Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Simultaneous approximation of multiple degenerate states using a single neural network quantum state

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A single neural network with multiple linear heads can represent every state of a degenerate ground-state manifold exactly whenever its width meets a rank bound, and it does so at a fraction of the cost of K independent networks.

desk verdict Clean representability theorem and sensible architecture, but the practical minimal-width MLP claim rests on an unproven expressivity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02658 v1 pith:L3PGL4LT submitted 2025-09-02 quant-ph physics.comp-ph

Waleed Sherif This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords neuralnetworkquantumstatesvariationalMonteCarlodegenerategroundsingle-trunkmulti-headansatzrepresentabilitytheoremsharedtrunkorthogonalitypenaltyJ1-J2chain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a single-trunk multi-head (ST-MH) neural network quantum state that approximates all states of a degenerate ground-state manifold in one training run, instead of optimizing K separate networks. Its central claim is an exact representability condition: on the common support where every target state is non-vanishing, the ST-MH ansatz represents all D degenerate eigenstates exactly if and only if the shared trunk width h satisfies h+1 ≥ rboth, where rboth is the linear rank of the combined span of the states' log-moduli, their chosen phase branches, and the constant function. When that condition holds, the parameter count drops by roughly a factor equal to the degeneracy K relative to a multi-trunk ensemble with the same per-trunk width, and the leading variational Monte Carlo cost is reduced by a similar factor whenever the trunk dominates the computation. A proof-of-principle on the frustrated spin-1/2 J1-J2 chain at the solvable coupling J2=J1/2 resolves the two momentum eigenstates with high fidelity and near-zero overlap error, including with a trunk width of only 2. The practical importance is that degenerate eigenspaces, which are normally expensive and prone to redundant convergence, become accessible with one compact shared representation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-trunk multi-head ansatz ψ_k(x)=exp[χ_k·f_θ(x)+c_k], where a single nonlinear feature map f_θ from configurations to R^h is shared by K lightweight complex-linear heads parametrized by χ_k and c_k. The paper's argument rests on an affine rank bound (Lemma A.1 and its phase analogue): for any fixed trunk, the realized log-moduli of all heads, and likewise their phase lifts, lie in an affine subspace of dimension at most h+1, spanned by the h feature columns plus the constant vector. Theorem A.1 converts this bound into an equivalence by requiring the combined linear span of the targets' log-moduli, phase branches, and constant to fit inside that same column space; the combined rank rboth then sets the minimal width. A separate cost model counts forward and backward FLOPs through a two-layer trunk, showing that trunk cost is shared across heads and becomes independent of K up to an O($K^{2}$) overlap-penalty term when 3F_T dominates 6Kh.

What would settle it

Take a small configuration space where exact enumeration is possible, choose two target states whose log-moduli and phases have rboth = 4, and train the ST-MH ensemble with a trunk of width h = 2 plus the orthogonality penalty; the theorem predicts exact representation on the common support is impossible, so exact reproduction would falsify the necessity direction. Conversely, for the J1-J2 ring at J2=J1/2 with N=8 the theorem predicts h* = 2, so a trunk of width 1 that still reaches unit ground-subspace fidelity would falsify the minimal-width claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem A.1, stated for a finite configuration space and D target eigenstates. After fixing single-valued phase branches and letting S be the common support where all target states have non-zero amplitude, define rboth as the dimension of the linear span of the constant vector together with the target log-moduli and phase branches on S. Then a single-trunk multi-head ansatz of the form ψ_k(x) = exp(χ_k · f_θ(x) + c_k), with one shared feature map f_θ and K complex linear heads, can represent every target eigenstate exactly on S if and only if h+1 ≥ rboth. The minimal width is therefore h*_both = rboth − 1, and if rboth > h+1 no amount of extra heads can compensate, because all heads are limited to linear combinations of the same h+1 feature coordinates. The same construction, in trunk-dominated regimes and with equal per-trunk widths, cuts the parameter count and the leading gradient cost by a factor close to K relative to K independent trunks. Exactness is deliberately scoped to S: where a target state has a zero, the exponential ansatz cannot vanish exactly, so the paper's 'exactly' means pointwise on the common support. Numerically, the two degenerate momentum eigenstates of the J1-J2 ring at J2=J1/2 are resolved for N=4,6,8 with ground-subspace fidelities above 0.998 and overlap-matrix deviations below 0.01, and an ablation with trunk width 2 confirms the predicted minimal width.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a real neural network trunk of width h can exactly produce, on the finite common support, any chosen feature functions that span the combined modulus-phase space; if standard MLP trunks cannot realize those features at that width, the minimal-width claim fails, and in any case 'exact' applies only where every target state is non-vanishing, since the exponential ansatz cannot vanish exactly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If rboth ≤ h+1, a single shared trunk represents the entire degenerate ground-state manifold exactly on the common support, so K independent networks are not needed for representability.
  • In trunk-dominated regimes with equal per-trunk widths, the ST-MH parameter count and leading variational Monte Carlo cost scale as roughly 1/K of the multi-trunk ensemble's, with only the shared O(K^2) pairwise-overlap term growing in K.
  • The minimal width h*_both = rboth−1 is a concrete, checkable number for small systems, and the N=4 ablation with h=2 supports the theorem's prediction for the J1-J2 ring at J2=J1/2.
  • If rboth > h+1, adding more heads cannot restore exact representability; the ensemble must widen the trunk or fall back to separate trunks.
  • On the examined J1-J2 rings (N=4,6,8), ST-MH resolves the two translation eigenstates with ground-subspace fidelities above 0.998, showing the resource saving does not sacrifice accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rank condition can be used as an expressivity diagnostic: for a given ansatz family, the smallest trunk width at which exact representation becomes achievable empirically estimates how well that family realizes arbitrary feature functions, independent of the Hamiltonian's details.
  • Because exactness holds only on the common support, configurations where a target state vanishes will carry small nonzero amplitudes in the exponential ansatz; observables concentrated on such 'nodal' configurations could accumulate errors that the K-fold speedup would need to be weighed against.
  • The shared-trunk construction is not tied to degeneracy: the same mechanism should extend to excited-state manifolds and to transfer-learning settings where one trunk serves multiple Hamiltonians, with only the rank rboth changing and the threshold moving accordingly.
  • For very large degeneracies K, the benefit shrinks twice: rboth can grow with K, forcing a wider trunk, and the O(K^2) overlap term eventually competes with the shared trunk cost, so the regime of clear ST-MH advantage is small-to-moderate K.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a single-trunk multi-head (ST-MH) neural network quantum state (NQS) ensemble for simultaneously approximating K degenerate eigenstates. A shared feature-extracting trunk feeds lightweight complex linear heads, one per target state. The authors derive analytic gradients for the weighted energy plus orthogonality-penalty cost in variational Monte Carlo (VMC), prove a representability theorem (Theorem A.1, Appendix A) that gives a rank condition h+1 >= rboth on the trunk width for an abstract feature map, provide a qualitative cost analysis predicting a roughly K-fold saving in the trunk-dominated regime, and validate the method on the spin-1/2 J1-J2 Heisenberg model at the Majumdar-Ghosh point for N=4,6,8. The numerical experiments report high fidelities, full rank of the ground-space projection matrix, and reduced runtime relative to a multi-trunk multi-head (MT-MH) ensemble.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the ST-MH ansatz is a useful architectural compression for degenerate eigenspace learning, with potential savings in parameters and runtime, and the paper provides a concrete proof-of-principle on a frustrated model with exact ground states. The work has genuine strengths: Theorem A.1 is a clean linear-algebra statement whose sufficiency direction is constructive; the analytic gradients in Appendix B follow standard VMC identities; the numerical validation is internally consistent, including exact post-training overlap checks and comparisons to exact diagonalization and exact Majumdar-Ghosh ground states; and the cost model is explicit rather than fitted. However, the transfer of the representability theorem from abstract feature maps to fixed-width MLP trunks is asserted rather than proven, and the theorem's necessity direction has a phase-branch modulo-2pi gap. These issues affect the paper's strongest claims and need to be addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem A.1 (necessity direction)] The proof of the converse direction assumes that the chosen target phase branches Omega_(j) are exactly realized as affine functions of the trunk features. But the condition psi_k = Psi^(k) on S only gives pointwise equality of phases modulo 2pi; the realized phase phi_k f + gamma_k can differ from the chosen branch by a configuration-dependent integer multiple of 2pi. Consequently, the chosen branch evaluation vectors need not lie in col(X), and the inequality rboth > h+1 does not, by itself, rule out the existence of a representation. A concrete counterexample: take S = {x1, x2}, D = 1, Psi(x) = 1 identically, and choose the phase branch Omega = (0, 2pi). Then rboth = 2, yet a width-0 trunk with beta = 0 represents the state exactly, contradicting the claimed equivalence. The theorem should define rboth as the minimum attainable rank over admissible branch choices, or explicitly restrict the statement to branches that are exactly realized by the linear heads.
  2. [Appendix A, Remark A.3] The assertion that the constructive proof of Theorem A.1 is implementable exactly on S by standard MLP trunks at width h is unproven and, at the minimal width h = rboth - 1, generally false for fixed-width MLPs. For the N = 8 MG example, rboth = 3 so the theorem predicts h = 2, while the common support S has 28 configurations; a two-hidden-layer ReLU MLP with 2 units per layer is a restricted function class and cannot in general realize the basis vectors of Rboth (which include indicator-like functions) exactly on 28 points. The paper should either provide a rigorous expressivity statement for the specific architecture, or present the MLP implementability as a separate hypothesis/empirical observation and soften the 'minimal width' claims in the abstract, Section 2.2.3, and conclusion.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The claim that ST-MH 'can represent every degenerate eigenstate exactly' is stronger than Theorem A.1, which establishes equality only on the common support S (Appendix A). Off S, the exponential ansatz cannot vanish, so states with nodal configurations are not represented exactly. The paper should qualify all exactness statements as 'exact on the common support' and note the implication for nodal configurations (such as the Neel states in the MG model). The fidelities below 1 in Table 1 are consistent with this caveat and could be discussed in that light.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'Lastly we provide a qualitative computational cost analysis which incentivise the applicability...' contains a grammatical error; 'incentivise' should be 'incentivizes' or 'motivates', and the intended meaning could be made clearer.
  2. [Equation (8) and Equation (C.11)] Both equations contain a garbled LaTeX artifact ('/Leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne⇒') that makes the display unreadable and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.2.2] The phrase 'the compute time required for sampling amortises that of the gradient computations' is unclear; likely the intended statement is that sampling time dominates or swamps the gradient computation time for small networks.
  4. [Section 2.3.2] The notation h*_both for the minimal representation width and h*_(s) for the cost threshold is easily confused; consider renaming one of the two quantities.
  5. [Section 2.2.1] The sentence 'One either support, the amplitudes have flat modulus...' contains a typo; it should read 'On either support'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem A.1 is a self-contained linear-algebra existence result, and the numerical benchmark uses independent exact states; the flagged MLP-expressivity gap is a rigor limitation, not a circular dependency.

full rationale

The central representability result (Theorem A.1, Appendix A) is not circular: it states a linear-algebra equivalence over the finite common support S, where the condition h+1 >= rboth is exactly the dimension condition for a spanning set of Rboth, and the sufficiency proof constructs an abstract feature map from a basis of Rboth. This is an existence theorem about feature maps, not a fitted prediction, and the paper explicitly disclaims neural-network implementability of the constructed features in Remark A.3. The practical claim that a width h = rboth - 1 MLP trunk suffices relies on the unproved assertion that standard MLP trunks can realize the basis functions on S; this is a correctness or rigor gap, not a circular reduction, and the paper flags it in the footnote to Section 2.3.2. The numerical validation is benchmarked against exact diagonalization and the exact Majumdar-Ghosh ground states, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The computational cost model (equations (29)-(40)) is a qualitative inequality analysis rather than a fit. References [31,32] are background citations to the author's prior loop-quantum-gravity work and are not load-bearing for the ST-MH construction, gradients, or benchmarks. No self-definitional, fitted-input, uniqueness-imported, or ansatz-smuggling step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central representability theorem itself has no fitted constants; the only free choices are numerical hyperparameters. The load-bearing assumptions are the exponential ansatz's support restriction, the phase-branch affine-span requirement, and the unproven MLP implementability assertion.

free parameters (3)
  • trunk width h = h = 32 for N=4 and N=6, h = 64 for N=8, h = 2 and 4 in ablations 4(B) and 4(C)
    Architectural hyperparameter chosen by hand; the theorem predicts minimal h*=2 for the MG model. It is not fitted to data but is a free choice in the numerical demonstrations.
  • penalty annealing schedule (lambda_s, lambda_f, n_lambda) = e.g., 1e-3 to 0.5 over 200 steps for standard runs; different values in ablations
    Chosen by hand to make training converge; values are reported in Table D1.
  • optimizer and sampling hyperparameters (eta, NMC, NC, sweeps) = eta=1e-3, NMC=512 or 1024, NC=8, sweeps=5
    Standard optimization and Monte Carlo settings; reported in Section 2.2.2 and Table D1.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard variational Monte Carlo gradient identities for local energy estimators are valid for the modified cost function.
    Used in Appendix B to derive analytical gradients; taken from Refs [47,48] without reproof.
  • domain assumption The exponential ansatz psi_k(x)=exp(chi_k f_theta(x)+c_k) is the assumed form for all heads; zero-amplitude configurations are not representable exactly.
    Restricts all exactness claims to the common support S where all target states are non-vanishing, as defined in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Chosen single-valued phase branches of the target states lie in the same affine span modulo 2 pi of the shared trunk features plus a constant.
    Needed for the phase part of Theorem A.1; flagged in Remark A.4 as an expressivity requirement.
  • ad hoc to paper For standard MLP trunks, the basis vectors used in the constructive direction of Theorem A.1 are implementable exactly on the finite support S at the same width h.
    Asserted in Remark A.3 without proof; this is the main unproven bridge between the abstract theorem and actual neural networks.
  • standard math The Majumdar-Ghosh Hamiltonian factorization and exact dimer ground states are correct.
    Known exact solution used as ground truth for numerical validation in Section 2.2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous approximation of multiple degenerate states using a single neural network quantum state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3PGL4LT

@misc{pith2026250902658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous approximation of multiple degenerate states using a single neural network quantum state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3PGL4LT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02658}
}
abstract

Neural network quantum states (NQS) excel at approximating ground states of quantum many-body systems, but approximating all states of a degenerate manifold is nevertheless computationally expensive. We propose a single-trunk multi-head (ST-MH) NQS ensemble that share a feature extracting trunk while attaching lightweight heads for each target state. Using a cost function which also has an orthogonality term, we derive exact analytic gradients and overlap derivatives needed to train ST-MH within standard variational Monte Carlo (VMC) workflows. We prove that ST-MH can represent every degenerate eigenstate exactly whenever the feature map of latent width $h$, augmented with a constant, has column space containing the linear span of the targets' log-moduli and (chosen) phase branches together with the constant on the common support where all states are non-vanishing. Under this condition, ST-MH reduces the parameter count and can reduce the leading VMC cost by a factor equal to the degeneracy $K$ relative to other algorithms when $K$ is modest and in trunk dominated regimes. As a numerical proof-of-principle, we validate and benchmark the ST-MH approach on the frustrated spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ $J_1-J_2$ Heisenberg model at the Majumdar-Ghosh point on periodic ring lattices of up to 8 sites. By obtaining the momentum eigenstates, we demonstrate that ST-MH attains high fidelity and energy accuracy across degenerate ground state manifolds while using significantly lower computing resources. Lastly we provide a qualitative computational cost analysis which incentivise the applicability of the ST-MH ensemble under certain criteria on the latent width.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum Monte Carlo,

    D. Ceperley, B. Alder, “Quantum Monte Carlo,” Science 231 (1986), 555-560 doi:10.1126/science.231.4738.555

    doi:10.1126/science.231.4738.555 1986

  2. [2]

    Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids,

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs and G. Rajagopal, “Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001), 33-83 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.73.33

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.33 2001

  3. [3]

    Quantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics,

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt and R. B. Wiringa, “Quantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 (2015), 1067 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1067 [arXiv:1412.3081 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Quantum Monte Carlo Approaches for Correlated Systems,

    F. Becca, S. Sorella, “Quantum Monte Carlo Approaches for Correlated Systems,” Cambridge University Press (2017), doi:10.1017/9781316417041

    doi:10.1017/9781316417041 2017

  5. [5]

    A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States,

    R. Orus, “A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States,” Annals Phys. 349 (2014), 117-158 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013 [arXiv:1306.2164 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Mixed-State Dynamics in One-Dimensional Quantum Lattice Systems: A Time-Dependent Superoperator Renormalization Algorithm,

    M. Zwolak, G. Vidal, “Mixed-State Dynamics in One-Dimensional Quantum Lattice Systems: A Time-Dependent Superoperator Renormalization Algorithm,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004,11), 207205 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.207205

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.207205 2004

  7. [7]

    Class of Highly Entangled Many-Body States that can be Efficiently Simulated,

    G. Evenbly, G. Vidal, “Class of Highly Entangled Many-Body States that can be Efficiently Simulated,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014,6), 240502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.240502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.240502 2014

  8. [8]

    Entanglement Renormalization,

    G. Vidal, “Entanglement Renormalization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007,11), 220405 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.220405

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.220405 2007

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network,

    Y. Shi, L. Duan, G. Vidal, “Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network,” Phys. Rev. A 74 (2006,8), 022320 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.74.022320

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    Multiscale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz in Two Dimensions: Quantum Ising Model,

    L. Cincio, J. Dziarmaga, M. Rams, “Multiscale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz in Two Dimensions: Quantum Ising Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008,6), 240603 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.240603

    2008 doi

  3. [11]

    Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions,

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, “Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions,” [arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 [cond-mat]]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Matrix Product Ground States for One- Dimensional Spin-1 Quantum Antiferromagnets,

    A. Kl¨ umper, A. Schadschneider and J. Zittartz, “Matrix Product Ground States for One- Dimensional Spin-1 Quantum Antiferromagnets,” EPL 24 (1993) no.4, 293-297 doi:10.1209/0295- 5075/24/4/010 [arXiv:cond-mat/9307028 [cond-mat]]

    1993 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,

    U. Schollw¨ ock, “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,” Annals Of Physics 326 (2011), 96-192 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491610001752

    2011

  6. [14]

    Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,

    S. White, “Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992,11), 2863-2866 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    The density-matrix renormalization group,

    U. Schollw¨ ock, “The density-matrix renormalization group,” Rev. Mod. Phys.77 (2005,4), 259-315 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.259

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks,

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, “Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks,” Science 355 (2017) no.6325, 602-606 doi:10.1126/science.aag2302

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Neural tensor contractions and the expressive power of deep neural quantum states,

    O. Sharir, A. Shashua, G. Carleo, “Neural tensor contractions and the expressive power of deep neural quantum states,” Phys. Rev. B 106 (2022,11), 205136 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.106.205136

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Quantum Entanglement in Neural Network States,

    D. Deng, X. Li, S. Das Sarma, “Quantum Entanglement in Neural Network States,” Phys. Rev. X 7 (2017,5), 021021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021021

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Efficient representation of quantum many-body states with deep neural networks,

    X. Gao, L. Duan, “Efficient representation of quantum many-body states with deep neural networks,” Nature Communications 8 (2017,9), 662 doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00705-2

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Can Neural Quantum States Learn Volume-Law Ground States?,

    G. Passetti, D. Hofmann, P. Neitemeier, L. Grunwald, M. A. Sentef and D. M. Kennes, “Can Neural Quantum States Learn Volume-Law Ground States?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.3, 036502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.036502 [arXiv:2212.02204 [quant-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum Entanglement in Deep Learning Architectures,

    Y. Levine, O. Sharir, N. Cohen, A. Shashua, “Quantum Entanglement in Deep Learning Architectures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019,2), 065301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.065301 23

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Two-dimensional frustrated J1-J2 model studied with neural network quantum states,

    K. Choo, T. Neupert, G. Carleo, “Two-dimensional frustrated J1-J2 model studied with neural network quantum states,” Phys. Rev. B 100 (2019,9), 125124 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.100.125124

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Gauge-invariant and anyonic- symmetric autoregressive neural network for quantum lattice models,

    D. Luo, Z. Chen, K. Hu, Z. Zhao, V. M. Hur and B. K. Clark, “Gauge-invariant and anyonic- symmetric autoregressive neural network for quantum lattice models,” Phys. Rev. Res. 5 (2023) no.1, 013216 doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013216 [arXiv:2101.07243 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ab initio solution of the many-electron Schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural networks,

    D. Pfau, J. Spencer, A. Matthews, W. Foulkes, “Ab initio solution of the many-electron Schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural networks,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020,9), 033429 doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033429

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schr¨ odinger equation,

    J. Hermann, Z. Sch¨ atzle, F. No´ e, “Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schr¨ odinger equation,” Nature Chemistry 12 (2020,10), 891-897 doi:10.1038/s41557-020-0544-y

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Gauge Equivariant Neural Networks for Quantum Lattice Gauge Theories,

    D. Luo, G. Carleo, B. K. Clark and J. Stokes, “Gauge Equivariant Neural Networks for Quantum Lattice Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) no.27, 276402 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.276402 [arXiv:2012.05232 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Variational Neural-Network Ansatz for Continuum Quantum Field Theory,

    J. M. Martyn, K. Najafi and D. Luo, “Variational Neural-Network Ansatz for Continuum Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.8, 081601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.081601 [arXiv:2212.00782 [quant-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Accurate neural quantum states for interacting lattice bosons,

    Z. Denis and G. Carleo, “Accurate neural quantum states for interacting lattice bosons,” Quantum 9 (2025), 1772 doi:10.22331/q-2025-06-17-1772 [arXiv:2404.07869 [quant-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The sign problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations,

    G. Pan, Z. Meng, “The sign problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations,” En- cyclopedia Of Condensed Matter Physics (Second Edition) (2024), pp. 879-893 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323908009000950

    2024

  22. [30]

    Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations,

    M. Troyer and U. J. Wiese, “Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum Monte Carlo simulations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005), 170201 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.170201 [arXiv:cond-mat/0408370 [cond-mat]]

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Towards quantum gravity with neural networks: solving the quantum Hamilton constraint of U(1) BF theory,

    H. Sahlmann and W. Sherif, “Towards quantum gravity with neural networks: solving the quantum Hamilton constraint of U(1) BF theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024) no.22, 225014 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad84af [arXiv:2402.10622 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Towards quantum gravity with neural networks: solving quantum Hamilton constraints of 3d Euclidean gravity in the weak coupling limit,

    H. Sahlmann and W. Sherif, “Towards quantum gravity with neural networks: solving quantum Hamilton constraints of 3d Euclidean gravity in the weak coupling limit,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024) no.21, 215006 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad7c14 [arXiv:2405.00661 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Variational Quantum Computation of Excited States,

    O. Higgott, D. Wang and S. Brierley, “Variational Quantum Computation of Excited States,” Quantum 3 (2019), 156 doi:10.22331/q-2019-07-01-156 [arXiv:1805.08138 [quant-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Excited states in variational Monte Carlo using a penalty method,

    S. Pathak, B. Busemeyer, J. Rodrigues, L. Wagner, “Excited states in variational Monte Carlo using a penalty method,” The Journal Of Chemical Physics 154 (2021,1), 034101 doi:10.1063/5.0030949

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Accurate Computation of Quan- tum Excited States with Neural Networks,

    D. Pfau, S. Axelrod, H. Sutterud, I. von Glehn and J. S. Spencer, “Accurate Computation of Quan- tum Excited States with Neural Networks,” Science 385 (2024), 6711 doi:10.1126/science.adn0137 [arXiv:2308.16848 [physics.comp-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Learning eigenstates of quantum many-body Hamiltonians within the symmetric subspaces using neural network quantum states,

    S. Bao, D. Wu, P. Zhang, L. Wang, “Learning eigenstates of quantum many-body Hamiltonians within the symmetric subspaces using neural network quantum states,” Phys. Rev. B111 (2025,4), L161116 doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.111.L161116

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    Symmetries and Many-Body Excita- tions with Neural-Network Quantum States,

    K. Choo, G. Carleo, N. Regnault, T. Neupert, “Symmetries and Many-Body Excita- tions with Neural-Network Quantum States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018,10), 167204 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.167204

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Ensemble variational Monte Carlo for optimization of correlated excited state wave functions,

    W. Wheeler, K. Kleiner, L. Wagner, “Ensemble variational Monte Carlo for optimization of correlated excited state wave functions,” Electronic Structure6 (2024,4), 025001 doi:10.1088/2516- 1075/ad38f8

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Absorption Spectrum of the Green Fluorescent Protein Chromophore: A Difficult Case for ab Initio Methods?,

    C. Filippi, M. Zaccheddu, F. Buda, “Absorption Spectrum of the Green Fluorescent Protein Chromophore: A Difficult Case for ab Initio Methods?,” Journal Of Chemical Theory And Computation 5 (2009,8), 2074-2087 doi:10.1021/ct900227j

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    Efficient PINNs via multi- 24 head unimodular regularization of the solutions space,

    P. Taranc´ on-´Alvarez, P. Tejerina-P´ erez, R. Jimenez, P. Protopapas, “Efficient PINNs via multi- 24 head unimodular regularization of the solutions space,” Communications Physics 8 (2025,8), 335 doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02248-1

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Transfer Learning with Physics- Informed Neural Networks for Efficient Simulation of Branched Flows,

    R. Pellegrin, B. Bullwinkel, M. Mattheakis, P. Protopapas, P. “Transfer Learning with Physics- Informed Neural Networks for Efficient Simulation of Branched Flows,” (2022), [arXiv:2211.00214 [cs.LG]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    L-HYDRA: Multi-Head Physics-Informed Neural Networks,

    Z. Zou, G. Karniadakis, “L-HYDRA: Multi-Head Physics-Informed Neural Networks,” (2023), [arXiv:2301.02152 [[cs.LG]]]

    2023

  35. [43]

    Excited state non-adiabatic dynamics of large photoswitchable molecules using a chemically transferable machine learning potential,

    S. Axelrod, E. Shakhnovich, R. G´ omez-Bombarelli, “Excited state non-adiabatic dynamics of large photoswitchable molecules using a chemically transferable machine learning potential,” Nature Communications 13 (2022), 3440 doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30999-w

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Antiferromagnetic model with known ground state,

    C. Majumdar, “Antiferromagnetic model with known ground state,” Journal Of Physics C: Solid State Physics 3 (1970,4), 911 doi:10.1088/0022-3719/3/4/019

    1970 doi

  37. [45]

    On Next-Nearest-Neighbor Interaction in Linear Chain. I,

    C. Majumdar, D. Ghosh, “On Next-Nearest-Neighbor Interaction in Linear Chain. I,” Journal Of Mathematical Physics 10 (1969,8), 1388-1398 doi:10.1063/1.1664978

    1969 doi

  38. [46]

    On Next-Nearest-Neighbor Interaction in Linear Chain. II,

    C. Majumdar, D. Ghosh, “On Next-Nearest-Neighbor Interaction in Linear Chain. II,” Journal Of Mathematical Physics 10 (1969,8), 1399-1402 doi:10.1063/1.1664979

    1969 doi

  39. [47]

    From architectures to applications: a review of neural quantum states,

    H. Lange, A. Van de Walle, A. Abedinnia and A. Bohrdt, “From architectures to applications: a review of neural quantum states,” Quantum Sci. Technol. 9 (2024) no.4, 040501 doi:10.1088/2058- 9565/ad7168 [arXiv:2402.09402 [cond-mat.dis-nn]]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Recurrent neural network wave functions,

    M. Hibat-Allah, M. Ganahl, L. Hayward, R. Melko, J. Carrasquilla, “Recurrent neural network wave functions,” Physical Review Research 2 (2020,6), doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023358

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,

    D. Kingma, J. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization,” (2017), [arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines,

    N. Metropolis, A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Teller, E. Teller, “Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines,” The Journal Of Chemical Physics 21 (1953,6), 1087-1092 doi:10.1063/1.1699114

    1953 doi

  43. [51]

    Foundation neural-networks quantum states as a unified Ansatz for multiple hamiltonians,

    R. Rende, L. Viteritti, F. Becca, A. Scardicchio, A. Laio, G. Carleo, “Foundation neural-networks quantum states as a unified Ansatz for multiple hamiltonians,” Nature Communications 16 (2025,8,5), 7213 doi:10.1038/s41467-025-62098-x 25 Appendices A. Representability theorem L...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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