Machine learning applications in cold atom quantum simulators

Annabelle Bohrdt; Henning Schl\"omer

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 184 references

Machine learning applications in cold atom quantum simulators

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Machine learning is becoming an essential tool across the entire pipeline of cold atom quantum simulation, from preparing states to decoding many-body snapshots.

desk verdict A solid, practical review that names its own limitations; the central 'essential tool' claim runs ahead of the evidence but the paper is genuinely useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08011 v1 pith:4ATR4ENV submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Henning Schlömer , Annabelle Bohrdt This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elquant-ph

keywords machinelearningcoldatomquantumsimulatorsgasmicroscopyprojectivemeasurementsnapshotsphaseclassificationneuralstatetomographyBayesianoptimizationHamiltonian

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 review argues that machine learning has become an essential part of cold atom quantum simulation, not a side technique. It claims that ML is needed on both sides of the experiment: optimizing control procedures such as state preparation and imaging, and analyzing the thousands of projective measurement snapshots that quantum gas microscopes produce. Across the reviewed cases, ML identifies phase transitions and hidden correlations where conventional order parameters fail, and it guides experiments through high-dimensional control landscapes that manual tuning cannot search efficiently. If true, ML is a broadly enabling component for using quantum simulators to attack open problems like the pseudogap and high-temperature superconductivity.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the projective-measurement snapshot: cold atom experiments prepare a many-body state and collapse it into a Fock-basis configuration, yielding thousands of samples of the full quantum state statistics rather than ensemble averages. Machine learning techniques—convolutional and correlator networks, autoencoders, support vector machines, Bayesian optimizers, reinforcement learners, and neural quantum states—are the tools applied to these snapshots and to experimental control. The review's key move is that these tools, especially when made interpretable through physically motivated architectures, can extract non-local and higher-order correlations from snapshot data that conventional order parameters miss.

What would settle it

Take a quantum gas microscope dataset of the doped 2D Fermi-Hubbard model with independently calibrated temperatures and dopings, train a correlator CNN on one half, and apply standard spin- and density-correlation analysis to the other; if the conventional correlators classify the snapshots into the same phases with equal or better accuracy than the CNN at every doping, the review's claim that ML is required to extract hidden order from snapshot data is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that machine learning is becoming an essential tool across the entire pipeline of quantum technologies, with cold atom simulators as the concrete setting. On the data side, ML methods trained or run on shot-by-shot snapshots classify many-body phases, locate phase boundaries without labeled data, uncover non-local order parameters, reconstruct effective Hamiltonians, and perform quantum state tomography through neural quantum states. On the experimental side, Bayesian optimization and reinforcement learning find control protocols for cooling, state preparation, and imaging that beat manual tuning, and unsupervised autoencoders recover single-site occupation maps at high fidelity even when the lattice spacing is below the imaging resolution. The review presents these cases as evidence that ML enables both the operation of quantum simulators and the physical insight extracted from their measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The review's argument depends on cold atom snapshots being genuine samples of the many-body state, largely free of imaging artifacts and detection noise that would make the machine learning successes on snapshot data fail to transfer to real experiments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

ML-based analysis can uncover phases and order parameters in strongly correlated systems that lack known local order parameters, including topological and doped Hubbard regimes.
ML-optimized control can produce condensates and target quantum states substantially faster and with higher fidelity than manually tuned sequences, and can reveal previously unrecognized experimental bottlenecks.
Neural-network state reconstruction makes entanglement measures and full state information accessible from ordinary projective measurements, without customized measurement protocols.
Combining large-scale simulators with ML analysis could test competing theories of the pseudogap and high-temperature superconductivity against experimental snapshots at high precision.
Interpretable ML architectures can turn black-box classifiers into physics probes, extracting the actual correlations behind a phase decision rather than just the decision itself.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if snapshots are genuine samples of the many-body state, generative models trained on them could serve as in silico surrogates of the simulator, letting experimenters test control sequences and analysis pipelines before spending experimental run time.
Editorial inference: the snapshot premise also implies a guardrail, namely that ML phase classifiers should be benchmarked against detector-noise-injected simulations, because the reviewed successes transfer to experiments only if imaging artifacts do not dominate the shot-by-shot statistics.
Editorial inference: a closed-loop experiment that uses ML-based state reconstruction in real time to choose the next control parameter would join the review's two halves—analysis and control—into a single autonomous optimization cycle.
Editorial inference: the review's emphasis on interpretability suggests that the field's next comparative tests should pit interpretable correlator architectures against black-box networks on identical experimental data, measuring whether the physical insight they provide comes at any cost in accuracy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a review, so the punchline is: it's a good one. No new equations or data, but it does something useful—pulls a scattered literature together around practical use cases, organizes it by physical system and task, and is refreshingly honest about where ML methods fail.

What I liked: the structure works. The Ising-model section is a nice pedagogical entry, Table 1 gives a quick map of methods, and the Fermi-Hubbard and Rydberg sections are not just lists—they explain why certain architectures (e.g., correlator-CNNs) help with interpretability. The review flags real limitations: PCA fails for supersolid phases (Sec 2.5), pure-state assumptions bias tomography (Sec 2.7), and imaging reconstruction has roughly 4% site errors under sub-resolution conditions (Sec 3.2). That is more balanced than many surveys.

The soft spot is the Discussion's claim that ML is 'becoming an essential tool.' That is stronger than the evidence presented. Several of the headline results were demonstrated on simulated snapshots, and the review never addresses how imaging noise, detection fidelity, or parity projection would propagate into the ML classifications or clusterings. The review inherits the 'genuine samples' premise from the primary literature without checking it. The stress-test note is right that this is a gap. But I would not call it a fatal one. This is a review, not a methods paper; a full error-propagation analysis is a high bar. Still, the central assertion would be more credible with a paragraph acknowledging that the transfer of ML success from clean simulations to real experiments is still being established.

Self-citations are prominent (Bohrdt et al. 2019, Schlömer et al. 2023, Lange et al. 2025), but these are genuinely important papers in the area, and the review does not derive anything from them in a circular way.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. Experimental groups and new students in the field will get real value from it. I'd cite it for context, and I'd bring it to reading group if the group is thinking about ML for quantum simulation.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This article is a review/perspective on machine learning in cold-atom quantum simulation. Section 2 surveys data-analysis applications, beginning with classical Ising and topological systems, then Rydberg atom arrays, Fermi- and Bose-Hubbard systems, Hamiltonian learning, and neural quantum state tomography. Section 3 covers ML-assisted state preparation and imaging. The authors argue that ML is becoming essential across the quantum-technology pipeline, both for optimizing experimental procedures and for extracting physical insight from projective-measurement snapshots.

Significance. The review is timely, broad, and provides a useful entry point to a fast-moving literature. The descriptions of cited works are generally consistent with the primary literature, and the review acknowledges several important limitations, including the failure of PCA for supersolid phases (Sec. 2.5) and the bias introduced by pure-state assumptions in quantum state tomography (Sec. 2.7). The emphasis on interpretable architectures such as CCNNs, TK-SVM, and TetrisCNN is a genuine strength, as is the organization that separates data analysis from experimental assistance. The value of the survey would be preserved even if the Discussion's strongest language were tempered to match the demonstrated evidence.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 2 (opening) and Sec. 4] The central claim in Sec. 4 that ML is 'an essential tool' for analyzing snapshot data rests on the Sec. 2 premise that projective measurements provide 'genuine samples of the many-body state.' The review never examines how the imaging distortions it itself mentions in Sec. 3.2—finite detection fidelity, atom loss, parity projection, and lattice spacings smaller than the imaging resolution—propagate into the ML-based conclusions. The autoencoder in Sec. 3.2 reports reconstruction fidelities 'exceeding 96%,' i.e., up to roughly 4% site errors, yet the string-vs-spin-liquid classification in Sec. 2.4 (Bohrdt et al. 2019) and the Rydberg phase discovery in Sec. 2.3 (Miles et al. 2023) are presented without a robustness check against a realistic imaging forward model. Several other demonstrations in Secs. 2.1–2.5 use simulated snapshots and therefore require an explicit transferability argument before they can support the 'essential tool' claim. I ask the authors to add a dedicated discussion of how measurement distortions affect the cited ML analyses and what error levels are tolerable, or to soften the claim so that it is matched to the demonstrated evidence.
[Secs. 2 and 4] The review's meta-claim that ML provides 'tangible benefits' is supported in places by comparisons to conventional observables, but not consistently. For example, Sec. 2.1 summarizes many Ising-model demonstrations without stating whether the ML results improve on straightforward magnetization or energy analyses; Sec. 2.2 reports that diffusion maps cluster XY configurations by winding number but does not quantify the advantage over standard vortex diagnostics; Sec. 2.5 explicitly reports a failure of PCA for the supersolid phase, with only a proposal for basis rotations. The Discussion therefore draws a stronger, more universal conclusion than the surveyed evidence justifies. I recommend adding a synthesis that identifies, per application class, where ML is truly enabling (e.g., high-dimensional control optimization or non-local order detection) versus where it reproduces known physics.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 2.1] The phrase 'finize-size analysis' should read 'finite-size analysis.'
[Sec. 2.1] 'transfer leaning' should read 'transfer learning.'
[Sec. 2.2] The sentence 'Data taken from from Carrasquilla and Melko (2017)' contains a duplicated 'from.'
[Sec. 2.3] The abbreviation 'i.p.' in 'i.p. the lattice parameter governed by the blockade radius' should be 'i.e.'
[Sec. 3.2] 'which generally is hard to aquire' contains a typo; 'aquire' should be 'acquire.'
[Sec. 2.3 and Fig. 4] The text mentions 'previously unidentified boundary-ordered and rhombic phases,' while the Fig. 4 caption describes the phases as 'fluctuating striated, boundary-ordered, and highly entangled nematic.' The terminology should be aligned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review makes no derived predictions, and all substantive claims are supported by external primary literature rather than by the authors' own reasoning.

full rationale

This paper is a review, not a derivation. It does not introduce equations whose outputs are fitted inputs, and it does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Each Section 2 survey item reports an externally published result with its own independent benchmark, such as quantum Monte Carlo comparisons (Ch'ng et al. 2017), exact diagonalization checks (Torlai et al. 2018), experimental phase diagrams (Rem et al. 2019), or direct comparisons between experimental snapshots and competing theories (Bohrdt et al. 2019). The self-citations that appear, including Bohrdt et al. (2019), Schlömer et al. (2023), Schlömer and Bohrdt (2023), Lange et al. (2025), Suresh et al. (2025), and Schlömer et al. (2025), are to externally published, peer-reviewed papers with their own data and benchmarks; they are used descriptively, not as a uniqueness theorem or as a justification that forbids alternatives. The Discussion's claim that ML is 'becoming an essential tool' is an interpretive perspective, not a result derived from a self-citation chain. The Section 2 opening premise that cold atom snapshots 'provide genuine samples of the many-body state' is an assumption inherited from the cited experimental literature, but a review transmitting a premise from primary sources is not circular in the sense of Eq. X equaling Eq. Y by construction; no fitted quantity is later presented as a prediction. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the paper depends on the validity of the experimental snapshot paradigm in cold atom quantum simulators, plus the correctness of the many primary sources it summarizes. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (1)

domain assumption Projective measurements of ultracold atom systems yield genuine samples of the many-body state, so that shot-by-shot snapshots encode non-local correlations.
Stated in the opening of Sec 2 as the basis for all snapshot-based ML analyses: 'cold atom experiments offer access to full quantum state statistics on a shot-by-shot basis' and snapshots 'provide genuine samples of the many-body state'. If this assumption fails for a given experimental setup, the reviewed ML successes would not transfer.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine learning applications in cold atom quantum simulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ATR4ENV

@misc{pith2026250908011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine learning applications in cold atom quantum simulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ATR4ENV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08011}
}

read the original abstract

As ultracold atom experiments become highly controlled and scalable quantum simulators, they require sophisticated control over high-dimensional parameter spaces and generate increasingly complex measurement data that need to be analyzed and interpreted efficiently. Machine learning (ML) techniques have been established as versatile tools for addressing these challenges, offering strategies for data interpretation, experimental control, and theoretical modeling. In this review, we provide a perspective on how machine learning is being applied across various aspects of quantum simulation, with a focus on cold atomic systems. Emphasis is placed on practical use cases -- from classifying many-body phases to optimizing experimental protocols and representing quantum states -- highlighting the specific contexts in which different ML approaches prove effective. Rather than presenting algorithmic details, we focus on the physical insights enabled by ML and the kinds of problems in quantum simulation where these methods offer tangible benefits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08011 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Applications of machine learning in quantum simulation experiments. Schematic overview of how machine learning can enhance ultracold atom experiments. On the data analysis side, machine learning methods can help to identify phase transitions, uncover physical structures, and interpret experimental measurements—see Sec. 2. On the experimental side, machine learning can assist in the preparation of quantum many-body … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Applications of machine learning to the classical Ising model. (a) Classification output from supervised training on thermal snapshots using fully connected neural networks. Yellow and blue data correspond to the values of the two output neurons used for classification. Finite-size scaling analysis allows for an estimation of the critical temperature and critical exponents. Data taken from Carrasquilla and Melko (20… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Applications of machine learning in topological models. (a) Classification probabilities for assigning snapshots of the IGT at various inverse temperatures to either the topological (T = 0) or trivial (T = ∞) phase. Supervised training was performed only at zero and infinite temperature. The model identifies a crossover temperature β ∗ consistent with the expected scaling β ∗ ∝ ln L (inset), where L is the system si… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Applications of machine learning in Rydberg atom arrays. (a) Two-stage phase detection scheme applied to experimental snapshots of a Rydberg atom array. Unsupervised clustering first identifies distinct regions (colored clusters), followed by supervised learning to ext…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Applications of machine learning in Fermi-Hubbard models. (a) Learning magnetic phase transitions in the 3D Fermi-Hubbard model at half filling. A 3D CNN is trained on auxiliary spin configurations to predict the N´eel temperature TN . Different colors and markers indi…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Applications of machine learning in Bose-Hubbard models. (a) Identifying the Mott insulator–superfluid transition in an ultracold atom experiment on a triangular lattice with harmonic confinement. A neural network is trained on data deep within the superfluid phase (g…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Machine learning for experimental assistance. (a) Classical phase-space density (PSDc) versus atom number for a manually tuned 3 s protocol and a 575 ms protocol optimized via Bayesian optimization. The BO-optimized protocol enables an efficient production of BECs with…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

184 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

[1]

Williams

Hervé Abdi and Lynne J. Williams. Principal component analysis . WIREs Computational Statistics, 2 0 (4): 0 433--459, 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101. URL https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wics.101

doi:10.1002/wics.101 2010
[2]

Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems

Anurag Anshu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tomotaka Kuwahara, and Mehdi Soleimanifar. Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems . Nature Physics, 17 0 (8): 0 931--935, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0

doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0 2021
[3]

Replacing Neural Networks by Optimal Analytical Predictors for the Detection of Phase Transitions

Julian Arnold and Frank Sch\"afer. Replacing Neural Networks by Optimal Analytical Predictors for the Detection of Phase Transitions . Phys. Rev. X, 12: 0 031044, Sep 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.12.031044. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.12.031044

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.031044 2022
[4]

Julian Arnold, Frank Sch\"afer, Martin Z Z onda, and Axel U. J. Lode. Interpretable and unsupervised phase classification . Phys. Rev. Res., 3: 0 033052, Jul 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033052. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033052

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033052 2021
[5]

Machine learning phase transitions: Connections to the Fisher information , 2023 a

Julian Arnold, Niels Lörch, Flemming Holtorf, and Frank Schäfer. Machine learning phase transitions: Connections to the Fisher information , 2023 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10710

arXiv 2023
[6]

Fast Detection of Phase Transitions with Multi-Task Learning-by-Confusion , 2023 b

Julian Arnold, Frank Schäfer, and Niels Lörch. Fast Detection of Phase Transitions with Multi-Task Learning-by-Confusion , 2023 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09128

arXiv 2023
[7]

Mapping Out Phase Diagrams with Generative Classifiers

Julian Arnold, Frank Sch\"afer, Alan Edelman, and Christoph Bruder. Mapping Out Phase Diagrams with Generative Classifiers . Phys. Rev. Lett., 132: 0 207301, May 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.207301. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.207301

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.207301 2024
[8]

Eyal Bairey, Itai Arad, and Netanel H. Lindner. Learning a Local Hamiltonian from Local Measurements . Phys. Rev. Lett., 122: 0 020504, Jan 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.020504. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.020504

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.020504 2019

Show all 184 references

[9]

Applying machine learning optimization methods to the production of a quantum gas

A J Barker, H Style, K Luksch, S Sunami, D Garrick, F Hill, C J Foot, and E Bentine. Applying machine learning optimization methods to the production of a quantum gas . Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 1 0 (1): 0 015007, 2020. doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ab6432

2020 doi
[10]

An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays

Daniel Barredo, Sylvain de Léséleuc, Vincent Lienhard, Thierry Lahaye, and Antoine Browaeys. An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays . Science, 354 0 (6315): 0 1021--1023, 2016. doi:10.1126/science.aah3778. URL https://www.science.org/d...

2016 doi
[11]

Matthew J. S. Beach, Anna Golubeva, and Roger G. Melko. Machine learning vortices at the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition . Phys. Rev. B, 97: 0 045207, Jan 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.045207. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.045207

2018 doi
[12]

Robust quantum reservoir learning for molecular property prediction

Daniel Beaulieu, Milan Kornja c a, Zoran Krunic, Michael Stivaktakis, Jing Chen, Thomas Ehmer, Sheng-Tao Wang, and Anh Pham. Robust quantum reservoir learning for molecular property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 08 2025. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c00958...

2025 doi
[13]

Bennewitz, Florian Hopfmueller, Bohdan Kulchytskyy, Juan Carrasquilla, and Pooya Ronagh

Elizabeth R. Bennewitz, Florian Hopfmueller, Bohdan Kulchytskyy, Juan Carrasquilla, and Pooya Ronagh. Neural Error Mitigation of Near-Term Quantum Simulations . Nature Machine Intelligence, 4 0 (7): 0 618--624, 2022. doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00509-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/...

2022 doi
[14]

Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti \'c , and Mikhail D

Hannes Bernien, Sylvain Schwartz, Alexander Keesling, Harry Levine, Ahmed Omran, Hannes Pichler, Soonwon Choi, Alexander S. Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti \'c , and Mikhail D. Lukin. Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator . Nature, 551 ...

2017 doi
[15]

Diagnosing quantum transport from wave function snapshots

Devendra Singh Bhakuni, Roberto Verdel, Cristiano Muzzi, Riccardo Andreoni, Monika Aidelsburger, and Marcello Dalmonte. Diagnosing quantum transport from wave function snapshots . Phys. Rev. B, 110: 0 144204, Oct 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.110.144204. URL https://link.aps.org/...

2024 doi
[16]

Bayesian Optimization for Robust State Preparation in Quantum Many-Body Systems

Tizian Blatz, Joyce Kwan, Julian Léonard, and Annabelle Bohrdt. Bayesian Optimization for Robust State Preparation in Quantum Many-Body Systems . Quantum, 8: 0 1388, 2024. doi:10.22331/q-2024-06-27-1388

2024 doi
[17]

Many-body physics with ultracold gases

Immanuel Bloch, Jean Dalibard, and Wilhelm Zwerger. Many-body physics with ultracold gases . Rev. Mod. Phys., 80: 0 885--964, Jul 2008. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.885. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.80.885

2008 doi
[18]

Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases

Immanuel Bloch, Jean Dalibard, and Sylvain Nascimb \`e ne. Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases . Nature Physics, 8 0 (4): 0 267--276, 2012. doi:10.1038/nphys2259. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2259

2012 doi
[19]

Bluvstein, A

D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin. Controlling quantum many-body dynamics in driven Rydberg atom arrays . Science, 371 0 (6536...

2021 doi
[20]

Bohrdt, S

A. Bohrdt, S. Kim, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, M. Knap, M. Greiner, and J. L\'eonard. Analyzing Nonequilibrium Quantum States through Snapshots with Artificial Neural Networks . Phys. Rev. Lett., 127: 0 150504, Oct 2021 a . doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.150504. URL https:...

2021 doi
[21]

Chiu, Geoffrey Ji, Muqing Xu, Daniel Greif, Markus Greiner, Eugene Demler, Fabian Grusdt, and Michael Knap

Annabelle Bohrdt, Christie S. Chiu, Geoffrey Ji, Muqing Xu, Daniel Greif, Markus Greiner, Eugene Demler, Fabian Grusdt, and Michael Knap. Classifying snapshots of the doped Hubbard model with machine learning . Nature Physics, 15 0 (9): 0 921--924, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41567-019...

2019 doi
[22]

Exploration of doped quantum magnets with ultracold atoms

Annabelle Bohrdt, Lukas Homeier, Christian Reinmoser, Eugene Demler, and Fabian Grusdt. Exploration of doped quantum magnets with ultracold atoms . Annals of Physics, 435: 0 168651, 2021 b . ISSN 0003-4916. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2021.168651. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...

2021
[23]

Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Khadijeh Najafi, Xun Gao, and Susanne F. Yelin. Quantum Reservoir Computing Using Arrays of Rydberg Atoms . PRX Quantum, 3: 0 030325, Aug 2022. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.030325. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.030325

2022 doi
[24]

Assaad, and Simon Trebst

Peter Broecker, Fakher F. Assaad, and Simon Trebst. Quantum phase recognition via unsupervised machine learning , 2017 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00663

2017 arXiv
[25]

Melko, and Simon Trebst

Peter Broecker, Juan Carrasquilla, Roger G. Melko, and Simon Trebst. Machine learning quantum phases of matter beyond the fermion sign problem . Scientific Reports, 7 0 (1): 0 8823, 2017 b . doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09098-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09098-0

2017 doi
[26]

Lanyon, Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F

Tiff Brydges, Andreas Elben, Petar Jurcevic, Benoit Vermersch, Christine Maier, Ben P. Lanyon, Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F. Roos. Probing Rényi entanglement entropy via randomized measurements . Science, 364 0 (6437): 0 260--263, 2019. doi:10.1126/science.aau49...

2019 doi
[27]

Marin Bukov, Alexandre G. R. Day, Dries Sels, Phillip Weinberg, Anatoli Polkovnikov, and Pankaj Mehta. Reinforcement Learning in Different Phases of Quantum Control . Physical Review X, 8 0 (3): 0 031086, 2018. doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.031086

2018 doi
[28]

Intrinsic dimension estimation: Advances and open problems

Francesco Camastra and Antonino Staiano. Intrinsic dimension estimation: Advances and open problems . Information Sciences, 328: 0 26--41, 2016. ISSN 0020-0255. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2015.08.029

2016 doi
[29]

Supervised learning in Hamiltonian reconstruction from local measurements on eigenstates

Chenfeng Cao, Shi-Yao Hou, Ningping Cao, and Bei Zeng. Supervised learning in Hamiltonian reconstruction from local measurements on eigenstates . Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 33 0 (6): 0 064002, feb 2020. doi:10.1088/1361-648x/abc4cf. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-...

2020 doi
[30]

Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks

Giuseppe Carleo and Matthias Troyer. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks . Science, 355 0 (6325): 0 602--606, 2017. doi:10.1126/science.aag2302. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aag2302

2017 doi
[31]

Machine learning and the physical sciences

Giuseppe Carleo, Ignacio Cirac, Kyle Cranmer, Laurent Daudet, Maria Schuld, Naftali Tishby, Leslie Vogt-Maranto, and Lenka Zdeborov\'a. Machine learning and the physical sciences . Rev. Mod. Phys., 91: 0 045002, Dec 2019. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.045002. URL https://link.aps....

2019 doi
[32]

Theoretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verification

Jose Carrasco, Andreas Elben, Christian Kokail, Barbara Kraus, and Peter Zoller. Theoretical and experimental perspectives of quantum verification. PRX Quantum, 2: 0 010102, Mar 2021. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010102. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010102

2021 doi
[33]

Machine learning for quantum matter

Juan Carrasquilla. Machine learning for quantum matter . Advances in Physics: X, 5 0 (1): 0 1797528, 01 2020. doi:10.1080/23746149.2020.1797528. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/23746149.2020.1797528

2020
[34]

Juan Carrasquilla and Roger G. Melko. Machine learning phases of matter . Nature Physics, 13 0 (5): 0 431--434, 2017. doi:10.1038/nphys4035. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4035

2017 doi
[35]

How To Use Neural Networks To Investigate Quantum Many-Body Physics

Juan Carrasquilla and Giacomo Torlai. How To Use Neural Networks To Investigate Quantum Many-Body Physics . PRX Quantum, 2: 0 040201, Nov 2021. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040201. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040201

2021 doi
[36]

Carvalho, N

D. Carvalho, N. A. Garcia-Martinez, J. L. Lado, and J. Fernandez-Rossier. Real-space mapping of topological invariants using artificial neural networks . Phys. Rev. B, 97: 0 115453, Mar 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.115453. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.115453

2018 doi
[37]

Casert, T

C. Casert, T. Vieijra, J. Nys, and J. Ryckebusch. Interpretable machine learning for inferring the phase boundaries in a nonequilibrium system . Phys. Rev. E, 99: 0 023304, Feb 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.99.023304. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.99.023304

2019 doi
[38]

Attention-based quantum tomography

Peter Cha, Paul Ginsparg, Felix Wu, Juan Carrasquilla, Peter L McMahon, and Eun-Ah Kim. Attention-based quantum tomography . Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 3 0 (1): 0 01LT01, 2022. doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ac362b. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ac362b

2022 doi
[39]

Recent progress on quantum simulations of non-standard Bose--Hubbard models

Titas Chanda, Luca Barbiero, Maciej Lewenstein, Manfred J Mark, and Jakub Zakrzewski. Recent progress on quantum simulations of non-standard Bose--Hubbard models . Reports on Progress in Physics, 88 0 (4): 0 044501, 2025. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/adc3a7. URL https://dx.doi.org/10...

2025 doi
[40]

Topological quantum phase transitions retrieved through unsupervised machine learning

Yanming Che, Clemens Gneiting, Tao Liu, and Franco Nori. Topological quantum phase transitions retrieved through unsupervised machine learning . Phys. Rev. B, 102: 0 134213, Oct 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.102.134213. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.134213

2020 doi
[41]

Liu, Pascal Scholl, Daniel Barredo, Johannes Hauschild, Shubhayu Chatterjee, Michael Schuler, Andreas M

Cheng Chen, Guillaume Bornet, Marcus Bintz, Gabriel Emperauger, Lucas Leclerc, Vincent S. Liu, Pascal Scholl, Daniel Barredo, Johannes Hauschild, Shubhayu Chatterjee, Michael Schuler, Andreas M. L \"a uchli, Michael P. Zaletel, Thierry Lahaye, Norman Y. Yao, and Antoine Browae...

2023 doi
[42]

Cheuk, Matthew A

Lawrence W. Cheuk, Matthew A. Nichols, Melih Okan, Thomas Gersdorf, Vinay V. Ramasesh, Waseem S. Bakr, Thomas Lompe, and Martin W. Zwierlein. Quantum-Gas Microscope for Fermionic Atoms . Phys. Rev. Lett., 114: 0 193001, May 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.193001. URL https:/...

2015 doi
[43]

Chiu, Geoffrey Ji, Annabelle Bohrdt, Muqing Xu, Michael Knap, Eugene Demler, Fabian Grusdt, Markus Greiner, and Daniel Greif

Christie S. Chiu, Geoffrey Ji, Annabelle Bohrdt, Muqing Xu, Michael Knap, Eugene Demler, Fabian Grusdt, Markus Greiner, and Daniel Greif. String patterns in the doped Hubbard model . Science, 365 0 (6450): 0 251--256, 2019. doi:10.1126/science.aav3587. URL https://www.science....

2019 doi
[44]

Melko, and Ehsan Khatami

Kelvin Ch'ng, Juan Carrasquilla, Roger G. Melko, and Ehsan Khatami. Machine Learning Phases of Strongly Correlated Fermions . Phys. Rev. X, 7: 0 031038, Aug 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.031038. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.031038

2017 doi
[45]

Unsupervised machine learning account of magnetic transitions in the Hubbard model

Kelvin Ch'ng, Nick Vazquez, and Ehsan Khatami. Unsupervised machine learning account of magnetic transitions in the Hubbard model . Phys. Rev. E, 97: 0 013306, Jan 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.97.013306. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.013306

2018 doi
[46]

Machine learning identification of symmetrized base states of Rydberg atoms

Daryl Ryan Chong, Minhyuk Kim, Jaewook Ahn, and Heejeong Jeong. Machine learning identification of symmetrized base states of Rydberg atoms . Frontiers of Physics, 17 0 (1): 0 12504, 2021. doi:10.1007/s11467-021-1099-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11467-021-1099-0

2021 doi
[47]

The Enigma of the Pseudogap Phase of the Cuprate Superconductors , pages 1--43

Debanjan Chowdhury and Subir Sachdev. The Enigma of the Pseudogap Phase of the Cuprate Superconductors , pages 1--43. doi:10.1142/9789814704090_0001. URL https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814704090_0001

doi
[48]

Iris Cong, Soonwon Choi, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum convolutional neural networks . Nature Physics, 15 0 (12): 0 1273--1278, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0648-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0648-8

2019 doi
[49]

N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spielman. Topological bands for ultracold atoms . Rev. Mod. Phys., 91: 0 015005, Mar 2019. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015005. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015005

2019 doi
[50]

Costa, Wenjian Hu, Z

Natanael C. Costa, Wenjian Hu, Z. J. Bai, Richard T. Scalettar, and Rajiv R. P. Singh. Principal component analysis for fermionic critical points . Phys. Rev. B, 96: 0 195138, Nov 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.195138. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.195138

2017 doi
[51]

Speak so a physicist can understand you! TetrisCNN for detecting phase transitions and order parameters , 2024

Kacper Cybiński, James Enouen, Antoine Georges, and Anna Dawid. Speak so a physicist can understand you! TetrisCNN for detecting phase transitions and order parameters , 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02237

2024 arXiv
[52]

Schuyler Moss, Matthew Radzihovsky, Ejaaz Merali, and Roger G

Stefanie Czischek, M. Schuyler Moss, Matthew Radzihovsky, Ejaaz Merali, and Roger G. Melko. Data-enhanced variational Monte Carlo simulations for Rydberg atom arrays . Phys. Rev. B, 105: 0 205108, May 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.105.205108. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/...

2022 doi
[53]

Daley, Immanuel Bloch, Christian Kokail, Stuart Flannigan, Natalie Pearson, Matthias Troyer, and Peter Zoller

Andrew J. Daley, Immanuel Bloch, Christian Kokail, Stuart Flannigan, Natalie Pearson, Matthias Troyer, and Peter Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation. Nature, 607 0 (7920): 0 667--676, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04940-6. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s4158...

2022 doi
[54]

Colloquium: Artificial gauge potentials for neutral atoms

Jean Dalibard, Fabrice Gerbier, Gediminas Juzeli u \= u nas, and Patrik \"Ohberg. Colloquium: Artificial gauge potentials for neutral atoms . Rev. Mod. Phys., 83: 0 1523--1543, Nov 2011. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1523. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1523

2011 doi
[55]

Phase detection with neural networks: interpreting the black box

Anna Dawid, Patrick Huembeli, Michal Tomza, Maciej Lewenstein, and Alexandre Dauphin. Phase detection with neural networks: interpreting the black box . New Journal of Physics, 22 0 (11): 0 115001, 2020. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abc463

2020 doi
[56]

Hessian-based toolbox for reliable and interpretable machine learning in physics

Anna Dawid, Patrick Huembeli, Michał Tomza, Maciej Lewenstein, and Alexandre Dauphin. Hessian-based toolbox for reliable and interpretable machine learning in physics . Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 3 0 (1): 0 015002, 2022. doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ac338d

2022 doi
[57]

Nicoli, Paolo Stornati, Rouven Koch, Miriam Büttner, Robert Okuła, Gorka Muñoz-Gil, Rodrigo A

Anna Dawid, Julian Arnold, Borja Requena, Alexander Gresch, Marcin Płodzień, Kaelan Donatella, Kim A. Nicoli, Paolo Stornati, Rouven Koch, Miriam Büttner, Robert Okuła, Gorka Muñoz-Gil, Rodrigo A. Vargas-Hernández, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Juan Carrasquilla, Vedran Dunjko, Marylou...

2023
[58]

Di Franco, M

C. Di Franco, M. Paternostro, and M. S. Kim. Hamiltonian Tomography in an Access-Limited Setting without State Initialization . Phys. Rev. Lett., 102: 0 187203, May 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.187203. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.187203

2009 doi
[59]

Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T. Wang, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giulia Semeghini, Ahmed Omran, Dolev Bluvstein, Rhine Samajdar, Hannes Pichler, Wen Wei Ho, Soonwon Choi, Subir Sachdev, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti \'c , and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum phases of matter on a 256-at...

2021 doi
[60]

Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in periodically driven optical lattices

Andr\'e Eckardt. Colloquium: Atomic quantum gases in periodically driven optical lattices . Rev. Mod. Phys., 89: 0 011004, Mar 2017. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.89.011004. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.011004

2017 doi
[61]

Mixed-state entanglement from local randomized measurements

Andreas Elben, Richard Kueng, Hsin-Yuan (Robert) Huang, Rick van Bijnen, Christian Kokail, Marcello Dalmonte, Pasquale Calabrese, Barbara Kraus, John Preskill, Peter Zoller, and Benoit Vermersch. Mixed-state entanglement from local randomized measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett., 12...

2020 doi
[62]

Endres, M

M. Endres, M. Cheneau, T. Fukuhara, C. Weitenberg, P. Schauß, C. Gross, L. Mazza, M. C. Bañuls, L. Pollet, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr. Observation of Correlated Particle-Hole Pairs and String Order in Low-Dimensional Mott Insulators . Science, 334 0 (6053): 0 200--203, 2011. doi:10...

2011 doi
[63]

Anschuetz, Alexandre Krajenbrink, Crystal Senko, Vladan Vuletic, Markus Greiner, and Mikhail D

Manuel Endres, Hannes Bernien, Alexander Keesling, Harry Levine, Eric R. Anschuetz, Alexandre Krajenbrink, Crystal Senko, Vladan Vuletic, Markus Greiner, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays . Science, 354 0 (6315): 0 1024...

2016 doi
[64]

Fermi-Hubbard Physics with Atoms in an Optical Lattice

Tilman Esslinger. Fermi-Hubbard Physics with Atoms in an Optical Lattice . Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 1 0 (1): 0 129--152, 2010. doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-070909-104059. URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-070909-104059

2010 doi
[65]

L. M. Falicov and J. C. Kimball. Simple Model for Semiconductor-Metal Transitions: Sm B _ 6 and Transition-Metal Oxides . Phys. Rev. Lett., 22: 0 997--999, May 1969. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.22.997. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.22.997

1969 doi
[66]

Sengupta, and Subir Sachdev

Paul Fendley, K. Sengupta, and Subir Sachdev. Competing density-wave orders in a one-dimensional hard-boson model . Phys. Rev. B, 69: 0 075106, Feb 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.69.075106. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.075106

2004 doi
[67]

Dagnew, Ejaaz Merali, M

David Fitzek, Yi Hong Teoh, Hin Pok Fung, Gebremedhin A. Dagnew, Ejaaz Merali, M. Schuyler Moss, Benjamin MacLellan, and Roger G. Melko. Rydberggpt, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.21052

2024 arXiv
[68]

Harnessing Disordered-Ensemble Quantum Dynamics for Machine Learning

Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima. Harnessing Disordered-Ensemble Quantum Dynamics for Machine Learning . Phys. Rev. Appl., 8: 0 024030, Aug 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.024030. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.024030

2017 doi
[69]

Quantum Reservoir Computing: A Reservoir Approach Toward Quantum Machine Learning on Near-Term Quantum Devices , pages 423--450

Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima. Quantum Reservoir Computing: A Reservoir Approach Toward Quantum Machine Learning on Near-Term Quantum Devices , pages 423--450. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2021. ISBN 978-981-13-1687-6. 10.1007/978-981-13-1687-6 \_ 18 . URL https://doi.org...

2021 doi
[70]

Jonas Greitemann, Ke Liu, Ludovic D. C. Jaubert, Han Yan, Nic Shannon, and Lode Pollet. Identification of emergent constraints and hidden order in frustrated magnets using tensorial kernel methods of machine learning . Phys. Rev. B, 100: 0 174408, Nov 2019 a . doi:10.1103/Phys...

2019 doi
[71]

Probing hidden spin order with interpretable machine learning

Jonas Greitemann, Ke Liu, and Lode Pollet. Probing hidden spin order with interpretable machine learning . Phys. Rev. B, 99: 0 060404, Feb 2019 b . doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.99.060404. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.060404

2019 doi
[72]

The view of TK-SVM on the phase hierarchy in the classical kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet

Jonas Greitemann, Ke Liu, and Lode Pollet. The view of TK-SVM on the phase hierarchy in the classical kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet . Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 33 0 (5): 0 054002, 2021. doi:10.1088/1361-648X/abbe7b. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/abbe7b

2021 doi
[73]

a fer, Niels L \

Eliska Greplova, Agnes Valenti, Gregor Boschung, Frank Sch \"a fer, Niels L \"o rch, and Sebastian D Huber. Unsupervised identification of topological phase transitions using predictive models . New Journal of Physics, 22 0 (4): 0 045003, 2020. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab7771. UR...

2020 doi
[74]

Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices

Christian Gross and Immanuel Bloch. Quantum simulations with ultracold atoms in optical lattices . Science, 357 0 (6355): 0 995--1001, 2017. doi:10.1126/science.aal3837. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aal3837

2017 doi
[75]

Learning phase transitions from regression uncertainty: a new regression-based machine learning approach for automated detection of phases of matter

Wei-chen Guo and Liang He. Learning phase transitions from regression uncertainty: a new regression-based machine learning approach for automated detection of phases of matter . New Journal of Physics, 25 0 (8): 0 083037, 2023. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/acef4e. URL https://dx.doi....

2023 doi
[76]

Cotta, Bruno Peaudecerf, Graham D

Elmar Haller, James Hudson, Andrew Kelly, Dylan A. Cotta, Bruno Peaudecerf, Graham D. Bruce, and Stefan Kuhr. Single-atom imaging of fermions in a quantum-gas microscope . Nature Physics, 11 0 (9): 0 738--742, 2015. doi:10.1038/nphys3403. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3403

2015 doi
[77]

Hilker, Guillaume Salomon, Fabian Grusdt, Ahmed Omran, Martin Boll, Eugene Demler, Immanuel Bloch, and Christian Gross

Timon A. Hilker, Guillaume Salomon, Fabian Grusdt, Ahmed Omran, Martin Boll, Eugene Demler, Immanuel Bloch, and Christian Gross. Revealing hidden antiferromagnetic correlations in doped Hubbard chains via string correlators . Science, 357 0 (6350): 0 484--487, 2017. doi:10.112...

2017 doi
[78]

N. L. Holanda and M. A. R. Griffith. Machine learning topological phases in real space . Phys. Rev. B, 102: 0 054107, Aug 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.102.054107. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.054107

2020 doi
[79]

Z. Hradil. Quantum-state estimation . Phys. Rev. A, 55: 0 R1561--R1564, Mar 1997. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.55.R1561. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.R1561

1997 doi
[80]

Wenjian Hu, Rajiv R. P. Singh, and Richard T. Scalettar. Discovering phases, phase transitions, and crossovers through unsupervised machine learning: A critical examination . Phys. Rev. E, 95: 0 062122, Jun 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.95.062122. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10....

2017 doi
[81]

Albert, and John Preskill

Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, Giacomo Torlai, Victor V. Albert, and John Preskill. Provably efficient machine learning for quantum many-body problems . Science, 377 0 (6613): 0 eabk3333, 2022. doi:10.1126/science.abk3333. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abk3333

2022 doi
[82]

Identifying quantum phase transitions with adversarial neural networks

Patrick Huembeli, Alexandre Dauphin, and Peter Wittek. Identifying quantum phase transitions with adversarial neural networks . Phys. Rev. B, 97: 0 134109, Apr 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.134109. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.134109

2018 doi
[83]

Scalettar, and Ehsan Khatami

Eduardo Ibarra-Garcia-Padilla, Stephanie Striegel, Richard T. Scalettar, and Ehsan Khatami. Structural complexity of snapshots of two-dimensional fermi-hubbard systems. Phys. Rev. A, 109: 0 053304, May 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.053304. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103...

2024 doi
[84]

Wienand, Sophie Häfele, Hendrik von Raven, Scott Hubele, Till Klostermann, Cesar R

Alexander Impertro, Julian F. Wienand, Sophie Häfele, Hendrik von Raven, Scott Hubele, Till Klostermann, Cesar R. Cabrera, Immanuel Bloch, and Monika Aidelsburger. An unsupervised deep learning algorithm for single-site reconstruction in quantum gas microscopes . Communication...

2023 doi
[85]

Preiss, M

Rajibul Islam, Ruichao Ma, Philipp M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, Alexander Lukin, Matthew Rispoli, and Markus Greiner. Measuring entanglement entropy in a quantum many-body system . Nature, 528 0 (7580): 0 77--83, 2015. doi:10.1038/nature15750. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15750

2015 doi
[86]

A perspective on machine learning and data science for strongly correlated electron problems

Steven Johnston, Ehsan Khatami, and Richard Scalettar. A perspective on machine learning and data science for strongly correlated electron problems. Carbon Trends, 9: 0 100231, 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cartre.2022.100231. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...

2022
[87]

Joshi, Christian Kokail, Rick van Bijnen, Florian Kranzl, Torsten V

Manoj K. Joshi, Christian Kokail, Rick van Bijnen, Florian Kranzl, Torsten V. Zache, Rainer Blatt, Christian F. Roos, and Peter Zoller. Exploring large-scale entanglement in quantum simulation. Nature, 624 0 (7992): 0 539--544, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06768-0. URL https:/...

2023 doi
[88]

Unsupervised machine learning of topological phase transitions from experimental data

Niklas K \"a ming, Anna Dawid, Korbinian Kottmann, Maciej Lewenstein, Klaus Sengstock, Alexandre Dauphin, and Christof Weitenberg. Unsupervised machine learning of topological phase transitions from experimental data . Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2 0 (3): 0 03503...

2021 doi
[89]

Phase transition encoded in neural network

Kouji Kashiwa, Yuta Kikuchi, and Akio Tomiya. Phase transition encoded in neural network . Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2019 0 (8), 2019. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz082

2019 doi
[90]

Alexander Keesling, Ahmed Omran, Harry Levine, Hannes Bernien, Hannes Pichler, Soonwon Choi, Rhine Samajdar, Sylvain Schwartz, Pietro Silvi, Subir Sachdev, Peter Zoller, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti \'c , and Mikhail D. Lukin. Quantum Kibble--Zurek mechanism an...

2019 doi
[91]

Spar, Juan Felipe Carrasquilla, Waseem S

Ehsan Khatami, Elmer Guardado-Sanchez, Benjamin M. Spar, Juan Felipe Carrasquilla, Waseem S. Bakr, and Richard T. Scalettar. Visualizing strange metallic correlations in the two-dimensional Fermi-Hubbard model with artificial intelligence . Phys. Rev. A, 102: 0 033326, Sep 202...

2020 doi
[92]

Smallest neural network to learn the Ising criticality

Dongkyu Kim and Dong-Hee Kim. Smallest neural network to learn the Ising criticality . Phys. Rev. E, 98: 0 022138, Aug 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.98.022138. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.022138

2018 doi
[93]

Zache, Andreas Elben, Benot Vermersch, Marcello Dalmonte, Rick van Bijnen, and Peter Zoller

Christian Kokail, Bhuvanesh Sundar, Torsten V. Zache, Andreas Elben, Benot Vermersch, Marcello Dalmonte, Rick van Bijnen, and Peter Zoller. Quantum variational learning of the entanglement hamiltonian. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127: 0 170501, Oct 2021 a . doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.1...

2021 doi
[94]

Entanglement hamiltonian tomography in quantum simulation

Christian Kokail, Rick van Bijnen, Andreas Elben, Benoit Vermersch, and Peter Zoller. Entanglement hamiltonian tomography in quantum simulation. Nature Physics, 17 0 (8): 0 936--942, 2021 b . doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01260-w. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01260-w

2021 doi
[95]

Cantu, Hengyun Zhou, Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Kevin Bagnall, James I

Milan Kornjaca, Hong-Ye Hu, Chen Zhao, Jonathan Wurtz, Phillip Weinberg, Majd Hamdan, Andrii Zhdanov, Sergio H. Cantu, Hengyun Zhou, Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Kevin Bagnall, James I. Basham, Joseph Campo, Adam Choukri, Robert DeAngelo, Paige Frederick, David Haines, Julian Hammett...

2024 arXiv
[96]

Unsupervised Phase Discovery with Deep Anomaly Detection

Korbinian Kottmann, Patrick Huembeli, Maciej Lewenstein, and Antonio Acin. Unsupervised Phase Discovery with Deep Anomaly Detection . Phys. Rev. Lett., 125: 0 170603, Oct 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.170603. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.170603

2020 doi
[97]

Automated Search for new Quantum Experiments

Mario Krenn, Mehul Malik, Robert Fickler, Radek Lapkiewicz, and Anton Zeilinger. Automated Search for new Quantum Experiments . Phys. Rev. Lett., 116: 0 090405, Mar 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.090405. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.090405

2016 doi
[98]

D. A. Kumpilov, D. A. Pershin, I. S. Cojocaru, V. A. Khlebnikov, I. A. Pyrkh, A. E. Rudnev, E. A. Fedotova, K. A. Khoruzhii, P. A. Aksentsev, D. V. Gaifutdinov, A. K. Zykova, V. V. Tsyganok, and A. V. Akimov. Inspiration from machine learning on the example of optimization of ...

2024 doi
[99]

Adaptive Q uantum S tate T omography with A ctive L earning

Hannah Lange, Matja z Kebri c , Maximilian Buser, Ulrich Schollw \" o ck, Fabian Grusdt, and Annabelle Bohrdt. Adaptive Q uantum S tate T omography with A ctive L earning . Quantum , 7: 0 1129, October 2023. ISSN 2521-327X. doi:10.22331/q-2023-10-09-1129. URL https://doi.org/1...

2023 doi
[100]

From architectures to applications: a review of neural quantum states

Hannah Lange, Anka Van de Walle, Atiye Abedinnia, and Annabelle Bohrdt. From architectures to applications: a review of neural quantum states . Quantum Science and Technology, 9 0 (4): 0 040501, 2024. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad7168. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/ad7168

2024 doi
[101]

Transformer neural networks and quantum simulators: a hybrid approach for simulating strongly correlated systems

Hannah Lange, Guillaume Bornet, Gabriel Emperauger, Cheng Chen, Thierry Lahaye, Stefan Kienle, Antoine Browaeys, and Annabelle Bohrdt. Transformer neural networks and quantum simulators: a hybrid approach for simulating strongly correlated systems . Quantum , 9: 0 1675, March ...

2025 doi
[102]

Dual-species atomic absorption image reconstruction using deep neural networks, 2025

Kyuhwan Lee and Yong il Shin. Dual-species atomic absorption image reconstruction using deep neural networks, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12120

2025 arXiv
[103]

Lee, Naoto Nagaosa, and Xiao-Gang Wen

Patrick A. Lee, Naoto Nagaosa, and Xiao-Gang Wen. Doping a Mott insulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity . Rev. Mod. Phys., 78: 0 17--85, Jan 2006. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.78.17. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.78.17

2006 doi
[104]

Unsupervised Machine Learning of Quantum Phase Transitions Using Diffusion Maps

Alexander Lidiak and Zhexuan Gong. Unsupervised Machine Learning of Quantum Phase Transitions Using Diffusion Maps . Phys. Rev. Lett., 125: 0 225701, Nov 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.225701. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.225701

2020 doi
[105]

Learning multiple order parameters with interpretable machines

Ke Liu, Jonas Greitemann, and Lode Pollet. Learning multiple order parameters with interpretable machines . Phys. Rev. B, 99: 0 104410, Mar 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.99.104410. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.104410

2019 doi
[106]

Revealing the phase diagram of Kitaev materials by machine learning: Cooperation and competition between spin liquids

Ke Liu, Nicolas Sadoune, Nihal Rao, Jonas Greitemann, and Lode Pollet. Revealing the phase diagram of Kitaev materials by machine learning: Cooperation and competition between spin liquids . Phys. Rev. Res., 3: 0 023016, Apr 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023016. URL http...

2021 doi
[107]

Ye-Hua Liu and Evert P. L. van Nieuwenburg. Discriminative Cooperative Networks for Detecting Phase Transitions . Phys. Rev. Lett., 120: 0 176401, Apr 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.176401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.176401

2018 doi
[108]

Axel U. J. Lode, Rui Lin, Miriam B\"uttner, Luca Papariello, Camille L\'ev\^eque, R. Chitra, Marios C. Tsatsos, Dieter Jaksch, and Paolo Molignini. Optimized observable readout from single-shot images of ultracold atoms via machine learning . Phys. Rev. A, 104: 0 L041301, Oct ...

2021 doi
[109]

Daniel Lozano-G\'omez, Darren Pereira, and Michel J. P. Gingras. Unsupervised machine learning of quenched gauge symmetries: A proof-of-concept demonstration . Phys. Rev. Res., 4: 0 043118, Nov 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043118. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Ph...

2022 doi
[110]

Digital--analog quantum learning on Rydberg atom arrays

Jonathan Z Lu, Lucy Jiao, Kristina Wolinski, Milan Kornja c a, Hong-Ye Hu, Sergio Cantu, Fangli Liu, Susanne F Yelin, and Sheng-Tao Wang. Digital--analog quantum learning on Rydberg atom arrays . Quantum Science and Technology, 10 0 (1): 0 015038, 2025. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/a...

2025 doi
[111]

Identifying topological phase transitions in experiments using manifold learning

Eran Lustig, Or Yair, Ronen Talmon, and Mordechai Segev. Identifying topological phase transitions in experiments using manifold learning. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125: 0 127401, Sep 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.127401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.127401

2020 doi
[112]

M. M. Ma s \' s ka, R. Lema n \' n ski, J. K. Freericks, and C. J. Williams. Pattern Formation in Mixtures of Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices . Phys. Rev. Lett., 101: 0 060404, Aug 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.060404. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.1...

2008 doi
[113]

Maskara, M

N. Maskara, M. Buchhold, M. Endres, and E. van Nieuwenburg. Learning algorithm reflecting universal scaling behavior near phase transitions . Phys. Rev. Res., 4: 0 L022032, May 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022032. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022032

2022 doi
[114]

Melnikov, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Mario Krenn, Vedran Dunjko, Markus Tiersch, Anton Zeilinger, and Hans J

Alexey A. Melnikov, Hendrik Poulsen Nautrup, Mario Krenn, Vedran Dunjko, Markus Tiersch, Anton Zeilinger, and Hans J. Briegel. Active learning machine learns to create new quantum experiments . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 0 (6): 0 1221--1226, 2018. ISS...

2018 doi
[115]

Mendes-Santos, X

T. Mendes-Santos, X. Turkeshi, M. Dalmonte, and Alex Rodriguez. Unsupervised Learning Universal Critical Behavior via the Intrinsic Dimension . Phys. Rev. X, 11: 0 011040, Feb 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011040. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011040

2021 doi
[116]

Mendes-Santos, M

T. Mendes-Santos, M. Schmitt, A. Angelone, A. Rodriguez, P. Scholl, H. J. Williams, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, M. Heyl, and M. Dalmonte. Wave-Function Network Description and Kolmogorov Complexity of Quantum Many-Body Systems . Phys. Rev. X, 14: 0 021029, May 2024. do...

2024 doi
[117]

Weinberger, Eugene Demler, and Eun-Ah Kim

Cole Miles, Annabelle Bohrdt, Ruihan Wu, Christie Chiu, Muqing Xu, Geoffrey Ji, Markus Greiner, Kilian Q. Weinberger, Eugene Demler, and Eun-Ah Kim. Correlator convolutional neural networks as an interpretable architecture for image-like quantum matter data . Nature Communicat...

2021 doi
[118]

Wang, Hannes Pichler, Subir Sachdev, Mikhail D

Cole Miles, Rhine Samajdar, Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T. Wang, Hannes Pichler, Subir Sachdev, Mikhail D. Lukin, Markus Greiner, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Eun-Ah Kim. Machine learning discovery of new phases in programmable quantum simulator snapshots . Phys. Rev. Res., 5: 0 013026, J...

2023 doi
[119]

High-dimensional reinforcement learning for optimization and control of ultracold quantum gases

N Milson, A Tashchilina, T Ooi, A Czarnecka, Z F Ahmad, and L J LeBlanc. High-dimensional reinforcement learning for optimization and control of ultracold quantum gases . Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4 0 (4): 0 045057, 2023. doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad1437

2023 doi
[120]

Efficient Preparation of Fermionic Superfluids in an Optical Dipole Trap through Reinforcement Learning , 2025

Yueyang Min, Ziliang Li, Yi Zhong, Jia-An Xuan, Jian Lin, Lei Feng, and Xiaopeng Li. Efficient Preparation of Fermionic Superfluids in an Optical Dipole Trap through Reinforcement Learning , 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12152

2025 arXiv
[121]

Bartlett, and Wei-Wei Zhang

Yurui Ming, Chin-Teng Lin, Stephen D. Bartlett, and Wei-Wei Zhang. Quantum topology identification with deep neural networks and quantum walks . npj Computational Materials, 5 0 (1): 0 88, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41524-019-0224-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-019-0224-x

2019 doi
[122]

Stewart Morawetz, Isaac J. S. De Vlugt, Juan Carrasquilla, and Roger G. Melko. U(1)-symmetric recurrent neural networks for quantum state reconstruction . Phys. Rev. A, 104: 0 012401, Jul 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.012401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.012401

2021 doi
[123]

Randomized-Gauge Test for Machine Learning of Ising Model Order Parameter

Tomoyuki Morishita and Synge Todo. Randomized-Gauge Test for Machine Learning of Ising Model Order Parameter . Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 91 0 (4): 0 044001, 2022. ISSN 0031-9015. doi:10.7566/jpsj.91.044001

2022 doi
[124]

Schuyler Moss, Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T

M. Schuyler Moss, Sepehr Ebadi, Tout T. Wang, Giulia Semeghini, Annabelle Bohrdt, Mikhail D. Lukin, and Roger G. Melko. Enhancing variational Monte Carlo simulations using a programmable quantum simulator . Phys. Rev. A, 109: 0 032410, Mar 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.032410...

2024 doi
[125]

Principal component analysis of absorbing state phase transitions

Cristiano Muzzi, Ronald Santiago Cortes, Devendra Singh Bhakuni, Asja Jeli c \' c , Andrea Gambassi, Marcello Dalmonte, and Roberto Verdel. Principal component analysis of absorbing state phase transitions . Phys. Rev. E, 110: 0 064121, Dec 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.110.06412...

2024 doi
[126]

ager, Stefanie Czischek, Selim Jochim, Matthias Weidem\

Marcel Neugebauer, Laurin Fischer, Alexander J\"ager, Stefanie Czischek, Selim Jochim, Matthias Weidem\"uller, and Martin G\"arttner. Neural-network quantum state tomography in a two-qubit experiment . Phys. Rev. A, 102: 0 042604, Oct 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.102.042604. URL...

2020 doi
[127]

Michael Denner

Titus Neupert, Mark H Fischer, Eliska Greplova, Kenny Choo, and M. Michael Denner. Introduction to Machine Learning for the Sciences , 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.04883

2022 arXiv
[128]

Jiho Noh, Sheng Huang, Daniel Leykam, Y. D. Chong, Kevin P. Chen, and Mikael C. Rechtsman. Experimental observation of optical weyl points and fermi arc-like surface states. Nature Physics, 13 0 (6): 0 611--617, 2017. doi:10.1038/nphys4072. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4072

2017 doi
[129]

Hamiltonian and liouvillian learning in weakly-dissipative quantum many-body systems

Tobias Olsacher, Tristan Kraft, Christian Kokail, Barbara Kraus, and Peter Zoller. Hamiltonian and liouvillian learning in weakly-dissipative quantum many-body systems. Quantum Science and Technology, 10 0 (1): 0 015065, 2025. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad9ed5. URL https://dx.doi.o...

2025 doi
[130]

Panda, Roberto Verdel, Alex Rodriguez, Hanlin Sun, Ginestra Bianconi, and Marcello Dalmonte

Rajat K. Panda, Roberto Verdel, Alex Rodriguez, Hanlin Sun, Ginestra Bianconi, and Marcello Dalmonte. Non-parametric learning critical behavior in Ising partition functions: PCA entropy and intrinsic dimension . SciPost Phys. Core, 6: 0 086, 2023. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCore....

2023 doi
[131]

Parsons, Florian Huber, Anton Mazurenko, Christie S

Maxwell F. Parsons, Florian Huber, Anton Mazurenko, Christie S. Chiu, Widagdo Setiawan, Katherine Wooley-Brown, Sebastian Blatt, and Markus Greiner. Site-Resolved Imaging of Fermionic ^ 6 Li in an Optical Lattice . Phys. Rev. Lett., 114: 0 213002, May 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRev...

2015 doi
[132]

Unsupervised learning of Rydberg atom array phase diagram with Siamese neural networks

Zakaria Patel, Ejaaz Merali, and Sebastian J Wetzel. Unsupervised learning of Rydberg atom array phase diagram with Siamese neural networks . New Journal of Physics, 24 0 (11): 0 113021, 2022. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac9c7a. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ac9c7a

2022 doi
[133]

Deep learning-assisted classification of site-resolved quantum gas microscope images

Lewis R B Picard, Manfred J Mark, Francesca Ferlaino, and Rick van Bijnen. Deep learning-assisted classification of site-resolved quantum gas microscope images . Measurement Science and Technology, 31 0 (2): 0 025201, 2020. ISSN 0957-0233. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab44d8

2020 doi
[134]

Pedro Ponte and Roger G. Melko. Kernel methods for interpretable machine learning of order parameters . Phys. Rev. B, 96: 0 205146, Nov 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.205146. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.205146

2017 doi
[135]

Determining a local H amiltonian from a single eigenstate

Xiao-Liang Qi and Daniel Ranard. Determining a local H amiltonian from a single eigenstate . Quantum , 3: 0 159, July 2019. ISSN 2521-327X. doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-08-159. URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-07-08-159

2019 doi
[136]

Volchkov

Malte Reinschmidt, József Fortágh, Andreas Günther, and Valentin V. Volchkov. Reinforcement learning in cold atom experiments . Nature Communications, 15 0 (1): 0 8532, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52775-8

2024 doi
[137]

a ming, Matthias Tarnowski, Luca Asteria, Nick Fl \

Benno S. Rem, Niklas K \"a ming, Matthias Tarnowski, Luca Asteria, Nick Fl \"a schner, Christoph Becker, Klaus Sengstock, and Christof Weitenberg. Identifying quantum phase transitions using artificial neural networks on experimental data . Nature Physics, 15 0 (9): 0 917--920...

2019 doi
[138]

Eric Tai, Julian L \'e onard, and Markus Greiner

Matthew Rispoli, Alexander Lukin, Robert Schittko, Sooshin Kim, M. Eric Tai, Julian L \'e onard, and Markus Greiner. Quantum critical behaviour at the many-body localization transition . Nature, 573 0 (7774): 0 385--389, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1527-2. URL https://doi.org...

2019 doi
[139]

Learning hard quantum distributions with variational autoencoders

Andrea Rocchetto, Edward Grant, Sergii Strelchuk, Giuseppe Carleo, and Simone Severini. Learning hard quantum distributions with variational autoencoders . npj Quantum Information, 4 0 (1): 0 28, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41534-018-0077-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-018-0077-z

2018 doi
[140]

Rodriguez-Nieva and Mathias S

Joaquin F. Rodriguez-Nieva and Mathias S. Scheurer. Identifying topological order through unsupervised machine learning . Nature Physics, 15 0 (8): 0 790--795, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0512-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0512-x

2019 doi
[141]

Characterizing the phase diagram of finite-size dipolar Bose-Hubbard systems

Paolo Rosson, Martin Kiffner, Jordi Mur-Petit, and Dieter Jaksch. Characterizing the phase diagram of finite-size dipolar Bose-Hubbard systems . Phys. Rev. A, 101: 0 013616, Jan 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.101.013616. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.013616

2020 doi
[142]

Unsupervised interpretable learning of phases from many-qubit systems

Nicolas Sadoune, Giuliano Giudici, Ke Liu, and Lode Pollet. Unsupervised interpretable learning of phases from many-qubit systems . Phys. Rev. Res., 5: 0 013082, Feb 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013082. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013082

2023 doi
[143]

Edmunds, Giuliano Giudici, Giacomo Giudice, Christian D

Nicolas Sadoune, Ivan Pogorelov, Claire L. Edmunds, Giuliano Giudici, Giacomo Giudice, Christian D. Marciniak, Martin Ringbauer, Thomas Monz, and Lode Pollet. Learning symmetry-protected topological order from trapped-ion experiments , 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05017

2024 arXiv
[144]

Nicolas Sadoune, Ke Liu, Han Yan, Ludovic D. C. Jaubert, Nic Shannon, and Lode Pollet. Human-machine collaboration: ordering mechanism of rank-2 spin liquid on breathing pyrochlore lattice , 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10658

2025 arXiv
[145]

Saffman, T

M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. M lmer. Quantum information with Rydberg atoms . Rev. Mod. Phys., 82: 0 2313--2363, Aug 2010. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2313. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2313

2010 doi
[146]

Lukin, and Subir Sachdev

Rhine Samajdar, Wen Wei Ho, Hannes Pichler, Mikhail D. Lukin, and Subir Sachdev. Complex Density Wave Orders and Quantum Phase Transitions in a Model of Square-Lattice Rydberg Atom Arrays . Phys. Rev. Lett., 124: 0 103601, Mar 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.103601. URL http...

2020 doi
[147]

Optimal Quantum Control with Poor Statistics

Fr\'ed\'eric Sauvage and Florian Mintert. Optimal Quantum Control with Poor Statistics . PRX Quantum, 1: 0 020322, Dec 2020. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020322. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020322

2020 doi
[148]

afer and Niels L\

Frank Sch\"afer and Niels L\"orch. Vector field divergence of predictive model output as indication of phase transitions . Phys. Rev. E, 99: 0 062107, Jun 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.99.062107. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.99.062107

2019 doi
[149]

o mer, Timon A. Hilker, Immanuel Bloch, Ulrich Schollw \

Henning Schl \"o mer, Timon A. Hilker, Immanuel Bloch, Ulrich Schollw \"o ck, Fabian Grusdt, and Annabelle Bohrdt. Quantifying hole-motion-induced frustration in doped antiferromagnets by Hamiltonian reconstruction . Communications Materials, 4 0 (1): 0 64, 2023. doi:10.1038/s...

2023 doi
[150]

Hilker, Fabian Grusdt, and Annabelle Bohrdt

Henning Schl\"omer, Hannah Lange, Titus Franz, Thomas Chalopin, Petar Bojovi c \' c , Si Wang, Immanuel Bloch, Timon A. Hilker, Fabian Grusdt, and Annabelle Bohrdt. Local Control and Mixed Dimensions: Exploring High-Temperature Superconductivity in Optical Lattices . PRX Quant...

2024 doi
[151]

Geometric orthogonal metals: Hidden antiferromagnetism and the pseudogap from fluctuating stripes

Henning Schl\"omer, Annabelle Bohrdt, and Fabian Grusdt. Geometric orthogonal metals: Hidden antiferromagnetism and the pseudogap from fluctuating stripes. PRX Quantum, 6: 0 030342, Sep 2025. doi:10.1103/5sq4-r7dk. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/5sq4-r7dk

2025 doi
[152]

Fluctuation based interpretable analysis scheme for quantum many-body snapshots

Henning Schlömer and Annabelle Bohrdt. Fluctuation based interpretable analysis scheme for quantum many-body snapshots . SciPost Phys., 15: 0 099, 2023. doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.3.099. URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.3.099

2023 doi
[153]

Efficient quantum state tomography with convolutional neural networks

Tobias Schmale, Moritz Reh, and Martin G \"a rttner. Efficient quantum state tomography with convolutional neural networks . npj Quantum Information, 8 0 (1): 0 115, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00621-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-022-00621-4

2022 doi
[154]

From observations to complexity of quantum states via unsupervised learning

Markus Schmitt and Zala Lenar c c i c c . From observations to complexity of quantum states via unsupervised learning . Phys. Rev. B, 106: 0 L041110, Jul 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L041110. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L041110

2022 doi
[155]

Williams, Alexander A

Pascal Scholl, Michael Schuler, Hannah J. Williams, Alexander A. Eberharter, Daniel Barredo, Kai-Niklas Schymik, Vincent Lienhard, Louis-Paul Henry, Thomas C. Lang, Thierry Lahaye, Andreas M. L \"a uchli, and Antoine Browaeys. Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun...

2021 doi
[156]

Sengupta, and Antoine Georges

Olivier Simard, Anna Dawid, Joseph Tindall, Michel Ferrero, Anirvan M. Sengupta, and Antoine Georges. Learning interactions between rydberg atoms. PRX Quantum, 6: 0 030324, Aug 2025. doi:10.1103/f58h-zxs3. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/f58h-zxs3

2025 doi
[157]

Davis, Halina Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and Tyler W

Simeon Simjanovski, Guillaume Gauthier, Matthew J. Davis, Halina Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and Tyler W. Neely. Optimizing persistent currents in a ring-shaped Bose-Einstein condensate using machine learning . Physical Review A, 108 0 (6): 0 063306, 2023. ISSN 2469-9926. doi:10.1103/...

2023 doi
[158]

Machine Learning Detection of Correlations in Snapshots of Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices , 2023

Stephanie Striegel, Eduardo Ibarra-Garcia-Padilla, and Ehsan Khatami. Machine Learning Detection of Correlations in Snapshots of Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices , 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03267

2023 arXiv
[159]

Parameter diagnostics of phases and phase transition learning by neural networks

Philippe Suchsland and Stefan Wessel. Parameter diagnostics of phases and phase transition learning by neural networks . Phys. Rev. B, 97: 0 174435, May 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.174435. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.174435

2018 doi
[160]

Interpretable correlator Transformer for image-like quantum matter data

Abhinav Suresh, Henning Schl \"o mer, Baran Hashemi, and Annabelle Bohrdt. Interpretable correlator Transformer for image-like quantum matter data . Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 6 0 (2): 0 025006, 2025. doi:10.1088/2632-2153/adc071. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/...

2025 doi
[161]

Detection of Phase Transition via Convolutional Neural Networks

Akinori Tanaka and Akio Tomiya. Detection of Phase Transition via Convolutional Neural Networks . Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 86 0 (6): 0 063001, 2025/04/09 2017. doi:10.7566/JPSJ.86.063001. URL https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.86.063001

2025 doi
[162]

Andrea Tirelli and Natanael C. Costa. Learning quantum phase transitions through topological data analysis. Phys. Rev. B, 104: 0 235146, Dec 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.104.235146. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.235146

2021 doi
[163]

Giacomo Torlai and Roger G. Melko. Learning thermodynamics with Boltzmann machines . Phys. Rev. B, 94: 0 165134, Oct 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.94.165134. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.165134

2016 doi
[164]

Neural-network quantum state tomography

Giacomo Torlai, Guglielmo Mazzola, Juan Carrasquilla, Matthias Troyer, Roger Melko, and Giuseppe Carleo. Neural-network quantum state tomography . Nature Physics, 14 0 (5): 0 447--450, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0048-5. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0048-5

2018 doi
[165]

Giacomo Torlai, Brian Timar, Evert P. L. van Nieuwenburg, Harry Levine, Ahmed Omran, Alexander Keesling, Hannes Bernien, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti c \' c , Mikhail D. Lukin, Roger G. Melko, and Manuel Endres. Integrating Neural Networks with a Quantum Simulator for State R...

2019 doi
[166]

A. V. Uvarov, A. S. Kardashin, and J. D. Biamonte. Machine learning phase transitions with a quantum processor . Phys. Rev. A, 102: 0 012415, Jul 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.102.012415. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.012415

2020 doi
[167]

Evert P. L. van Nieuwenburg, Ye-Hua Liu, and Sebastian D. Huber. Learning phase transitions by confusion . Nature Physics, 13 0 (5): 0 435--439, 2017. doi:10.1038/nphys4037. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4037

2017 doi
[168]

Machine-learning-accelerated Bose-Einstein condensation

Zachary Vendeiro, Joshua Ramette, Alyssa Rudelis, Michelle Chong, Josiah Sinclair, Luke Stewart, Alban Urvoy, and Vladan Vuletić. Machine-learning-accelerated Bose-Einstein condensation . Physical Review Research, 4 0 (4): 0 043216, 2022. doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043216

2022 doi
[169]

Machine learning of frustrated classical spin models

Ce Wang and Hui Zhai. Machine learning of frustrated classical spin models. I. Principal component analysis . Phys. Rev. B, 96: 0 144432, Oct 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.144432. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.144432

2017 doi
[170]

Machine learning of frustrated classical spin models (II): Kernel principal component analysis

Ce Wang and Hui Zhai. Machine learning of frustrated classical spin models (II): Kernel principal component analysis . Frontiers of Physics, 13 0 (5): 0 130507, 2018. doi:10.1007/s11467-018-0798-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11467-018-0798-7

2018 doi
[171]

Discovering phase transitions with unsupervised learning

Lei Wang. Discovering phase transitions with unsupervised learning . Phys. Rev. B, 94: 0 195105, Nov 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.94.195105. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.195105

2016 doi
[172]

Sebastian J. Wetzel. Unsupervised learning of phase transitions: From principal component analysis to variational autoencoders . Phys. Rev. E, 96: 0 022140, Aug 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.96.022140. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.96.022140

2017 doi
[173]

Wetzel and Manuel Scherzer

Sebastian J. Wetzel and Manuel Scherzer. Machine learning of explicit order parameters: From the Ising model to SU(2) lattice gauge theory . Phys. Rev. B, 96: 0 184410, Nov 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.184410. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.184410

2017 doi
[174]

Interpretable Machine Learning in Physics: A Review , 2025

Sebastian Johann Wetzel, Seungwoong Ha, Raban Iten, Miriam Klopotek, and Ziming Liu. Interpretable Machine Learning in Physics: A Review , 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23616

2025 arXiv
[175]

P. B. Wigley, P. J. Everitt, A. van den Hengel, J. W. Bastian, M. A. Sooriyabandara, G. D. McDonald, K. S. Hardman, C. D. Quinlivan, P. Manju, C. C. N. Kuhn, I. R. Petersen, A. N. Luiten, J. J. Hope, N. P. Robins, and M. R. Hush. Fast machine-learning online optimization of ul...

2016 doi
[176]

Bayesian learning for optimal control of quantum many-body states in optical lattices

Yan-Jun Xie, Han-Ning Dai, Zhen-Sheng Yuan, Youjin Deng, Xiaopeng Li, Yu-Ao Chen, and Jian-Wei Pan. Bayesian learning for optimal control of quantum many-body states in optical lattices . Physical Review A, 106 0 (1): 0 013316, 2022. ISSN 2469-9926. doi:10.1103/physreva.106.013316

2022 doi
[177]

Young, Martin Lebrat, and Markus Greiner

Muqing Xu, Lev Haldar Kendrick, Anant Kale, Youqi Gang, Chunhan Feng, Shiwei Zhang, Aaron W. Young, Martin Lebrat, and Markus Greiner. A neutral-atom Hubbard quantum simulator in the cryogenic regime . Nature, 642 0 (8069): 0 909--915, 2025. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09112-w. URL...

2025 doi
[178]

Quantum Hamiltonian Identification from Measurement Time Traces

Jun Zhang and Mohan Sarovar. Quantum Hamiltonian Identification from Measurement Time Traces . Phys. Rev. Lett., 113: 0 080401, Aug 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.080401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.080401

2014 doi
[179]

Machine Learning Topological Invariants with Neural Networks

Pengfei Zhang, Huitao Shen, and Hui Zhai. Machine Learning Topological Invariants with Neural Networks . Phys. Rev. Lett., 120: 0 066401, Feb 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.066401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.066401

2018 doi
[180]

Variational Quantum-Neural Hybrid Eigensolver

Shi-Xin Zhang, Zhou-Quan Wan, Chee-Kong Lee, Chang-Yu Hsieh, Shengyu Zhang, and Hong Yao. Variational Quantum-Neural Hybrid Eigensolver . Phys. Rev. Lett., 128: 0 120502, Mar 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.120502. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.120502

2022 doi
[181]

Quantum Loop Topography for Machine Learning

Yi Zhang and Eun-Ah Kim. Quantum Loop Topography for Machine Learning . Phys. Rev. Lett., 118: 0 216401, May 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.216401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.216401

2017 doi
[182]

Melko, and Eun-Ah Kim

Yi Zhang, Roger G. Melko, and Eun-Ah Kim. Machine learning Z _ 2 quantum spin liquids with quasiparticle statistics . Phys. Rev. B, 96: 0 245119, Dec 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96.245119. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.245119

2017 doi
[183]

Interpreting machine learning of topological quantum phase transitions

Yi Zhang, Paul Ginsparg, and Eun-Ah Kim. Interpreting machine learning of topological quantum phase transitions . Phys. Rev. Res., 2: 0 023283, Jun 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023283. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023283

2020 doi
[184]

Observing a topological phase transition with deep neural networks from experimental images of ultracold atoms

Entong Zhao, Ting Hin Mak, Chengdong He, Zejian Ren, Ka Kwan Pak, Yu-Jun Liu, and Gyu-Boong Jo. Observing a topological phase transition with deep neural networks from experimental images of ultracold atoms . Optics Express, 30 0 (21): 0 37786--37794, 2022. doi:10.1364/OE.4737...

2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Williams

Hervé Abdi and Lynne J. Williams. Principal component analysis . WIREs Computational Statistics, 2 0 (4): 0 433--459, 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101. URL https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wics.101

doi:10.1002/wics.101 2010

[2] [2]

Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems

Anurag Anshu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tomotaka Kuwahara, and Mehdi Soleimanifar. Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems . Nature Physics, 17 0 (8): 0 931--935, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0

doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0 2021

[3] [3]

Replacing Neural Networks by Optimal Analytical Predictors for the Detection of Phase Transitions

Julian Arnold and Frank Sch\"afer. Replacing Neural Networks by Optimal Analytical Predictors for the Detection of Phase Transitions . Phys. Rev. X, 12: 0 031044, Sep 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.12.031044. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.12.031044

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.031044 2022

[4] [4]

Julian Arnold, Frank Sch\"afer, Martin Z Z onda, and Axel U. J. Lode. Interpretable and unsupervised phase classification . Phys. Rev. Res., 3: 0 033052, Jul 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033052. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033052

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033052 2021

[5] [5]

Machine learning phase transitions: Connections to the Fisher information , 2023 a

Julian Arnold, Niels Lörch, Flemming Holtorf, and Frank Schäfer. Machine learning phase transitions: Connections to the Fisher information , 2023 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10710

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Fast Detection of Phase Transitions with Multi-Task Learning-by-Confusion , 2023 b

Julian Arnold, Frank Schäfer, and Niels Lörch. Fast Detection of Phase Transitions with Multi-Task Learning-by-Confusion , 2023 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09128

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Mapping Out Phase Diagrams with Generative Classifiers

Julian Arnold, Frank Sch\"afer, Alan Edelman, and Christoph Bruder. Mapping Out Phase Diagrams with Generative Classifiers . Phys. Rev. Lett., 132: 0 207301, May 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.207301. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.207301

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.207301 2024

[8] [8]

Eyal Bairey, Itai Arad, and Netanel H. Lindner. Learning a Local Hamiltonian from Local Measurements . Phys. Rev. Lett., 122: 0 020504, Jan 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.020504. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.020504

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.020504 2019