estimation and State Prepara- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 030601 (2025)

    2025

  98. [106]

    A. Dutt, E. Pednault, C. W. Wu, S. Sheldon, J. Smolin, L. Bishop, and I. L. Chuang, Active learning of quantum system Hamiltonians yields query advantage , Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033060 (2023)

    2023

  99. [107]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  100. [108]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Brad- bury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. K¨ opf, E. Yang, Z. De- Vito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, PyTorch: An Imper- ative Style, ...

    2019 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Robledo-Moreno, G

    J. Robledo-Moreno, G. Carleo, and A. Georges, Deep Learning the Hohenberg-Kohn Maps of Density Func- tional Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 076402 (2020)

    2020

  102. [110]

    Perron, Zur theorie der matrices , Math

    O. Perron, Zur theorie der matrices , Math. Ann. 64, 248 (1907)

    1907

  103. [111]

    F. G. Frobenius, ¨Uber Matrizen aus positiven Ele- menten, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1908, 471 (1908)

    1908

  104. [112]

    F. G. Frobenius, ¨Uber Matrizen aus nicht negativen El- ementen, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 26, 456 (1912)

    1912

  105. [113]

    A. W. Sandvik, Stochastic series expansion methods (2019), arXiv:1909.10591 [cond-mat.str-el]. 17 Appendix A: Proof of bijection between interactions and spin-spin correlators In this section of the Appendix, we prove a gen- eral result that provides a theoretical foundation f...

    2019 arXiv

  106. [114]

    the ground state |Ψ⟩ of ˆH is unique,

  107. [115]

    ⟨σ|Ψ⟩ ̸= 0 for all |σ⟩. Proof. First, it is enough to prove the result for Ω < 0, since we can find a unitary transformation U := Q j(iˆσy j ) that changes the sign of Ω and δ but leaves {Jij} intact. Since each iˆσy j locally maps |↑⟩ to − |↓⟩and |↓⟩ to |↑⟩ at the j-th site, ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.