Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Echo State network for coarsening dynamics of charge density waves

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Training a local echo state network on one small Holstein-model quench produces a transferable simulator whose CDW domain growth follows $L(t)\sim t^{0.375}$, slower than the Allen-Cahn law.

desk verdict The method is genuinely useful, but the headline alpha=0.375 rests on the surrogate alone and needs an exact baseline before it earns the status of a physics result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11982 v1 pith:EVJ35JB7 submitted 2024-12-16 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-elcs.LG

Clement Dinh , Yunhao Fan , Gia-Wei Chern This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elcs.LG
keywords echostatenetworkreservoircomputingchargedensitywaveHolsteinmodelphaseorderingkineticsdomaingrowthAllen-Cahnlawdynamicalscaling
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 sets out to show that a local echo state network—a recurrent neural network trained only through a linear readout—can learn the emergent coarsening dynamics of charge-density-wave (CDW) order in the semi-classical Holstein model and then be reused as a linear-scaling simulator on lattices much larger than the training system. It first benchmarks the approach on the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation, where the ESN recovers the Allen-Cahn growth law $L(t)\sim t^{1/2}$. It then trains the ESN on a single exact-diagonalization Langevin quench of a $40\times40$ Holstein lattice, with local CDW order parameters in a $7\times7$ neighborhood as input, and iterates it on a $120\times120$ lattice. The central result is that the ESN reproduces the statistical coarsening of CDW domains and yields a domain-growth exponent $\alpha=0.375$, slower than the Allen-Cahn value, which the paper attributes to longer-ranged electron-mediated interactions. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete route to simulating phase-ordering kinetics in complex electron systems where the driving forces are too expensive to compute exactly every time step.

What carries the argument

The central object is a local echo state network, defined in one phrase as a recurrent network with a fixed random reservoir and a linear readout trained by ridge regression. The network implements the update map $\phi_i(t+\Delta t)=F(\{\phi_j(t)\mid r_j\in\mathcal{N}_i\})$ of Eq. (5), with $\mathcal{N}_i$ chosen as a $7\times7$ block for the CDW problem; neighbors farther away are assumed irrelevant or already encoded in the reservoir state. The symmetry requirement enters through Eq. (14), where the input weight from any neighbor to a reservoir neuron depends only on that neighbor's distance from the center, plus a $1/r$ influence decay, so the map is covariant under the rotations and reflections of the square lattice. The reservoir's spectral radius $\rho=0.79$ and the recurrent connections provide the memory needed for dynamics that is not a simple first-order Markov map. This machinery carries the claim of transferability: because the input tensor size is fixed by the neighborhood, the trained network can be swept over any lattice size at linear cost.

What would settle it

Run a direct ED-Langevin simulation of the same Holstein model on the largest lattice that is still tractable (for example, $60\times60$ or $80\times80$) with identical parameters, extract the domain-growth exponent from the correlation length, and compare it with the ESN's $\alpha=0.375$; if the exact dynamics gives $\alpha$ close to $1/2$ or outside the ESN's error bars, the slower exponent is a surrogate artifact. A cheaper complementary test is to retrain the ESN with $9\times9$ and $11\times11$ neighborhoods and check whether the predicted $\alpha$ remains stable as the window grows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the effective dynamics of the CDW order parameter in the Holstein model closes locally: the value $\phi_i(t+\Delta t)$ at a site depends on the configuration of $\phi$ in a finite neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_i$ at time $t$, supplemented by the reservoir's memory of the recent past. Using Eq. (5) as the design principle, the authors build an ESN whose input weights respect the $D_4$ point group of the square lattice (neighbors at equal distance share coupling), train it on 400 configurations from one ED-Langevin quench of a $40\times40$ system at low temperature, and then apply the same network site-by-site to simulate a $120\times120$ lattice. For the TDGL benchmark the ESN correctly produces the Allen-Cahn law $\alpha=1/2$ and the associated scaling collapse, even though individual trajectories diverge from exact dynamics. For the Holstein CDW, the ESN's correlation functions agree with exact ED-Langevin results on the $40\times40$ lattice, and the large-scale simulation shows clean dynamical scaling with $L(t)\sim t^\alpha$, $\alpha=0.375$, a value the paper interprets as a genuine consequence of electron-mediated longer-ranged and frustrated interactions rather than a neural-network artifact. The paper states that this value is consistent with an earlier machine-learning force-field study of the same model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the future CDW order at a site is determined by the current order parameters in a fixed $7\times7$ block around it, so anything happening farther away either does not matter or is already captured in that local picture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single ESN trained on a $40\times40$ Holstein quench can be applied directly to a $120\times120$ lattice, giving linear-scaling simulations of CDW coarsening without retraining.
  • The ESN captures statistical coarsening (correlation functions, scaling collapse, growth exponent) even when pointwise trajectories diverge, so it can serve as a surrogate for 'climate' quantities in phase ordering.
  • The predicted CDW exponent $\alpha=0.375$ is slower than the Allen-Cahn $1/2$, implying that electron-mediated interactions modify the growth law expected from short-ranged Ising symmetry.
  • Because the ESN output step $\Delta t=0.05\,t_0$ is many times larger than the Langevin integration step, the surrogate is roughly $10^4$ times faster than ED-Langevin at equal size and projected to be about $10^7$ times faster at $120\times120$.
  • The $D_4$-symmetrized input weights are needed for accuracy; an unconstrained random input matrix degrades the prediction, which the paper demonstrates directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not check convergence of the growth exponent as the neighborhood grows beyond $7\times7$; an editorial inference is that $\alpha$ should be tested with $9\times9$ and $11\times11$ inputs, and if it shifts, the surrogate is not yet faithful to the true interaction range.
  • If the slower exponent is physical, the coarsening of CDW order likely belongs to a different dynamical universality class than the Allen-Cahn one; a natural extension is to measure two-time quantities such as the autocorrelation exponent and compare with the values expected for long-range or frustrated coarsening.
  • The same local-ESN construction could be applied to other emergent order parameters without a known closed equation, such as spin-density waves or superconducting phase patterns, by training on data from a single small simulation.
  • A testable extension is to feed time-resolved experimental images of CDW domains into the same architecture and compare the extracted growth exponent with the simulation value, which would directly probe whether the Holstein model's coarsening physics is realized in materials.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a local echo-state-network (ESN) surrogate for the phase-ordering dynamics of a scalar order parameter, with emphasis on the charge-density-wave (CDW) order of the square-lattice Holstein model. After benchmarking the ESN on the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) equation, where it recovers the Allen-Cahn L(t)∼t^{1/2} collapse, the authors train a symmetry-constrained ESN on one 40×40 ED-Langevin quench, validate bare correlation functions at three times on the same size, and then iterate the ESN on 120×120 lattices. From the large-scale surrogate they report dynamical scaling and a growth exponent α=0.375, which they interpret as anomalous coarsening caused by longer-ranged, electron-mediated interactions.

Significance. If the 0.375 exponent is robust, this is a valuable result: it demonstrates that a local reservoir-computing surrogate can transfer from small to large lattices and offers a large speedup over ED-Langevin simulations for coarsening statistics, opening a route to large-scale modeling of electron-lattice phase ordering. The TDGL benchmark is a genuine success: the ESN reproduces both the scaling function and the expected t^{1/2} law using a training set from a 30×30 system, and the D4-symmetry-aware input construction is a sensible architectural choice. However, the central CDW claim rests on a single closed-loop ESN simulation at 120×120 without a direct exact baseline, without error bars, and without a neighborhood-size convergence test, so the paper's main quantitative conclusion is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.C, Fig. 8 inset] The exponent α=0.375 is extracted solely from ESN-generated correlation lengths on a 120×120 lattice, but the manuscript reports no exact ED-Langevin (or KPM) simulation at that scale, no independent realizations, and no error bar on the fitted slope. Since the authors themselves note in §IV.B that closed-loop ESN trajectories quickly deviate from exact dynamics, the extracted exponent could be a property of the surrogate rather than of the Holstein model. Please provide a direct comparison at a size accessible to an exact or KPM baseline, statistics over multiple ESN trainings and quenches, and an explicit statement of the fitting range used for the log-log slope.
  2. [§IV.B, Eq. (5)] The framework assumes ϕ_i(t+Δt)=F({ϕ_j(t)|r_j∈N_i}) with a 7×7 window, but the paper acknowledges in the same section that the electron-mediated interaction is longer-ranged and that it is unclear whether ϕ obeys a closed PDE. The choice ℓ=7 is not tested: no results with different neighborhood sizes (e.g., 5×5, 7×7, 9×9) are shown, and no comparison of the resulting L(t) exponent as a function of ℓ is reported. Without such a convergence test, the locality assumption, which is the basis for transferability and for the 120×120 claim, is unsupported.
  3. [§IV.B, Fig. 6] The 40×40 validation reports bare correlation functions at three times and states that they agree very well with ED-Langevin data, but it does not report the corresponding L(t) growth law from the exact ED-Langevin simulations, nor a quantitative error measure on the correlations. Agreement of correlation functions at three early-to-intermediate times on the training-size lattice is necessary but not sufficient to show that the ESN reproduces the coarsening exponent, because that exponent is determined by the late-time evolution of L(t), which is exactly where the ESN predictions are known to deviate from exact trajectories.
  4. [§IV.C, Ref. [46]] The only external-looking support for α=0.375 is Ref. [46], a prior machine-learning force-field study from the same group. This cannot serve as an independent validation of the surrogate result. Please compare with a non-ML method (exact ED-Langevin or KPM at moderate sizes) or with independent literature values, and if none are available, weaken the claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II.B and §IV.B] There are typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'every sites one the lattice' in §II.B and 'scalable ESN-based scalable ML approach' in §IV.B.
  2. [§IV.C, Fig. 8] The statement 'nearly perfect data-point collapsing' is not supported by a quantitative collapse measure; consider reporting a residual or an overlap metric for the scaling collapse.
  3. [§IV.B, hyperparameters] The fixed hyperparameters (reservoir size, spectral radius, connectivity, ridge regularization, input scaling, and prediction time step) are chosen without a sensitivity analysis; even a brief robustness check would be helpful, especially because the central exponent is extracted from a single parameter choice.
  4. [§IV.C, Eq. (15)] The correlation-length definition in Eq. (15) is applied on a 120×120 periodic system, but the authors note in §IV.B that C(r,t) does not decay to zero for r at half the linear size; the sums in Eq. (15) may therefore be sensitive to finite-size offsets. Please state the largest r included in the sums or subtract the long-distance plateau.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor same-group consistency check, but no circular derivation; the coarsening exponent emerges from closed-loop ESN iteration rather than being a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a locally trained ESN, iterated on larger lattices, produces a power-law coarsening exponent α=0.375 for CDW order. This exponent is not a fitted constant: the only trained parameters are the output weights W_out, fixed by ridge regression to map local φ neighborhoods one ESN time-step ahead (Eqs. 2–4), while L(t) and α are extracted from correlation functions of the closed-loop ESN simulation (Eq. 15 and Fig. 8). There is therefore no self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction reduction. The locality ansatz Eq. (5) is an assumption explicitly flagged by the authors as uncertain for the emergent φ dynamics ('It is not even clear whether the effective dynamics for φ can be expressed in terms of a partial differential equation'), and the lack of a neighborhood-size convergence test or an exact 120×120 ED-Langevin baseline is a validation gap, not circularity. The ESN is benchmarked against exact ED-Langevin data on 40×40 (clamped single-site series in Fig. 5 and correlation functions in Fig. 6), and the TDGL test correctly recovers Allen-Cahn L∼t^{1/2}, supporting transferability in a known case. The only same-group citation used as support is [46] in Sec. IV.C: 'The smaller growth exponent, however, is consistent with results from previous works based on the ML force-field approach [46].' This is a consistency check, not the derivation; the exponent is measured from the ESN simulation itself, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No actual circular reduction is exhibited; the minor same-group citation warrants a score of 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger counts the main load-bearing choices: the local closure of the CDW order parameter, the 7×7 neighborhood, the ESN hyperparameters, the symmetrized input construction, and the use of one ED-Langevin trajectory for training. The physics result does not introduce new particles or fields, and the ESN is a standard computational object. The largest cost is the domain assumption that local order-parameter history replaces the underlying electron-phonon dynamics.

free parameters (6)
  • ESN neighborhood size = 7×7 block
    Chosen manually to balance locality against longer-range electron-mediated interactions; no convergence study with larger windows is shown.
  • Reservoir spectral radius = ρ=0.79
    Selected by hand; controls reservoir memory and time-scale matching; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Reservoir size and connectivity = N=200, 15% connectivity
    Hyperparameters chosen without a systematic search or ablations.
  • Input influence function = f(r)=1/r
    Ad hoc decay of neighbor influence; other decays are not tested.
  • Prediction time step = Δt=20δt=0.05 t0
    Trade-off between temporal resolution and ESN step; not derived from the dynamics.
  • Ridge regularization = not stated
    Required to solve Eq. (4); its value is not reported, so the trained output layer is not fully specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The coarsening dynamics of φ is closed at the level of the local φ field: φ_i(t+Δt) depends only on φ in a finite neighborhood plus reservoir memory, as in Eq. (5).
    Invoked in Sec. IV.B; the central transferability assumption is not derived from the Holstein Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The semiclassical ED-Langevin dynamics of the Holstein model is the correct reference dynamics.
    Used to generate all training and benchmark data; the paper assumes adiabatic or Born-Oppenheimer separation in Sec. IV.A.
  • ad hoc to paper D4 site symmetry can be encoded by sharing input weights across equal-distance neighbors and by choosing f(r)=1/r.
    Eq. (14) is a design choice; the paper shows it improves accuracy over unconstrained Win but does not prove it is sufficient.
  • domain assumption A single 40×40 quench trajectory provides a representative training set for the coarsening regimes used later.
    Training uses 100 sites from one trajectory in Sec. IV.B; later simulations cover 30 independent quenches, but the surrogate is not retrained.
  • standard math Echo state property for the random reservoir holds with the chosen spectral radius.
    Standard ESN condition discussed in Sec. II.A; not formally verified for the specific random matrix, but plausible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Echo State network for coarsening dynamics of charge density waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVJ35JB7

@misc{pith2026241211982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Echo State network for coarsening dynamics of charge density waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVJ35JB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11982}
}
read the original abstract

An echo state network (ESN) is a type of reservoir computer that uses a recurrent neural network with a sparsely connected hidden layer. Compared with other recurrent neural networks, one great advantage of ESN is the simplicity of its training process. Yet, despite the seemingly restricted learnable parameters, ESN has been shown to successfully capture the spatial-temporal dynamics of complex patterns. Here we build an ESN to model the coarsening dynamics of charge-density waves (CDW) in a semi-classical Holstein model, which exhibits a checkerboard electron density modulation at half-filling stabilized by a commensurate lattice distortion. The inputs to the ESN are local CDW order-parameters in a finite neighborhood centered around a given site, while the output is the predicted CDW order of the center site at the next time step. Special care is taken in the design of couplings between hidden layer and input nodes to ensure lattice symmetries are properly incorporated into the ESN model. Since the model predictions depend only on CDW configurations of a finite domain, the ESN is scalable and transferrable in the sense that a model trained on dataset from a small system can be directly applied to dynamical simulations on larger lattices. Our work opens a new avenue for efficient dynamical modeling of pattern formations in functional electron materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of a scalable ML framework based on echo state network (ESN) for coarsening dynamics a scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Coarsening of Ising domains simulated by cell dy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Scaled correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) a snapshot of the on-site electron number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Panels ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Panels ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Panels ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Correlation function of the CDW order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    Cheng, S

    C. Cheng, S. Zhang, and G.-W. Chern, Machine learn- ing for phase ordering dynamics of charge density waves, Phys. Rev. B 108, 014301 (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    Sherstinsky, Fundamentals of recurrent neural net- work (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 404, 132306 (2020)

    A. Sherstinsky, Fundamentals of recurrent neural net- work (rnn) and long short-term memory (lstm) network, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 404, 132306 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Z. C. Lipton, J. Berkowitz, and C. Elkan, A critical re- view of recurrent neural networks for sequence learning (2015), arXiv:1506.00019 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    ichi Funahashi and Y

    K. ichi Funahashi and Y. Nakamura, Approximation of dynamical systems by continuous time recurrent neural networks, Neural Networks 6, 801 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [4]

    D. P. Mandic and J. Chambers, Recurrent Neural Net- works for Prediction: Learning Algorithms,Architectures and Stability (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [5]

    Doya, Bifurcations in the learning of recurrent neu- ral networks, in [Proceedings] 1992 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Vol

    K. Doya, Bifurcations in the learning of recurrent neu- ral networks, in [Proceedings] 1992 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Vol. 6 (1992) pp. 2777–2780 vol.6

    work page 1992

  7. [6]

    Lukoˇ seviˇ cius and H

    M. Lukoˇ seviˇ cius and H. Jaeger, Reservoir computing ap- proaches to recurrent neural network training, Computer Science Review 3, 127 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    Tanaka, T

    G. Tanaka, T. Yamane, J. B. H´ eroux, R. Nakane, N. Kanazawa, S. Takeda, H. Numata, D. Nakano, and A. Hirose, Recent advances in physical reservoir comput- ing: A review, Neural Networks 115, 100 (2019)

    2019

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    Nakajima, Physical reservoir computing—an intro- ductory perspective, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 59, 060501 (2020)

    K. Nakajima, Physical reservoir computing—an intro- ductory perspective, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 59, 060501 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    echo state

    H. Jaeger, The “echo state” approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks, GMD-Report 148, German National Research Institute for Computer Sci- ence (2001)

    2001

  3. [10]

    Maass, T

    W. Maass, T. Natschl¨ ager, and H. Markram, Real-time computing without stable states: A new framework for neural computation based on perturbations, Neural Com- putation 14, 2531 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    Jaeger and H

    H. Jaeger and H. Haas, Harnessing nonlinearity: Predict- ing chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless com- munication, Science 304, 78 (2004)

    2004

  5. [12]

    Manjunath and H

    G. Manjunath and H. Jaeger, Echo state property linked to an input: Exploring a fundamental characteristic of recurrent neural networks, Neural Computation 25, 671 12 (2013)

    2013

  6. [13]

    Pathak, B

    J. Pathak, B. Hunt, M. Girvan, Z. Lu, and E. Ott, Model- free prediction of large spatiotemporally chaotic systems from data: A reservoir computing approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 024102 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    Pathak, Z

    J. Pathak, Z. Lu, B. R. Hunt, M. Girvan, and E. Ott, Us- ing machine learning to replicate chaotic attractors and calculate lyapunov exponents from data, Chaos: An In- terdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 27, 121102 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    Haluszczynski and C

    A. Haluszczynski and C. R¨ ath, Good and bad predic- tions: Assessing and improving the replication of chaotic attractors by means of reservoir computing, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 29, 103143 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    M. Roy, S. Mandal, C. Hens, A. Prasad, N. V. Kuznetsov, and M. Dev Shrimali, Model-free prediction of multista- bility using echo state network, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 32, 101104 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Chattopadhyay, P

    A. Chattopadhyay, P. Hassanzadeh, and D. Subrama- nian, Data-driven predictions of a multiscale lorenz 96 chaotic system using machine-learning methods: reser- voir computing, artificial neural network, and long short- term memory network, Nonlinear Processes in Geo- physics 2...

    2020

  11. [18]

    X. Chen, T. Weng, H. Yang, C. Gu, J. Zhang, and M. Small, Mapping topological characteristics of dynam- ical systems into neural networks: A reservoir computing approach, Phys. Rev. E 102, 033314 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    R. M. Noack, D. J. Scalapino, and R. T. Scalettar, Charge-density-wave and pairing susceptibilities in a two- dimensional electron-phonon model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 778 (1991)

    1991

  13. [20]

    Zhang, W.-T

    Y.-X. Zhang, W.-T. Chiu, N. C. Costa, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Charge order in the holstein model on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 077602 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    C. Chen, X. Y. Xu, Z. Y. Meng, and M. Hohenadler, Charge-density-wave transitions of dirac fermions cou- pled to phonons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 077601 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    Hohenadler and G

    M. Hohenadler and G. G. Batrouni, Dominant charge density wave correlations in the holstein model on the half-filled square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 100, 165114 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Kohn, Density functional and density matrix method scaling linearly with the number of atoms, Phys

    W. Kohn, Density functional and density matrix method scaling linearly with the number of atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3168 (1996)

    1996

  17. [24]

    Prodan and W

    E. Prodan and W. Kohn, Nearsightedness of electronic matter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 11635 (2005)

    2005

  18. [25]

    A. J. Bray, Theory of phase-ordering kinetics, Advances in Physics 43, 357 (1994)

    1994

  19. [26]

    Onuki, Phase Transition Dynamics(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2002)

    A. Onuki, Phase Transition Dynamics(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2002)

    2002

  20. [27]

    Puri and V

    S. Puri and V. Wadhawan, Kinetics of phase transitions (CRC press, 2009)

    2009

  21. [28]

    Behler and M

    J. Behler and M. Parrinello, Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy sur- faces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146401 (2007)

    2007

  22. [29]

    A. P. Bart´ ok, M. C. Payne, R. Kondor, and G. Cs´ anyi, Gaussian approximation potentials: The accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 136403 (2010)

    2010

  23. [30]

    Z. Li, J. R. Kermode, and A. De Vita, Molecular dy- namics with on-the-fly machine learning of quantum- mechanical forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 096405 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    V. Botu, R. Batra, J. Chapman, and R. Ramprasad, Ma- chine learning force fields: Construction, validation, and outlook, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 121, 511 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    J. S. Smith, O. Isayev, and A. E. Roitberg, Ani-1: an extensible neural network potential with dft accuracy at force field computational cost, Chem. Sci. 8, 3192 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Han, H. Wang, R. Car, and W. E, Deep potential molecular dynamics: A scalable model with the accuracy of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 143001 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Behler, Perspective: Machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 170901 (2016)

    J. Behler, Perspective: Machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 170901 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    A. V. Shapeev, Moment tensor potentials: A class of sys- tematically improvable interatomic potentials, Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 14, 1153 (2016)

    2016

  29. [36]

    R. T. McGibbon, A. G. Taube, A. G. Donchev, K. Siva, F. Hernandez, C. Hargus, K.-H. Law, J. L. Klepeis, and D. E. Shaw, Improving the accuracy of m¨ oller-plesset per- turbation theory with neural networks, The Journal of Chemical Physics 147, 161725 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    H. Suwa, J. S. Smith, N. Lubbers, C. D. Batista, G.-W. Chern, and K. Barros, Machine learning for molecular dynamics with strongly correlated electrons, Phys. Rev. B 99, 161107 (2019)

    2019

  31. [38]

    Chmiela, A

    S. Chmiela, A. Tkatchenko, H. E. Sauceda, I. Poltavsky, K. T. Sch¨ utt, and K.-R. M¨ uller, Machine learning of ac- curate energy-conserving molecular force fields, Science Advances 3, e1603015 (2017)

    2017

  32. [39]

    Chmiela, H

    S. Chmiela, H. E. Sauceda, K.-R. M¨ uller, and A. Tkatchenko, Towards exact molecular dynamics sim- ulations with machine-learned force fields, Nature Com- munications 9, 3887 (2018)

    2018

  33. [40]

    H. E. Sauceda, M. Gastegger, S. Chmiela, K.-R. M¨ uller, and A. Tkatchenko, Molecular force fields with gradient- domain machine learning (GDML): Comparison and syn- ergies with classical force fields, The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 124109 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Zhang, P

    P. Zhang, P. Saha, and G.-W. Chern, Machine learning dynamics of phase separation in correlated electron mag- nets (2020), arXiv:2006.04205 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Zhang and G.-W

    P. Zhang and G.-W. Chern, Arrested phase separation in double-exchange models: Large-scale simulation en- abled by machine learning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 146401 (2021)

    2021

  36. [43]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. Zhang, and G.-W. Chern, Descriptors for machine learning model of generalized force field in con- densed matter systems (2022), arXiv:2201.00798 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Zhang and G.-W

    P. Zhang and G.-W. Chern, Machine learning nonequilib- rium electron forces for spin dynamics of itinerant mag- nets, npj Computational Materials 9, 32 (2023)

    2023

  38. [45]

    Zhang, P

    S. Zhang, P. Zhang, and G.-W. Chern, Anomalous phase separation in a correlated electron system: Machine- learning enabled large-scale kinetic monte carlo simula- tions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2119957119 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Cheng, S

    X. Cheng, S. Zhang, P. C. H. Nguyen, S. Azarfar, G.-W. 13 Chern, and S. S. Baek, Convolutional neural networks for large-scale dynamical modeling of itinerant magnets, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033188 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Chauhan, S

    S. Chauhan, S. Mandal, V. Yadav, P. K. Jaiswal, M. Priya, and M. D. Shrimali, Machine learning based prediction of phase ordering dynamics, Chaos: An In- terdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 061103 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  42. [50]

    Oono and S

    Y. Oono and S. Puri, Study of phase-separation dynamics by use of cell dynamical systems. i. modeling, Phys. Rev. A 38, 434 (1988)

    1988

  43. [51]

    Puri and Y

    S. Puri and Y. Oono, Study of phase-separation dynam- ics by use of cell dynamical systems. ii. two-dimensional demonstrations, Phys. Rev. A 38, 1542 (1988)

    1988

  44. [52]

    Allen and J

    S. Allen and J. Cahn, Ground state structures in or- dered binary alloys with second neighbor interactions, Acta Metallurgica 20, 423 (1972)

    1972

  45. [53]

    Holstein, Studies of polaron motion: Part i

    T. Holstein, Studies of polaron motion: Part i. the molecular-crystal model, Annals of Physics 8, 325 (1959)

    1959

  46. [54]

    Bonˇ ca, S

    J. Bonˇ ca, S. A. Trugman, and I. Batisti´ c, Holstein po- laron, Phys. Rev. B 60, 1633 (1999)

    1999

  47. [55]

    Goleˇ z, J

    D. Goleˇ z, J. Bonˇ ca, L. Vidmar, and S. A. Trugman, Re- laxation dynamics of the holstein polaron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 236402 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    A. S. Mishchenko, N. Nagaosa, and N. Prokof’ev, Dia- grammatic monte carlo method for many-polaron prob- lems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 166402 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    R. T. Scalettar, N. E. Bickers, and D. J. Scalapino, Com- petition of pairing and peierls–charge-density-wave cor- relations in a two-dimensional electron-phonon model, Phys. Rev. B 40, 197 (1989)

    1989

  50. [58]

    N. C. Costa, T. Blommel, W.-T. Chiu, G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Phonon dispersion and the competition between pairing and charge order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 187003 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Bradley, G

    O. Bradley, G. G. Batrouni, and R. T. Scalettar, Super- conductivity and charge density wave order in the two- dimensional holstein model, Phys. Rev. B 103, 235104 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Marx and J

    D. Marx and J. Hutter, Ab initio molecular dynamics: basic theory and advanced methods(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, The kernel polynomial method, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 275 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    Barros and Y

    K. Barros and Y. Kato, Efficient langevin simulation of coupled classical fields and fermions, Phys. Rev. B 88, 235101 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Wang, G.-W

    Z. Wang, G.-W. Chern, C. D. Batista, and K. Bar- ros, Gradient-based stochastic estimation of the density matrix, The Journal of Chemical Physics 148, 094107 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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