Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Quantum-enhanced neural networks for quantum many-body simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A parameterized quantum circuit grafted onto an autoregressive neural network forms a variational wavefunction that reaches chemical accuracy on LiH with far fewer parameters than a standalone neural quantum state.

desk verdict Honest, well-cited hybrid ansatz paper with a coherent importance-sampling formalism and released code, but the 'quantum-enhanced expressivity' headline is underdetermined by a missing equal-capacity classical control. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12130 v1 pith:FWOIUOWP submitted 2025-01-21 quant-ph

Zongkang Zhang , Ying Li , Xiaosi Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords neuralquantumstatesvariationalMonteCarloparameterizedcircuitshybridquantum-classicalansatzautoregressiveTransformerwavefunctionschemistrygroundHeisenbergmodelimportancesampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a variational ansatz that multiplies a parameterized quantum circuit (PQC) by a neural quantum state, so the circuit supplies part of the wavefunction's amplitude and phase while an autoregressive Transformer supplies normalized probabilities for direct sampling. The goal is to show that a small quantum circuit can supply the expressivity that a deliberately small classical network lacks, without scaling up the classical model. In the paper's headline result, a six-qubit LiH model with a 435-parameter neural part plus 60 circuit parameters reaches an average energy error of $6.0\times10^{-5}$ Ha, below the chemical-accuracy threshold of $1.6\times10^{-3}$ Ha, while a purely classical network with more than ten times the parameters reaches only $9.4\times10^{-4}$ Ha. The same pattern appears for a seven-spin Heisenberg chain, where the hybrid ansatz ends with a relative error near $10^{-3}$ and the standalone NQS stays above $3\times10^{-2}$. If correct, this gives a practical route to more accurate ground-state energies on near-term quantum hardware without commensurately growing the classical network.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the product ansatz of Eq. (3), in which the PQC contributes the log-amplitude $f[s;U(\theta)] = \sum_i c_i \langle s| U^\dagger(\theta) Z_i U(\theta) |s\rangle$ and the classical part contributes the normalized autoregressive amplitude $\sqrt{p(s;\lambda_1)} e^{i\gamma(s;\lambda_2)}$. The Transformer's autoregressive structure makes $p(s)$ directly samplable, so the VMC step uses importance sampling with weight $\omega(s)$ instead of Markov-chain burn-in; the PQC amplitude and phase are estimated from $Z$-basis measurements, and circuit gradients come from the parameter-shift rule. Two controls stabilize the estimator: initializing circuit parameters near zero keeps $\omega(s)$ close to 1, while bounding the amplitude by $\tanh$ gives a hard upper bound on the importance weight. For chemistry, masking the Transformer's output probabilities with Heaviside functions reduces the sampling space from $2^{N_e}$ to $\binom{N_O}{N_\uparrow}\binom{N_O}{N_\downarrow}$, preserving particle-number conservation.

What would settle it

Repeat the LiH or 7-spin Heisenberg experiment with the small NQS expanded by the same 60 (or 70) parameters the PQC contributes, keeping the optimizer, sample size, and iteration count fixed; if the enlarged classical network reaches the same final error, the claim that the PQC adds expressivity beyond extra parameters is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hybrid wavefunction $\langle s|\Psi\rangle = \langle s|\phi(\theta)\rangle\,\langle s|\varphi(\lambda)\rangle$, with $\phi(\theta)$ produced by a hardware-efficient PQC and $\varphi(\lambda)$ by a Transformer plus a feedforward phase network, is more expressive per parameter than either component alone. Because the Transformer is autoregressive, configurations are sampled directly and independently, and importance weights $\omega(s) = |\langle s|\phi\rangle|^2 / \mathbb{E}_{p}[|\langle s|\phi\rangle|^2]$ computed from quantum measurements reweight the samples within the usual variational Monte Carlo estimator. The authors show, by pretraining the neural part and then optimizing only PQC layers, that each added quantum layer lowers the relative energy error, and they demonstrate on LiH that the hybrid beats the chemical-accuracy threshold while a much larger classical NQS does not. They interpret these results as evidence that a PQC effectively augments the wavefunction when the classical network's expressive power is constrained.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quantum-expressivity conclusion rests on comparing the hybrid against a deliberately small classical network; the authors never test a classical network enlarged by the same number of extra parameters, so the improvement could in principle come from added capacity rather than from the quantum circuit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, near-term quantum hardware can improve NQS ground-state calculations by adding a shallow PQC instead of enlarging the classical network.
  • The LiH results imply that a 60-parameter quantum circuit can push a deliberately small neural ansatz below chemical accuracy, a level the paper's much larger classical baseline does not reach.
  • Sequential optimization on a 7-spin Heisenberg chain shows the hybrid ending at a relative error near $10^{-3}$, versus above $3\times10^{-2}$ for the standalone NQS.
  • With sample sizes and shot numbers in the $10^3$–$10^4$ range, the estimator converges and its statistical error shrinks; near $10^5$ shots the results match noise-free circuit simulations.
  • The symmetry-masking procedure applies to any Hamiltonian with conserved particle numbers, and the paper notes the Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian is a special case of the electronic Hamiltonian studied here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A control the paper does not run would make the quantum-expressivity claim sharper: enlarge the small NQS by the same 60 (or 70) parameters the PQC adds, using the same architecture and optimizer; matching errors would attribute the gain to capacity rather than to quantum correlations.
  • Because the PQC amplitude enters only through the reweighting factor $\omega(s)$, the same sampler could be reused for other objectives, such as excited states or finite-temperature properties, by swapping the target Hamiltonian while keeping the Transformer fixed.
  • The paper's $O(BM)$ measurement cost, with $B$ and $M$ around $10^4$, suggests the method is feasible on noisy hardware only if shot noise and gate errors stay well below the reported energy scale; a natural extension is to test the $\tanh$-bounded importance weight under real device noise.
  • A direct next benchmark suggested by the framework is the Fermi-Hubbard model, where the paper's Jordan-Wigner mapping and symmetry masking apply without modification.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical variational ansatz for many-body ground-state calculations. The wavefunction is written as a product of a Parameterized Quantum Circuit (PQC) contribution and a classical Neural Quantum State (NQS), where the NQS is a Transformer autoregressive sampler supplemented by a feedforward phase network. The authors introduce a Transformer-guided importance-sampling estimator (Eqs. 8--13), address variance control through small parameter initialization and a tanh rescaling, and exploit symmetries to reduce the sampling space. Numerical tests are reported for anti-ferromagnetic Heisenberg chains with 2--8 spins and for LiH in STO-3G with an active space. The headline numerical result is that a deliberately small NQS augmented by a four-layer PQC reaches LiH energy errors near 6.0e-5 Ha, whereas the same small NQS alone has errors around 5.8e-2 Ha and a much larger NQS alone only reaches 9.4e-4 Ha. The paper concludes that a PQC enhances the expressive power of the NQS and allows higher accuracy with significantly fewer parameters.

Significance. If the central claim were cleanly established, this would be a useful contribution to the growing literature on hybrid quantum-classical variational methods. The importance-sampling formalism is coherent, the numerical pipeline is described in enough detail to be reproducible, and the source code is stated to be available publicly. The use of 100 independent seeds for the main error statistics is a clear strength. However, the significance of the paper currently rests on an interpretational claim that is not isolated by the reported comparisons: the hybrid ansatz is always compared against classical NQS baselines with either far fewer or far more parameters, and no equal-capacity classical control is tested. The numerical results are consistent with a more modest statement about parameter efficiency, but they do not yet establish that the PQC contributes expressivity that a classical network with the same added capacity could not provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 5] The central claim that the PQC 'enhances the expressive power' of the NQS is not isolated from added parameter capacity. The comparison shown is NQS-d=3 (435 classical parameters, error 5.8e-2 Ha) versus Hybrid-d=3-Nl=4 (the same classical network plus a PQC with 60 additional parameters, error 6.0e-5 Ha), with NQS-d=8 (6474 parameters, error 9.4e-4 Ha) as an upper bound. No control of a classical NQS augmented by the same number of additional trainable degrees of freedom is reported. Since increasing the classical parameter count from 435 to 6474 already lowers the error by approximately two orders of magnitude, the observed improvement could be explained by added capacity alone. A decisive control would be a classically augmented NQS with a comparable number of extra parameters, trained under the identical protocol; without it, the 'quantum-enhanced expressivity' conclusion in the Abstract and Section III is not established.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4] The sequential-optimization experiment shows that freezing the NQS and then adding PQC layers lowers the energy, but the proper classical controls are absent. One should either continue training the frozen NQS for the same number of iterations, or add an equivalent number of classical parameters after pretraining, e.g., additional Transformer blocks, wider phase-network layers, or a classical product factor. Without such controls, the improvement observed as Nl increases from 0 to 4 is compatible with the added capacity of the PQC layers rather than with any quantum-specific expressivity.
  3. [Appendix C, Fig. 7] The text states that increasing the Transformer embedding dimension from 4 to 8 for the 7-spin AFH chain 'yields comparable accuracy' to the hybrid ansatz, while increasing the classical parameter count to O(10^3). This is a potentially important comparison and should be reported quantitatively. If the d=8 NQS indeed matches the hybrid's relative error near 10^-3, then the Section III claim of 'higher accuracy with significantly fewer parameters' should be rephrased as a parameter-efficiency result; if it does not, the numerical values need to be given. As written, the caption and text leave the comparison ambiguous, and this ambiguity directly affects the main conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A] The word 'normarlized' should read 'normalized'.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (20)] The Heisenberg Hamiltonian as written appears to contain index typos: the last two terms should likely be sigma^Y_i sigma^Y_j and sigma^Z_i sigma^Z_j, while the printed text has sigma^Y_i sigma^Y_i and sigma^X_i sigma^X_i. The equation should be corrected to match the model actually simulated.
  3. [Appendix D, Table I] The row labeled 'Qubit size 2' is unclear for a six-qubit LiH calculation; this presumably refers to the two-dimensional qubit-state embedding, but it should be clarified so that the total qubit count is unambiguous.
  4. [Appendix D, Table I caption] It would be helpful to state explicitly which hyperparameters are shared between the NQS-only runs and the hybrid runs in Figs. 5--7, not only for the LiH run in the table but also for the AFH runs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hybrid wavefunction parameters are optimized by energy minimization against externally evaluated Hamiltonians, so the reported hybrid-vs-NQS improvement is an empirical comparison rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The hybrid wavefunction in Eq. (3) is a product ansatz whose parameters {θ, λ, c} are optimized by minimizing the estimated Rayleigh quotient E_H_VMC in Eqs. (10)-(11), which is evaluated from Hamiltonian matrix elements and sampled configurations; no target energy or exact ground state is injected as a fitting target. The benchmarks are externally grounded exact small-system energies (e.g., Eg in Figs. 3-7), so the reported errors are not defined through the fitted parameters. The improvement of the hybrid ansatz over standalone NQS in Figs. 5-7 is a capacity and expressivity comparison; the absence of an equal-parameter classical control is a baseline-selection limitation, not an equation-level circularity. The only self-citation by the present authors (Ref. 51, cited in the introductory list of sampling-improvement techniques) is not load-bearing, and no ansatz or uniqueness result is imported from self-cited work. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be quoted and exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The numerical claims rely on standard VMC identities, sparsity of local Hamiltonians, normalized direct sampling from the Transformer, and parameter-shift gradients. The only nonstandard load-bearing assumption is that the chosen small-NQS baseline isolates the quantum circuit's contribution. No equal-capacity classical baseline is provided, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Transformer parameters (embedding, heads, blocks, weights) = e.g., 179 parameters for LiH d=3; 290 parameters for 7-spin AFH
    Optimized by energy minimization in VMC; their capacity directly affects the NQS versus hybrid comparison.
  • Phase-network weights lambda = e.g., 256 parameters for LiH; 272 parameters for 7-spin AFH
    Optimized to represent the phase correction in Eq. (6).
  • PQC rotation angles theta1 and theta2 = varied during training; 60 additional parameters reported for the LiH four-layer circuit
    Variational parameters for the hardware-efficient ansatz; the count is inconsistent with two separate circuits in Eq. (4).
  • PQC coefficients c_i = initialized near zero
    Learnable weights in f[s;U]; small initialization keeps importance weights near one as described in Sec. II D.
  • tanh rescaling factor a = not specified
    Introduced in Sec. II D to bound the importance weight; chosen by hand.
  • Hyperparameters: epsilon, learning rate, sample size B, shots M, circuit layers N_l = epsilon ~ 1e-3, B and M in 1e3 to 1e4, N_l from 0 to 4
    Chosen by hand; the reported accuracies depend on these values.
  • Active-space orbital selection for LiH = 12 spin-orbitals reduced to 6
    Core and virtual orbitals are selected from a 1-RDM analysis; this modeling choice changes the problem difficulty for both NQS and hybrid.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Born-rule sampling and Rayleigh quotient minimization define the ground-state energy estimator in Eq. (1).
    Standard VMC background used throughout Sec. II A.
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian is local or sparse enough that the local energy can be computed efficiently for sampled configurations.
    Assumed in Sec. II A and used for AFH chains and JW-mapped LiH Hamiltonians in small active spaces.
  • standard math The autoregressive Transformer yields a normalized p(s;lambda) with direct i.i.d. sampling, and the importance-sampling identity E_P[O] = E_p[omega O] holds.
    Used in Sec. II C, Eqs. (8) to (13).
  • standard math The parameter-shift rule is valid for computing gradients of the PQC expectation values.
    Invoked in Sec. II C with refs. [73,74].
  • domain assumption Jordan-Wigner mapping plus particle-number and spin masking preserves the physically relevant Hilbert-space sector.
    Used in Sec. II E, Eqs. (16) to (19), for the LiH active space.
  • ad hoc to paper The comparison baseline, a deliberately small NQS, is the correct control for demonstrating quantum-enhanced expressivity.
    Load-bearing for the paper's main interpretation; no classical network with the same number of added parameters is tested in Section III or Appendix C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-enhanced neural networks for quantum many-body simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWOIUOWP

@misc{pith2026250112130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-enhanced neural networks for quantum many-body simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWOIUOWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12130}
}
read the original abstract

Neural quantum states (NQS) have gained prominence in variational quantum Monte Carlo methods in approximating ground-state wavefunctions. Despite their success, they face limitations in optimization, scalability, and expressivity in addressing certain problems. In this work, we propose a quantum-neural hybrid framework that combines parameterized quantum circuits with neural networks to model quantum many-body wavefunctions. This approach combines the efficient sampling and optimization capabilities of autoregressive neural networks with the enhanced expressivity provided by quantum circuits. Numerical simulations demonstrate the scalability and accuracy of the hybrid ansatz in spin systems and quantum chemistry problems. Our results reveal that the hybrid method achieves notably lower relative energy compared to standalone NQS. These findings underscore the potential of quantum-neural hybrid methods for tackling challenging problems in quantum many-body simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Overview and workflow of the quantum-enhanced neural networks. (a) The architecture of the Transformer neural [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy error (top) and statistical error (bottom) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Sequential optimization for quantum circuits with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy convergence curve for the NQS and the hybrid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Potential energy surface of the LiH molecule calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Energy convergence curve for the NQS (blue) and the hybrid quantum-neural wavefunction (orange). For both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Notably, for a given configuration, all values of p(si+1|si,··· , 0) can be computed simultaneously

    Then, p(s;λ) =∏Nq−1 i=0 p(si+1|si,··· , 0). Notably, for a given configuration, all values of p(si+1|si,··· , 0) can be computed simultaneously. In our algorithm, the sam- pling mode is used exclusively for generating samples, while the inference mode, with its automatic differenti- ation capabilities, is applied to compute Eloc(s) and a portion of Oi(s)....

    2000

  2. [2]

    A. W. Sandvik and G. Vidal, Variational quantum monte carlo simulations with tensor-network states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 220602 (2007)

    2007

  3. [3]

    Roggero, A

    A. Roggero, A. Mukherjee, and F. Pederiva, Quantum monte carlo with coupled-cluster wave functions, Phys. Rev. B 88, 115138 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Mahajan and S

    A. Mahajan and S. Sharma, Symmetry-projected jastrow mean-field wave function in variational monte carlo, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 123, 3911 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca, X. Cao, J. Carrasquilla, F. Ferrari, A. Georges, M. Hibat-Allah, M. Imada, A. M. L¨ auchli, G. Mazzola, A. Mezzacapo, A. Millis, J. R. Moreno, T. Neupert, Y. Nomura, J. Nys, O. Parcollet, R. Pohle, I. Romero, M. Schmid, J. M. Silvester, S. Sorella, L. F. Tocchio, L. Wang, S. R. White, A. Wietek, Q...

    2024

  6. [6]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many- body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Torlai, G

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

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Luo and B

    D. Luo and B. K. Clark, Backflow transformations via neural networks for quantum many-body wave functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 226401 (2019)

    2019

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, A. G. D. G. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes, Ab initio solution of the many-electron schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033429 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hermann, Z

    J. Hermann, Z. Sch¨ atzle, and F. No´ e, Deep-neural- network solution of the electronic schr¨ odinger equation, Nature Chemistry 12, 891 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    E. R. Bennewitz, F. Hopfmueller, B. Kulchytskyy, J. Car- rasquilla, and P. Ronagh, Neural error mitigation of near- term quantum simulations, Nature Machine Intelligence 4, 618 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Glasser, N

    I. Glasser, N. Pancotti, M. August, I. D. Rodriguez, and J. I. Cirac, Neural-network quantum states, string-bond states, and chiral topological states, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011006 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    J. Chen, S. Cheng, H. Xie, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Equiv- alence of restricted boltzmann machines and tensor net- work states, Phys. Rev. B 97, 085104 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Sharir, A

    O. Sharir, A. Shashua, and G. Carleo, Neural tensor con- tractions and the expressive power of deep neural quan- tum states, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205136 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, and G. Carleo, From tensor-network quantum states to tensorial recurrent neural networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L032001 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, and F. Becca, Transformer vari- ational wave functions for frustrated quantum spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 236401 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Nomura and M

    Y. Nomura and M. Imada, Dirac-type nodal spin liq- uid revealed by refined quantum many-body solver using neural-network wave function, correlation ratio, and level spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031034 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    W. Ren, W. Fu, X. Wu, and J. Chen, Towards the ground state of molecules via diffusion monte carlo on neural networks, Nature Communications 14, 1860 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Chen and M

    A. Chen and M. Heyl, Empowering deep neural quantum states through efficient optimization, Nature Physics 20, 1476 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    H. Ma, H. Shang, and J. Yang, Quantum embedding method with transformer neural network quantum states for strongly correlated materials, npj Computational Ma- terials 10, 220 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Nielsen, Neural networks and deep learning (2015)

    A. Nielsen, Neural networks and deep learning (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Goodfellow, Deep learning (2016)

    I. Goodfellow, Deep learning (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Lange, A

    H. Lange, A. V. de Walle, A. Abedinnia, and A. Bohrdt, From architectures to applications: a review of neural quantum states, Quantum Science and Technology 9, 040501 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hermann, J

    J. Hermann, J. Spencer, K. Choo, A. Mezzacapo, W. M. C. Foulkes, D. Pfau, G. Carleo, and F. No´ e, Ab initio quantum chemistry with neural-network wavefunc- tions, Nature Reviews Chemistry 7, 692 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Cai and J

    Z. Cai and J. Liu, Approximating quantum many-body wave functions using artificial neural networks, Phys. Rev. B 97, 035116 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    K. Choo, T. Neupert, and G. Carleo, Two-dimensional frustrated J1−J2 model studied with neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125124 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Westerhout, N

    T. Westerhout, N. Astrakhantsev, K. S. Tikhonov, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. A. Bagrov, Generalization properties of neural network approximations to frustrated magnet ground states, Nature communications 11, 1593 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Szab´ o and C

    A. Szab´ o and C. Castelnovo, Neural network wave func- tions and the sign problem, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033075 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Passetti, D

    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, 036502 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026 (1995)

    1995 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal hamiltonian sim- ulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, Near-optimal ground state prepara- tion, Quantum 4, 372 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Alexeev, M

    Y. Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y. J. Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chung, et al., Quantum-centric supercomput- ing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions, Future Generation Computer Systems 160, 6...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Havl´ ıˇ cek, A

    V. Havl´ ıˇ cek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, 11 A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Super- vised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces, Nature 567, 209 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    X.-W. Yao, H. Wang, Z. Liao, M.-C. Chen, J. Pan, J. Li, K. Zhang, X. Lin, Z. Wang, Z. Luo, W. Zheng, J. Li, M. Zhao, X. Peng, and D. Suter, Quantum image pro- cessing and its application to edge detection: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031041 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Abbas, A

    A. Abbas, A. Ambainis, B. Augustino, A. B¨ artschi, H. Buhrman, C. Coffrin, G. Cortiana, V. Dunjko, D. J. Egger, B. G. Elmegreen, N. Franco, F. Fratini, B. Fuller, J. Gacon, C. Gonciulea, S. Gribling, S. Gupta, S. Had- field, R. Heese, G. Kircher, T. Kleinert, T. Koch, G. Ko- ...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Callison and N

    A. Callison and N. Chancellor, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms in the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era and beyond, Phys. Rev. A 106, 010101 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Zhang, C.-Y

    S.-X. Zhang, C.-Y. Hsieh, S. Zhang, and H. Yao, Differ- entiable quantum architecture search, Quantum Science and Technology 7, 045023 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Liang, J

    Z. Liang, J. Cheng, R. Yang, H. Ren, Z. Song, D. Wu, X. Qian, T. Li, and Y. Shi, Unleashing the potential of llms for quantum computing: A study in quantum archi- tecture design, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08191 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Nakaji, L

    K. Nakaji, L. B. Kristensen, J. A. Campos-Gonzalez- Angulo, M. G. Vakili, H. Huang, M. Bagherimehrab, C. Gorgulla, F. Wong, A. McCaskey, J.-S. Kim, et al. , The generative quantum eigensolver (gqe) and its application for ground state search, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09253 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zhang, Z.-Q

    S.-X. Zhang, Z.-Q. Wan, C.-K. Lee, C.-Y. Hsieh, S. Zhang, and H. Yao, Variational quantum-neural hy- brid eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 120502 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Zhang, J

    S.-X. Zhang, J. Miao, and C.-Y. Hsieh, Variational post- selection for ground states and thermal states simulation, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 015028 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Czischek, M

    S. Czischek, M. S. Moss, M. Radzihovsky, E. Merali, and R. G. Melko, Data-enhanced variational monte carlo simulations for rydberg atom arrays, Phys. Rev. B 105, 205108 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill, Provably efficient machine learning for quan- tum many-body problems, Science 377, eabk3333 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    M. S. Moss, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, G. Semeghini, A. Bohrdt, M. D. Lukin, and R. G. Melko, Enhanc- ing variational monte carlo simulations using a pro- grammable quantum simulator, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032410 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Lange, G

    H. Lange, G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, T. La- haye, S. Kienle, A. Browaeys, and A. Bohrdt, Trans- former neural networks and quantum simulators: a hy- brid approach for simulating strongly correlated systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00091 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Torlai, G

    G. Torlai, G. Mazzola, G. Carleo, and A. Mezza- capo, Precise measurement of quantum observables with neural-network estimators, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022060 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Y. Yang, Z. Zhang, A. Wang, X. Xu, X. Wang, and Y. Li, Maximizing quantum-computing expressive power through randomized circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023098 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Becca and S

    F. Becca and S. Sorella, Quantum Monte Carlo ap- proaches for correlated systems (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Sharir, Y

    O. Sharir, Y. Levine, N. Wies, G. Carleo, and A. Shashua, Deep autoregressive models for the efficient variational simulation of many-body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 020503 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    K. Choo, A. Mezzacapo, and G. Carleo, Fermionic neural-network states for ab-initio electronic structure, Nature communications 11, 2368 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    D. R. Hartree, The wave mechanics of an atom with a non-coulomb central field. part i. theory and methods, in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 24 (Cambridge university press, 1928) pp. 89–110

    1928

  49. [57]

    J. C. Slater, A simplification of the hartree-fock method, Phys. Rev. 81, 385 (1951)

    1951

  50. [58]

    Jastrow, Many-body problem with strong forces, Phys

    R. Jastrow, Many-body problem with strong forces, Phys. Rev. 98, 1479 (1955)

    1955

  51. [59]

    D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, Ground state of the electron gas by a stochastic method, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 566 (1980)

    1980

  52. [60]

    C. J. Cramer, Essentials of computational chemistry: the- ories and models (John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    G. D. Purvis III and R. J. Bartlett, A full coupled-cluster singles and doubles model: The inclusion of disconnected triples, The Journal of chemical physics 76, 1910 (1982)

    1982

  54. [62]

    Liang, W.-Y

    X. Liang, W.-Y. Liu, P.-Z. Lin, G.-C. Guo, Y.-S. Zhang, and L. He, Solving frustrated quantum many-particle models with convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104426 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Hibat-Allah, M

    M. Hibat-Allah, M. Ganahl, L. E. Hayward, R. G. Melko, and J. Carrasquilla, Recurrent neural network wave func- tions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023358 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, in 3rd International Conference on Learn- ing Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings , edited by Y. Bengio and Y. LeCun (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Park and M

    C.-Y. Park and M. J. Kastoryano, Geometry of learning neural quantum states, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023232 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Lange, F

    H. Lange, F. D¨ oschl, J. Carrasquilla, and A. Bohrdt, Neural network approach to quasiparticle dispersions in doped antiferromagnets, Communications Physics 7, 187 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Rende, L

    R. Rende, L. L. Viteritti, L. Bardone, F. Becca, and S. Goldt, A simple linear algebra identity to optimize large-scale neural network quantum states, Communica- tions Physics 7, 260 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Abbas, D

    A. Abbas, D. Sutter, C. Zoufal, A. Lucchi, A. Figalli, and S. Woerner, The power of quantum neural networks, Nature Computational Science 1, 403 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, nature549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    Jerbi, L

    S. Jerbi, L. J. Fiderer, H. Poulsen Nautrup, J. M. K¨ ubler, H. J. Briegel, and V. Dunjko, Quantum machine learning beyond kernel methods, Nature Communications 14, 1 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    T. D. Barrett, A. Malyshev, and A. Lvovsky, Autoregres- 12 sive neural-network wavefunctions for ab initio quantum chemistry, Nature Machine Intelligence 4, 351 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    F. Metz, G. Pescia, and G. Carleo, Simulating continuous-space systems with quantum-classical wave functions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06415 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, Learning representations by back-propagating errors, na- ture 323, 533 (1986)

    1986

  66. [74]

    J. Li, X. Yang, X. Peng, and C.-P. Sun, Hybrid quantum- classical approach to quantum optimal control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150503 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quan- tum circuit learning, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, X. Bonet-Monroig, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. H¨ aner, T. Hardikar, V. Havl´ ıˇ cek, O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M. Neeley, T. O’Brien, B. O’Gorman, ...

    2020

  69. [77]

    Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, H

    E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, H. Lange, R. G. Melko, R. T. Scalettar, J. Carrasquilla, A. Bohrdt, and E. Khatami, Autoregressive neural quantum states of fermi hubbard models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07144 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al. , Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, Quantum computing with Qiskit (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    https://github.com/ZongkangZhang/ Quantum-enhanced-neural-networks

  73. [81]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, SGDR: Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts, in International Conference on Learning Representations (2017). 13 Appendix A: Number of parameters in the T ransformer neural network The total number of parameters of the Transformer neural ne...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.