Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Kolmogorov-Arnold Wavefunctions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Kolmogorov-Arnold networks can serve as trial wavefunctions for quantum Monte Carlo that are roughly ten times cheaper to train than multilayer-perceptron ansatze, with a two-body spline term that captures short-range cusps.

desk verdict KAN wavefunctions: solid 1D results and a clever transferable cusp trick, but the 10x efficiency claim rests on an uncontrolled MLP baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02171 v1 pith:BITKMXPE submitted 2025-06-02 nucl-th cond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph

Paulo F. Bedaque , Jacob Cigliano , Hersh Kumar , Srijit Paul , Suryansh Rajawat This is my paper
classification nucl-thcond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph
keywords Kolmogorov-ArnoldnetworksvariationalMonteCarloneuralquantumstatesone-dimensionalbosonsKato'sconditionshort-rangepotentialsharmonictraptransferlearning
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

Kolmogorov-Arnold networks are proposed as a new class of trial wavefunctions for variational quantum Monte Carlo (VMC). The paper argues they represent ground states of one-dimensional trapped bosons accurately while costing roughly ten times fewer floating-point operations per training step than a multilayer-perceptron neural quantum state, at equal sample counts. It also argues that adding a spline function of each interparticle distance builds the short-distance cusp behavior, Kato's condition, directly into the ansatz, so strong short-range potentials do not require very high spline resolution. If these claims hold, VMC simulations of atomic and nuclear systems with short-range interactions become cheaper to run and easier to make accurate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kolmogorov-Arnold network: a representation of a multivariate function as sums of univariate spline functions, grounded in the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem, with quadratic splines used for the line-functions. A bosonic KAN forces the first-layer line-functions to be identical, making the output symmetric under particle exchange. The ansatz is $\psi = e^{-\alpha \sum x_i^2} e^{-\kappa}$, where $\kappa$ is either the KAN alone or the KAN plus the pair-distance cusp spline $\nu(\tanh(c(x_i-x_j)))$, designed so that the two-body factorization $\psi \to \phi(x_1-x_2)\Phi((x_1+x_2)/2,\ldots)$ holds near contact and Kato's condition is satisfied with low-resolution splines. The machinery also includes staged training, gradually increasing the coupling $g$, doubling spline knots when training plateaus, and increasing Monte Carlo sample sizes, plus a reweighting formula that turns delta-function expectation values into computable averages.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison on the same one-dimensional Hamiltonians, optimizing an MLP ansatz with several architectures, activation functions, and learning-rate schedules to the same energy accuracy, and measure total wall-clock time to convergence; if a reasonably tuned MLP matches or beats the KAN cost, the tenfold efficiency claim fails. A second check is to apply the pair-distance cusp ansatz to a two- or three-dimensional system with strong short-range interactions and test whether the energy error stays near the 1% target without retraining the two-body spline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a Kolmogorov-Arnold network whose line-functions are quadratic splines, symmetrized by sharing the first-layer line-functions, is a workable positive bosonic wavefunction ansatz. Tested on $N=2$ through $N=64$ bosons in a one-dimensional harmonic trap with delta-function and linear interactions, the KAN ansatz reproduces known exact energies (the paper notes one corrected solubility condition) and matches the accuracy of a feed-forward MLP ansatz at roughly one-tenth the computational cost per training step. The paper further finds that appending a two-particle spline term $\nu(\tanh(c(x_i-x_j)))$ to the exponent makes the wavefunction satisfy Kato's condition with smooth, low-resolution splines; the same two-body function learned from an $N=2$ calculation works without retraining in the $N=64$ calculation, providing a transfer-learning shortcut that avoids solving the short-distance two-body problem inside each many-body run.

Load-bearing premise

The tenfold cost claim follows the paper's assumption that its particular MLP comparison is representative of other neural-network ansatze and that FLOPs per training step at 10,000 samples is a fair proxy for total time to accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KAN-based wavefunctions should reach roughly 1% accuracy on one-dimensional trapped-boson ground states with training cost about an order of magnitude below comparable MLP ansatze.
  • A cusp spline extracted from a two-body calculation transfers to many-body systems with no additional training, so the short-distance two-body problem does not have to be solved repeatedly.
  • Strong short-range potentials and wavefunction cusps can be represented accurately with low spline resolution, lowering the knot count and Monte Carlo statistics needed near contact.
  • The Kato-condition mechanism is intended to generalize to higher dimensions and to any system with strong short-range potentials, including realistic atomic and nuclear interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the tenfold advantage should be tested as total wall-clock time to a target energy across multiple architectures and tuning schedules, not just FLOPs per step.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same two-body cusp transfer to fermionic systems or to non-positive wavefunctions, where antisymmetry may interfere with the pair-factorization argument.
  • If the transfer-learning property holds in higher dimensions, it points toward a modular neural ansatz in which short-distance correlations are fixed by a two-body solve and only long-distance physics is optimized.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Kolmogorov-Arnold network (KAN) trial wavefunctions for variational quantum Monte Carlo (VMC) simulations of one-dimensional bosonic systems. The ansatz is ψ = exp(-α Σ x_i^2) exp(-κ(x_1,...,x_N)), where κ is a bosonic KAN, and an additional pair-distance spline term (Eq. 10) is proposed to efficiently represent cusps. The authors validate against the exact solution of Eq. 7 for a solvable model and against prior literature for the delta-interaction trap model (Eq. 12) with N = 2 to 64, reporting 1% accuracy. They claim that KANs are roughly ten times cheaper computationally than MLP-based neural quantum states and that the cusp treatment generalizes to higher-dimensional short-range potentials.

Significance. If the efficiency claim and the cusp-transfer method hold, this would be a practically useful contribution to neural-network quantum Monte Carlo, particularly for nuclear and cold-atom systems with strong short-range interactions. The paper has genuine strengths: the energy minimization is a true variational upper bound, the one-dimensional benchmark results are validated against exact and literature values, and the idea of transferring a two-body cusp spline ν(x) from an N = 2 calculation to many-body systems is concrete and falsifiable. The central weaknesses are that the headline computational-efficiency claim rests on an uncontrolled MLP baseline, and the generalization to higher dimensions is asserted without numerical support.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III and Fig. 2] The tenfold-efficiency claim is not supported by the evidence presented. The text reports only FLOPs per training step at 10,000 samples for 'a MLP and a KAN-based ansatz providing similar accuracy', but gives no MLP architecture (depth, width, activation), no hyperparameter search or learning-rate schedule for the MLP, and no number of steps to reach the target accuracy. Figure 2 shows very different sampling protocols: the KAN uses 2,048–32,768 samples per step while the MLP uses 64,000–1,000,000, so the comparison is not matched in sampling budget. Since total time-to-accuracy depends on steps and sample counts as well as per-sample FLOPs, a controlled benchmark is required. Section V's admission that 'it is impossible to define comparison criteria that are objective and useful' creates an internal tension with the abstract's unqualified '10 times cheaper'. I recommend either removing the quantitative claim or adding a matched benchmark with explicit MLP architecture, tuning, and total wall-clock time to the same accuracy.
  2. [§IV] The claim that the cusp treatment 'should be useful every time strong, short-ranged potentials exist, including in higher dimensions' is unsupported. All numerical tests are one-dimensional. The factorization property invoked for the ansatz is stated for x1 → x2 in the one-dimensional case, and the relationship between the fitted spline ν(x) and the actual Kato cusp condition in higher dimensions is not derived. If the authors wish to claim higher-dimensional applicability, they should either provide a proof that the same ν(x) construction satisfies the appropriate higher-dimensional two-body boundary condition or report a proof-of-principle calculation in 2D or 3D.
  3. [§IV, transfer of ν(x)] The claim that 'ν does not have to be trained at all, its value extracted from a N = 2 calculation being sufficient' is central to the transfer-learning advantage, but no quantitative evidence is shown. The text says this 'was verified to high accuracy' without presenting the comparison, error bars, or the actual ν(x) functions. I recommend adding a figure or table that quantifies the accuracy loss (or gain) when the frozen N = 2 ν(x) is used for N = 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64, compared with training ν from scratch.
  4. [§II, Eq. (5)] The representational basis of the method relies on the 'reasonable assumption' that a bosonic KAN is a universal approximator of symmetric functions, which the paper explicitly states is unproven. Since all many-body results use this bosonic KAN, this is a non-trivial gap. I do not consider it grounds for rejection given the empirical validation, but the authors should either provide a proof or cited theorem, or add a test of representation quality on a non-symmetric target symmetric function beyond the specific models studied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The denominator in the energy expression should be ∫ dx |ψ|^2, not ∫ dx ψ^2, and there are stray 'R' characters in the integral notation. Please correct these typos.
  2. [§III, Fig. 2 caption] The caption does not specify the MLP architecture, activation function, number of hidden layers, or the convergence criterion for either curve. Adding these details is important for reproducibility.
  3. [References] References [17] and [23] appear to be the same arXiv preprint; please consolidate or differentiate them.
  4. [§III, unit of cost] The text says 'measured in floating point operations per second (FLOPs)' but FLOPs is a count of operations, not a rate; the rate is FLOPS (floating-point operations per second). Please correct the unit usage.
  5. [Eq. (10)-(11)] The role of the function c(Δx) could be clarified: it is stated that c(Δx) can be subsumed into ν(x), but Eq. (10) uses ν(tanh(c(x_i - x_j))); please state the domain of the spline and how c(Δx) interacts with the tanh scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the variational energies are benchmarked against exact and literature results, the two-body cusp function is an independent auxiliary input, and the efficiency claim, although weakly controlled, is not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central results are variational energy estimates for 1D trapped boson models. These are genuine upper bounds minimized by Monte Carlo, and the comparisons are made against external exact solutions (Eq. 7 for the solvable model, Eq. 8) and independent literature results for the δ-function model (Eq. 12), including N=2 analytic results and N=3 diagonalization data. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted many-body energy to a fitted input. The pair-distance cusp term in Eq. 10 introduces a two-body function ν that is extracted from an N=2 calculation and then transferred to N=64; this is a transfer of an auxiliary two-body quantity, not a fit to the many-body target energy, so it is not a 'prediction' that is forced by construction. The paper itself notes in Section IV that for the solvable model of Eq. 6 the exact ground state is 'entirely determined by the large distance and short distance behaviors already baked in' to the ansatz, and the authors therefore switch to the model of Eq. 12 for their main validation; this self-aware limitation actually supports the non-circular reading. The headline tenfold efficiency claim rests on an uncontrolled comparison of FLOPs per training step with an unreported MLP architecture, and Section V concedes that 'it is impossible to define comparison criteria that are objective and useful.' That is a serious benchmarking weakness, but it is not circularity: the factor of 10 is a reported empirical observation, not a quantity derived from the definition of KANs or from a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Refs. [16] and [26] are used for training protocols, symmetrization, and δ-function sampling techniques; these are methodological tools with independent content, not an unverified uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in to force the paper's conclusions. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on unproven representational assumptions about bosonic KANs, a hand-chosen cusp envelope shape, and many tuned training hyperparameters. No new physical entities, particles, or forces are introduced. The two-body cusp function is calibrated independently on the N=2 problem before being transferred, which keeps the circularity burden low.

free parameters (5)
  • Spline knot values in KAN line functions = Trained via ADAM; not reported in detail
    These are the variational parameters defining the ansatz. The claimed 1 percent accuracy depends on having enough knots (up to roughly 300) in the right places.
  • Gaussian decay parameter alpha = Variational; initialized at 0.5*sqrt(m*omega)
    Eq. 9 adds an explicit Gaussian factor with alpha as a variational parameter. Its role is to keep the wavefunction normalizable during early training and to speed convergence.
  • Two-body cusp spline nu(x) = Extracted from the N=2 problem or two-body Schrodinger equation
    Used in the pair cusp term of Eq. 10. It is calibrated on the two-body problem and then reused for N=64, so it is not fitted to the many-body energy and carries low circularity.
  • Shape parameters of c(Delta x) = c(x) = mg|x| / (1 + (mg x)^4)
    Section IV describes the shape as 'largely arbitrary'. The exponent and coefficient are hand-chosen to give the correct small-distance limit and vanish at large separation.
  • Training hyperparameters = Learning rates 1e-3 to 1e-7; samples 2,048 to 32,768 for KAN and 64,000 to 1,000,000 for MLP
    The staged schedule of g-ramping, knot doubling, sample sizes, and learning rate decay is tuned by experimentation. The tenfold efficiency comparison depends on these choices.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem: any continuous multivariate function can be written as a finite sum of one-dimensional functions.
    Invoked in Section II as motivation for KANs. The authors acknowledge the theorem does not guarantee smooth line functions, which is why they impose quadratic splines and test empirically.
  • domain assumption A bosonic KAN with a shared first layer can approximate any symmetric many-body function.
    Section II states: 'We are unaware of a proof of the reasonable assumption that a bosonic KAN is an universal approximator of any symmetric function.' This unproven representational assumption underlies the whole ansatz.
  • domain assumption Real, positive ground-state wavefunctions can be represented as exp(-kappa) with kappa given by a bosonic KAN.
    Section III says 'we assume that any real, positive bosonic wavefunction can be represented the same way by a bosonic KAN.' Finite knots make the representation approximate, and the paper validates this only empirically.
  • domain assumption Near two-particle contact, the many-body wavefunction factorizes into a two-body function of relative distance times a smoother function of the remaining coordinates.
    Section IV relies on this factorization to justify the pair cusp ansatz and the transfer of nu from N=2 to N=64. For the solvable model the factorization is exact only when the pair is closer than other particles; in general it is a limiting statement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kolmogorov-Arnold Wavefunctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BITKMXPE

@misc{pith2026250602171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kolmogorov-Arnold Wavefunctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BITKMXPE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02171}
}
read the original abstract

This work investigates Kolmogorov-Arnold network-based wavefunction ansatz as viable representations for quantum Monte Carlo simulations. Through systematic analysis of one-dimensional model systems, we evaluate their computational efficiency and representational power against established methods. Our numerical experiments suggest some efficient training methods and we explore how the computational cost scales with desired precision, particle number, and system parameters. Roughly speaking, KANs seem to be 10 times cheaper computationally than other neural network based ansatz. We also introduce a novel approach for handling strong short-range potentials-a persistent challenge for many numerical techniques-which generalizes efficiently to higher-dimensional, physically relevant systems with short-ranged strong potentials common in atomic and nuclear physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Kolmogorov-Arnold network with 3 inputs and 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Typical training process for both KAN and MLP networks. The coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy for model in Eq [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Exact and KAN wave-functions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Training process for the model in Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ground state energy of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Science 355, 602 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aag2302

    doi:10.1126/science.aag2302 2017

  2. [2]

    Hermann, Z

    J. Hermann, Z. Sch¨ atzle, and F. No´ e, Nature Chemistry12, 891–897 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, A. G. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes, Physical review research 2, 033429 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    J. Nys, G. Pescia, A. Sinibaldi, and G. Carleo, Nature Communications 15, 10.1038/s41467-024-53672-w (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53672-w 2024

  5. [5]

    Parnes, N

    E. Parnes, N. Barnea, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, N. Rocco, and X. Zhang, Nuclear responses with neural-network 17 quantum states (2025), arXiv:2504.20195 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Gnech, B

    A. Gnech, B. Fore, A. J. Tropiano, and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 142501 (2024), arXiv:2308.16266 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    J. Kim, G. Pescia, B. Fore, J. Nys, G. Carleo, S. Gandolfi, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and A. Lovato, Commun. Phys. 7, 148 (2024), arXiv:2305.08831 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    M. Rigo, B. Hall, M. Hjorth-Jensen, A. Lovato, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. E 107, 025310 (2023), arXiv:2211.04614 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Lovato, C

    A. Lovato, C. Adams, G. Carleo, and N. Rocco, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043178 (2022), arXiv:2206.10021 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adams, G

    C. Adams, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, and N. Rocco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 022502 (2021), arXiv:2007.14282 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    P. Wen, A. Gezerlis, and J. W. Holt, Neural-Network Correlation Functions for Light Nuclei with Chiral Two- and Three-Body Interactions (2025), arXiv:2505.11442 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. Wang, T. Naito, J. Li, and H. Liang, A neural network approach for two-body systems with spin and isospin degrees of freedom (2024), arXiv:2403.16819 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. W. T. Keeble, M. Drissi, A. Rojo-Franc` as, B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, and A. Rios, Phys. Rev. A108, 063320 (2023), arXiv:2304.04725 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yang and P

    Y. Yang and P. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 107, 034320 (2023), arXiv:2211.13998 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. W. T. Keeble and A. Rios, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135743 (2020), arXiv:1911.13092 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. F. Bedaque, H. Kumar, and A. Sheng, A machine learning approach to trapped many-fermion systems (2024), arXiv:2410.17383 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Hou and D

    Y. Hou and D. Zhang, A comprehensive survey on kolmogorov arnold networks (kan) (2024), arXiv:2407.11075 [cs.LG]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 108, 179 (1956)

    1956

  11. [20]

    V. I. Arnold, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 114, 679 (1957)

    1957

  12. [21]

    Girosi and T

    F. Girosi and T. Poggio, Neural Computation 1, 465 (1989), https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article- pdf/1/4/465/811923/neco.1989.1.4.465.pdf. 18

    1989

  13. [22]

    K ˚ urkov´ a, Neural Computation3, 617 (1991)

    V. K ˚ urkov´ a, Neural Computation3, 617 (1991)

    1991

  14. [23]

    Z. Liu, Y. Wang, S. Vaidya, F. Ruehle, J. Halverson, M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, T. Y. Hou, and M. Tegmark, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.19756 (2024), arXiv:2404.19756 [cs.LG]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    De Boor, A Practical Guide to Splines(Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978) classic comprehensive text on spline theory and applications

    C. De Boor, A Practical Guide to Splines(Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978) classic comprehensive text on spline theory and applications

    1978

  16. [25]

    Dierckx, Curve and Surface Fitting with Splines(Oxford University Press, 1995) text on spline interpolation algorithms

    P. Dierckx, Curve and Surface Fitting with Splines(Oxford University Press, 1995) text on spline interpolation algorithms

    1995

  17. [26]

    P. F. Bedaque, H. Kumar, and A. Sheng, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034004 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    Adams, G

    C. Adams, G. Carleo, A. Lovato, and N. Rocco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 022502 (2021)

    2021

  19. [28]

    M. Beau, S. M. Pittman, G. E. Astrakharchik, and A. del Campo, Exactly-solvable system of one-dimensional trapped bosons with short and long-range interactions (2020), arXiv:2009.03319 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [29]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Saito, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 074002 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.074002

    H. Saito, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 074002 (2018), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.074002

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    Kato, Commun

    T. Kato, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 10, 151 (1957)

    1957

  23. [32]

    M. H. Kalos, Phys. Rev. 128, 1791 (1962)

    1962

  24. [33]

    Busch, B.-G

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rzazewski, and M. Wilkens, Foundations of Physics 28 (1998)

    1998

  25. [34]

    N. L. Harshman, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052122 (2012)

    2012

  26. [35]

    D’Amico and M

    P. D’Amico and M. Rontani, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 47, 065303 (2014)

    2014

  27. [36]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, D. Blume, S. Giorgini, and B. E. Granger, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 37, S205 (2004)

    2004

  28. [37]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, D. Blume, S. Giorgini, and B. E. Granger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 030402 (2004)

    2004

  29. [38]

    Ko´ scik, A

    P. Ko´ scik, A. Kuro´ s, A. Pieprzycki, and T. Sowi´ nski, Scientific Reports 11, 10.1038/s41598-021-92556-7 (2021)

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Brouzos and P

    I. Brouzos and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 045301 (2012)

    2012

  31. [40]

    Wilson, A

    B. Wilson, A. Foerster, C. Kuhn, I. Roditi, and D. Rubeni, Physics Letters A 378, 1065–1070 (2014)

    2014

  32. [41]

    Tonks, Phys

    L. Tonks, Phys. Rev. 50, 955 (1936)

    1936

  33. [42]

    Girardeau, Journal of Mathematical Physics 1, 516 (1960), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/1/6/516/19055341/516 1 online.pdf

    M. Girardeau, Journal of Mathematical Physics 1, 516 (1960), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/1/6/516/19055341/516 1 online.pdf. 19

    1960

  34. [43]

    Bhattacharya, S

    T. Bhattacharya, S. Lawrence, and J.-S. Yoo, Phys. Rev. D 109, L031505 (2024), arXiv:2307.14950 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    P. F. Bedaque and H. Oh, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094519 (2024), arXiv:2312.08228 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.