Learning spatially structured open quantum dynamics with regional-attention transformers

Dounan Du; Eden Figueroa

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Learning spatially structured open quantum dynamics with regional-attention transformers

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A regional-attention transformer learns the spatiotemporal dynamics of driven, dissipative open quantum systems, reproducing EIT quantum-memory trajectories with fidelity above 0.995 under 5-sigma control-timing shifts and running up to 148

desk verdict A solid surrogate-modeling paper for two local-observable systems that overclaims generality because its token representation cannot encode spatial entanglement. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06871 v1 pith:K3GRTD4B submitted 2025-09-08 quant-ph cs.LGphysics.atom-ph

Dounan Du , Eden Figueroa This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.LGphysics.atom-ph

keywords openquantumsystemstransformerregionalattentionEITmemorysurrogatemodelingnetworksimulationmasterequationelectromagneticallyinducedtransparency

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 introduces Quformer, a decoder-only transformer with regional attention, as a surrogate for spatially structured open quantum systems driven by time-dependent control fields. The central claim is that the architecture learns the coupled master-equation and field-propagation dynamics well enough to predict full trajectories: on an EIT quantum memory in rubidium vapor it keeps average state fidelity above 0.995 and preserves readout timing and pulse energy across 5-sigma shifts in control timing, with and without decoherence. On a single driven dissipative qubit, fidelity stays above 0.997 under 3-sigma shifts in the driving turn-off time. The model also bypasses the adaptive time-stepping that makes the classical Maxwell–Bloch solver stiff, yielding inference accelerations of 90x on an Apple GPU and up to 1485x on a cloud GPU. If these results hold, the framework promises near-real-time device modeling for quantum network simulation, repeater design, and experimental feedback loops.

What carries the argument

The Quformer encodes each grid point as a token that concatenates a Hermiticity-preserving real-vector density matrix with the local propagating field. Regional decomposition partitions the (T,X,Y,Z,C) array into non-overlapping local regions and applies shared self-attention inside each, cutting attention complexity from O(T^2 X^2 Y^2 Z^2) to O(TXYZ × txyz). Two communication channels—alternating decomposition configurations across layers and global tensors that aggregate the full domain—let local regions exchange boundary information, while MLP embeddings of the global control field inject time-dependent driving. The decoder-only, autoregressive structure produces frame-by-frame prediction

What would settle it

Generate a benchmark system where spatial entanglement grows over time (for example, two distant qubits prepared in a Bell state with local dissipation or a short-range interacting chain), train the same regional-attention model on its trajectories, and check whether predicted fidelity drops below the 0.995 range reported here. If the local-token representation cannot reproduce the entangled state, the 'general surrogate modeling framework' claim is disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that regional attention—self-attention restricted to fixed-size, translationally shared subregions of the spacetime grid, with a global tensor bus and alternating decompositions to propagate information—lets a decoder-only transformer learn the full spatiotemporal dynamics of driven, dissipative open quantum systems. On a rubidium-87 EIT quantum memory, the Quformer (4.4M) keeps average state fidelity above 0.995 and field observables well aligned all the way to 5-sigma shifts in control turn-on time, with or without ground-state decoherence; on a single driven qubit it stays above 0.997 fidelity through 3-sigma shifts in turn-off time. Inference is 90–1485x faster than a Py

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that each grid point can be represented by its local reduced density matrix and that long-range entanglement between distant regions can be neglected; if the target system develops significant spatial entanglement, the model has no way to encode it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Quformer generalizes as demonstrated, an EIT memory's storage-and-retrieval dynamics can be evaluated in milliseconds on a GPU, making exhaustive protocol search over control timing practical.
Network-scale simulators could replace the stiffness-limited Maxwell–Bloch integration for each node with the surrogate, enabling end-to-end quantum repeater modeling with time-dependent control.
The same token embedding and regional decomposition should transfer to cavity QED, waveguide QED, and atomic arrays, because the architecture only assumes local master-equation dynamics with translational invariance.
Since trace and Hermiticity remain stable out of distribution without explicit enforcement, the model's learned physical constraints can serve as a cheap sanity check during inference.
The uniform 120-point time grid means the surrogate avoids the numerical stiffness that forces adaptive time stepping, so the acceleration compounds with any use case that previously required millions of solver steps.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the 1485x number compares a 120-point uniform-grid prediction against an adaptive solver that typically produces about 1e5 time steps; a training-aware cost comparison would shrink the gap but likely still favor the surrogate for repeated evaluations.
Editorial inference: the local-density-matrix token sets a representational ceiling the paper acknowledges; an immediately testable extension is to replace single-site tokens with small multi-site clusters (e.g., pairs or plaquettes) to capture short-range entanglement without changing the regional-attention mechanics.
Editorial inference: the out-of-distribution results cover timing shifts only; extrapolating in field amplitude, detuning, or medium length are natural next experiments and would reveal whether the translation-invariance bias generalizes beyond the control axis tested.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know up front: this is a competent ML-for-physics paper with a real overclaim. The Quformer architecture does what it says on the tin for the two testbeds—a driven dissipative qubit and an EIT quantum memory—and the OOD evaluation is more careful than most papers in this area. But the “general surrogate modeling framework” language in the abstract and conclusion is not supported by the architecture, and the stress-test note is right about why.

The genuinely new bits are the Hermiticity-preserving density-matrix token encoding and the dual-field conditioning (global control plus propagating boundary field). Applying axial/regional attention to spatially extended open quantum systems is a sensible translation of existing ideas, and the EIT memory surrogate with 5σ timing extrapolation is a useful demonstration. Credit where due: they report held-out test sets, error bars, multiple metric categories, and a public code link. They also explicitly acknowledge the entanglement limitation in the Discussion, which is more than many papers do.

The soft spots are real but not all equal. The biggest is the representational ceiling: each grid site is a local reduced density matrix, so any dynamics substantially driven by spatial entanglement cannot be captured. The two testbeds never require it, so the paper provides zero evidence for the claimed applications to quantum repeaters, network-scale simulation, or entangled light-matter interfaces. That's a scope problem, not an internal inconsistency—the demonstrated results can stand on their own.

The speedup benchmark is partly apples-to-oranges: 120-point uniform grid on a GH200 versus an adaptive ~10^5-step CPU solver. That still says something practical, but “1485×” flatters the model. Fidelity is computed after normalizing the predicted density matrices, which hides trace violations—though they do report trace deviation separately. And there are no external baselines, so we don't know whether a simpler reduced-order model or a standard U-Net would do as well. Training cost is also omitted. None of this kills the paper; it just needs humility and a few additions.

Who is this for? Anyone building ML surrogates for quantum memories or control-driven, mean-field-like open systems. It's a useful case study for that niche. It deserves a serious referee—the architecture is sensible, the evaluation is honest about its limits, and the overclaim is fixable. I'd want the authors to temper the “general framework” language, add at least one baseline, and either extend to a system with short-range correlations or explicitly scope the framework to local-observable dynamics. That's a revise-and-resubmit, not a reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Quformer, a regional-attention transformer for surrogate modeling of spatially structured open quantum system dynamics. The model encodes each grid point as a local reduced density matrix token along with classical field components, applies self-attention within local regions with shared weights (translational invariance), and exchanges cross-region information through alternating decompositions and global tensors. It is evaluated on (i) a driven dissipative single qubit and (ii) an EIT-based quantum memory in Rb vapor, both with and without decoherence. The authors report high in-distribution fidelity, graceful degradation under out-of-distribution control-timing shifts (up to 5σ), low trace violations, and inference speedups of 90–1485× over a Python Maxwell–Bloch solver. The paper claims the architecture establishes a general surrogate modeling framework for spatially structured open quantum dynamics, with relevance to quantum networks, repeaters, and device optimization.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a carefully evaluated neural emulator for a class of light–matter systems that are well described by single-site reduced density matrices and a classical propagating field. Strengths include the deliberate OOD test design, multiple quantitative and qualitative metrics, comparisons across three model variants, and the promise of public code. However, the 'general surrogate' claim is not supported by the evidence: the representation excludes multi-site entanglement by construction, and the two demonstrated systems do not require spatial quantum correlations. The acceleration benchmark also compares unequal accuracy settings. When the claims are revised to the demonstrated scope, the paper is a useful contribution to fast simulation of local-density-matrix open quantum dynamics.

major comments (2)

[Abstract, Introduction, §3] The claim of a 'general surrogate modeling framework' is overstated given the representational ceiling acknowledged in §3: 'long-range entanglement between distant regions is not explicitly represented, since each grid site is modeled by its local reduced density matrix token.' The token embedding (§2.2, Eq. 3) is a single-site density matrix plus field amplitude; the two testbeds (single qubit, EIT memory) are both fully captured by local single-site states coupled to a classical field and never exercise spatial entanglement. The communication channels exchange boundary information and global summaries, but these do not introduce multi-site quantum state correlations. Any target system whose dynamics depend on spatial entanglement—e.g., quantum networks, repeaters, entangled light–matter interfaces—cannot be faithfully modeled by this architecture as presented. The authors should either
[§4.6, Fig. 5] The acceleration benchmark is not an equal-fidelity comparison. The classical solver uses adaptive time stepping, typically producing ~10^5 uneven time steps, while the surrogate outputs 120 uniform time points; the text states that direct numerical integration on that coarse grid is unstable. Thus the reported 560–1485× speedup conflates architectural throughput with the difference in output resolution and numerical tolerance. A fair benchmark would hold accuracy constant (e.g., compare against a solver configured to achieve the same target error, or report time-to-solution at a given accuracy), or would explicitly label the comparison as 'surrogate on coarse grid vs. high-accuracy adaptive solver' and discuss the trade-off. As written, the three-orders-of-magnitude claim is an upper bound derived from unequal settings and may mislead readers about the practical speedup when matched for

minor comments (5)

[§2.3] The initial state is described as sampled from a Gaussian over 'superposition coefficients of |0⟩ and |0⟩'; the second ket should presumably be |1⟩.
[Fig. 2, Fig. 4] The Bloch-sphere panels (Fig. 2c–f) and the heatmaps/line plots (Fig. 4) are very small; increasing font sizes and panel contrast would improve readability.
[§2.2] The sentence 'The attention weights learned within one subregion can then be shared across all others' is ambiguous; clarify that the weight matrices are tied across regions (parameter sharing), not that learned attention patterns are copied.
[§4.5] The fidelity metric is computed after normalizing predicted density matrices to unit trace, so the headline fidelity values do not incorporate trace violation. The trace deviation is reported separately and is not negligible (∆Tr ~0.003–0.005 in Tables B2–B3); the claim of 'physically consistent' predictions should note this separation.
[Table 2] The table lists identical t0 mean/std for ID and all OOD columns; consider stating explicitly that only ton shifts while t0 is held fixed, to avoid apparent repetition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the learned surrogate is evaluated on held-out OOD samples, and the self-citations are background references.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical claim about a trained surrogate, not a derivation from first principles. The model is fit only to in-distribution synthetic trajectories generated from the Maxwell-Bloch solver, then evaluated on in-distribution and out-of-distribution test sets constructed by shifting the mean of the control-timing distributions (Table 2; Fig. 3a). These are genuine extrapolations, and the paper reports increasing errors with larger shifts, so the predictions are not forced by construction. The physical-constraint embedding in Eq. (3) is a representation of the density matrix, not a fitted target or a parameter reused as a prediction. The only author-overlapping references ([15], [17]) are cited as experimental examples of EIT quantum memories; they do not support the architecture, the extrapolation results, or the acceleration claims. Using the same solver for training data and benchmark is a validation-loop limitation—the surrogate cannot correct solver error—but it is not circular: the model is not constructed to reproduce the solver by definition, and the reported OOD degradation shows it can deviate. Section 3's explicit limitation that long-range entanglement is not represented is an honest scope restriction, not a circular step. No equation, parameter, or citation reduces the paper's claims to its own inputs.

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

The paper's scientific content is a fitted surrogate; its load-bearing inputs are (1) the validity of the Maxwell-Bloch model, (2) the homogeneity/translation invariance of the domain, (3) the adequacy of single-site density matrices, and (4) standard ML hyperparameters. No physical constants are derived; all predictions are numerical emulations of a chosen solver.

free parameters (4)

Attention blocks NB and decomposition shapes = NB=4 (Quformer 4.4M); shapes (120,1)->(1,99)
Hand-chosen architecture hyperparameters; the paper tests NB=6 and a 3-stage decomposition as variants, but no systematic search or derivation is given.
Training schedule hyperparameters = 150 epochs, batch size 5 (memory) / 10 (qubit), LR warmup to 1e-3, weight decay 0.1
Standard choices, not derived from the physics; performance depends on them.
Decoherence rates in the decoherence-included dataset = dephasing 2pi x 2.5 kHz, population decay 2pi x 2.5 kHz
Chosen to model a buffer-gas cell; these are physical inputs, but the specific values are not measured in this work.
Data-generating distribution parameters for EIT memory (t0 and ton means/stds) = t0: mean 2.00 us, std 5e-2 us; ton: mean 4.00 us ID, std 0.3 us; OOD shifts +1 sigma to +5 sigma
Chosen by the authors to mimic experimental jitter; the OOD claim is defined relative to these distributions, so they are load-bearing for the generalization claim.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Born-Markov approximation for system-environment coupling (Eq. 2)
Used in both problems; assumes Markovian, weak-coupling environment, enabling the local master equation.
domain assumption Semi-classical treatment of the probe field (Eq. 8)
The probe is treated as a classical field coupled to single-atom coherences; quantum correlations of the field are neglected. Standard for weak pulses, but limits validity.
ad hoc to paper Translational invariance of the underlying equations, enabling shared attention weights across subregions
Section 2.2: 'The evolution at different spacetime points is governed by the same local dynamical laws.' True for the homogeneous EIT cell, but not for general lattices with site-dependent terms.
ad hoc to paper Sufficiency of single-site reduced density matrices as state representation
Section 3 limitation: long-range entanglement is not represented; model cannot encode entangled dynamics.
domain assumption Numerical solver output is a faithful surrogate for the physical system
Training and evaluation both use the Maxwell-Bloch solver; no experimental validation is provided (Discussion names this as future work).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning spatially structured open quantum dynamics with regional-attention transformers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3GRTD4B

@misc{pith2026250906871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning spatially structured open quantum dynamics with regional-attention transformers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3GRTD4B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06871}
}

read the original abstract

Simulating the dynamics of open quantum systems with spatial structure and external control is an important challenge in quantum information science. Classical numerical solvers for such systems require integrating coupled master and field equations, which is computationally demanding for simulation and optimization tasks and often precluding real-time use in network-scale simulations or feedback control. We introduce a regional attention-based neural architecture that learns the spatiotemporal dynamics of structured open quantum systems. The model incorporates translational invariance of physical laws as an inductive bias to achieve scalable complexity, and supports conditioning on time-dependent global control parameters. We demonstrate learning on two representative systems: a driven dissipative single qubit and an electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) quantum memory. The model achieves high predictive fidelity under both in-distribution and out-of-distribution control protocols, and provides substantial acceleration up to three orders of magnitude over numerical solvers. These results demonstrate that the architecture establishes a general surrogate modeling framework for spatially structured open quantum dynamics, with immediate relevance to large-scale quantum network simulation, quantum repeater and protocol design, real-time experimental optimization, and scalable device modeling across diverse light-matter platforms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Nature Physics6(11), 894–899 (2010)

Radnaev,A.,Dudin,Y.,Zhao,R.,Jen,H.,Jenkins,S.,Kuzmich,A.,Kennedy,T.: A quantum memory with telecom-wavelength conversion. Nature Physics6(11), 894–899 (2010)

work page 2010
[2]

Nature Photonics13(5), 346–351 (2019)

Wang, Y., Li, J., Zhang, S., Su, K., Zhou, Y., Liao, K., Du, S., Yan, H., Zhu, S.-L.: Efficient quantum memory for single-photon polarization qubits. Nature Photonics13(5), 346–351 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Nature communications9(1), 363 (2018)

Vernaz-Gris, P., Huang, K., Cao, M., Sheremet, A.S., Laurat, J.: Highly-efficient quantum memory for polarization qubits in a spatially-multiplexed cold atomic ensemble. Nature communications9(1), 363 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Reviews of Modern Physics90(3), 031002 (2018)

Chang, D., Douglas, J., González-Tudela, A., Hung, C.-L., Kimble, H.: Collo- quium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons. Reviews of Modern Physics90(3), 031002 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Prx Quantum3(1), 010201 (2022)

Reitz, M., Sommer, C., Genes, C.: Cooperative quantum phenomena in light- matter platforms. Prx Quantum3(1), 010201 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

Nature Communications13(1), 2285 (2022)

Masson, S.J., Asenjo-Garcia, A.: Universality of dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters. Nature Communications13(1), 2285 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics79(3), 033814 (2009)

Willis, R., Becerra, F., Orozco, L., Rolston, S.: Four-wave mixing in the diamond configuration in an atomic vapor. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics79(3), 033814 (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

Physical Review Letters123(24), 243604 (2019)

Ogden, T.P., Whittaker, K., Keaveney, J., Wrathmall, S., Adams, C., Potvliege, R.: Quasisimultons in thermal atomic vapors. Physical Review Letters123(24), 243604 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 39 references

[9]

Nature 566(7744), 359–362 (2019)

Corzo, N.V., Raskop, J., Chandra, A., Sheremet, A.S., Gouraud, B., Lau- rat, J.: Waveguide-coupled single collective excitation of atomic arrays. Nature 566(7744), 359–362 (2019)

2019
[10]

Nature615(7953), 614–619 (2023)

Kumar, A., Suleymanzade, A., Stone, M., Taneja, L., Anferov, A., Schuster, D.I., Simon, J.: Quantum-enabled millimetre wave to optical transduction using neutral atoms. Nature615(7953), 614–619 (2023)

2023
[11]

Physical review letters84(22), 5094 (2000)

Fleischhauer, M., Lukin, M.D.: Dark-state polaritons in electromagnetically induced transparency. Physical review letters84(22), 5094 (2000)

2000
[12]

Physical Review A65(2), 022314 (2002)

Fleischhauer, M., Lukin, M.D.: Quantum memory for photons: Dark-state polaritons. Physical Review A65(2), 022314 (2002)

2002
[13]

Reviews of modern physics77(2), 633– 673 (2005)

Fleischhauer, M., Imamoglu, A., Marangos, J.P.: Electromagnetically induced 22 transparency: Optics in coherent media. Reviews of modern physics77(2), 633– 673 (2005)

2005
[14]

Nature photonics3(12), 706–714 (2009)

Lvovsky, A.I., Sanders, B.C., Tittel, W.: Optical quantum memory. Nature photonics3(12), 706–714 (2009)

2009
[15]

Physical Review Applied8(3), 034023 (2017)

Namazi, M., Kupchak, C., Jordaan, B., Shahrokhshahi, R., Figueroa, E.: Ultralow-noise room-temperature quantum memory for polarization qubits. Physical Review Applied8(3), 034023 (2017)

2017
[16]

Nature438(7069), 833–836 (2005)

Chanelière, T., Matsukevich, D., Jenkins, S., Lan, S.-Y., Kennedy, T., Kuzmich, A.: Storage and retrieval of single photons transmitted between remote quantum memories. Nature438(7069), 833–836 (2005)

2005
[17]

npj Quantum Information10(1), 10 (2024)

Gera, S., Wallace, C., Flament, M., Scriminich, A., Namazi, M., Kim, Y., Sagona- Stophel, S., Vallone, G., Villoresi, P., Figueroa, E.: Hong-ou-mandel interference of single-photon-level pulses stored in independent room-temperature quantum memories. npj Quantum Information10(...

2024
[18]

Computer Physics Communications306, 109374 (2025)

Potvliege, R., Wrathmall, S.: Coombe: A suite of open-source programs for the integration of the optical bloch equations and maxwell-bloch equations. Computer Physics Communications306, 109374 (2025)

2025
[19]

Journal of Computational physics378, 686–707 (2019)

Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., Karniadakis, G.E.: Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational physics378, 686–707 (2019)

2019
[20]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(31), 15344–15349 (2019)

Bar-Sinai, Y., Hoyer, S., Hickey, J., Brenner, M.P.: Learning data-driven discretizations for partial differential equations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(31), 15344–15349 (2019)

2019
[21]

Journal of Machine Learning Research24(89), 1–97 (2023)

Kovachki, N., Li, Z., Liu, B., Azizzadenesheli, K., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A., Anandkumar, A.: Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research24(89), 1–97 (2023)

2023
[22]

Physical Review Letters135(6), 060602 (2025)

Lin, R., Zhong, H.-S., Li, Y., Zhao, Z.-R., Zheng, L.-T., Hu, T.-R., Wu, H.-M., Wu, Z., Ma, W.-J., Gao, Y.,et al.: Ai-enabled parallel assembly of thousands of defect-free neutral atom arrays. Physical Review Letters135(6), 060602 (2025)

2025
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13672 (2022)

Glehn, I., Spencer, J.S., Pfau, D.: A self-attention ansatz for ab-initio quantum chemistry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13672 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[24]

Physical Review A 105(4), 042403 (2022) 23

Choi, M., Flam-Shepherd, D., Kyaw, T.H., Aspuru-Guzik, A.: Learning quantum dynamics with latent neural ordinary differential equations. Physical Review A 105(4), 042403 (2022) 23

2022
[25]

Physical Review B111(13), 134411 (2025)

Viteritti,L.L.,Rende,R.,Parola,A.,Goldt,S.,Becca,F.:Transformerwavefunc- tion for two dimensional frustrated magnets: Emergence of a spin-liquid phase in the shastry-sutherland model. Physical Review B111(13), 134411 (2025)

2025
[26]

Physical Review Research7(1), 012013 (2025)

Zhang, J., Benavides-Riveros, C.L., Chen, L.: Neural quantum propagators for driven-dissipative quantum dynamics. Physical Review Research7(1), 012013 (2025)

2025
[27]

Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, Ł., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

2017
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

Dosovitskiy,A.,Beyer,L.,Kolesnikov,A.,Weissenborn,D.,Zhai,X.,Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

2010 arXiv
[29]

Neural Networks146, 272–289 (2022)

Geneva, N., Zabaras, N.: Transformers for modeling physical systems. Neural Networks146, 272–289 (2022)

2022
[30]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 119301–119335 (2024)

McCabe, M., Régaldo-Saint Blancard, B., Parker, L., Ohana, R., Cranmer, M., Bietti, A., Eickenberg, M., Golkar, S., Krawezik, G., Lanusse, F.,et al.: Multi- ple physics pretraining for spatiotemporal surrogate models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 119301...

2024
[31]

Communications Physics7(1), 90 (2024)

Sprague, K., Czischek, S.: Variational monte carlo with large patched transform- ers. Communications Physics7(1), 90 (2024)

2024
[32]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.12180 (2019)

Ho, J., Kalchbrenner, N., Weissenborn, D., Salimans, T.: Axial attention in multidimensional transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.12180 (2019)

1912 arXiv
[33]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

Liu, Z., Lin, Y., Cao, Y., Hu, H., Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Lin, S., Guo, B.: Swin trans- former: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 10012–10022 (2021)

2021
[34]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Liu, Z., Hu, H., Lin, Y., Yao, Z., Xie, Z., Wei, Y., Ning, J., Cao, Y., Zhang, Z., Dong, L.,et al.: Swin transformer v2: Scaling up capacity and resolution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12009–12019 (2022)

2022
[35]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 25390–25403 (2022)

Gao, Z., Shi, X., Wang, H., Zhu, Y., Wang, Y.B., Li, M., Yeung, D.-Y.: Earth- former: Exploring space-time transformers for earth system forecasting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 25390–25403 (2022)

2022
[36]

Communications Physics4(1), 164 (2021)

Coopmans, T., Knegjens, R., Dahlberg, A., Maier, D., Nijsten, L., Oliveira Filho, 24 J., Papendrecht, M., Rabbie, J., Rozpędek, F., Skrzypczyk, M.,et al.: Net- squid, a network simulator for quantum information using discrete events. Communications Physics4(1), 164 (2021)

2021
[37]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07047 (2018)

Bartlett, B.: A distributed simulation framework for quantum networks and channels. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07047 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[38]

Quantum Science and Technology6(4), 045027 (2021)

Wu, X., Kolar, A., Chung, J., Jin, D., Zhong, T., Kettimuthu, R., Suchara, M.: Sequence: a customizable discrete-event simulator of quantum networks. Quantum Science and Technology6(4), 045027 (2021)

2021
[39]

Lambert, N., Giguère, E., Menczel, P., Li, B., Hopf, P., Suárez, G., Gali, M., Lishman, J., Gadhvi, R., Agarwal, R., Galicia, A., Shammah, N., Nation, P., Johansson, J.R., Ahmed, S., Cross, S., Pitchford, A., Nori, F.: Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python (2024) arXiv:2412.0...

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Nature Physics6(11), 894–899 (2010)

Radnaev,A.,Dudin,Y.,Zhao,R.,Jen,H.,Jenkins,S.,Kuzmich,A.,Kennedy,T.: A quantum memory with telecom-wavelength conversion. Nature Physics6(11), 894–899 (2010)

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Nature Photonics13(5), 346–351 (2019)

Wang, Y., Li, J., Zhang, S., Su, K., Zhou, Y., Liao, K., Du, S., Yan, H., Zhu, S.-L.: Efficient quantum memory for single-photon polarization qubits. Nature Photonics13(5), 346–351 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Nature communications9(1), 363 (2018)

Vernaz-Gris, P., Huang, K., Cao, M., Sheremet, A.S., Laurat, J.: Highly-efficient quantum memory for polarization qubits in a spatially-multiplexed cold atomic ensemble. Nature communications9(1), 363 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Reviews of Modern Physics90(3), 031002 (2018)

Chang, D., Douglas, J., González-Tudela, A., Hung, C.-L., Kimble, H.: Collo- quium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons. Reviews of Modern Physics90(3), 031002 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Prx Quantum3(1), 010201 (2022)

Reitz, M., Sommer, C., Genes, C.: Cooperative quantum phenomena in light- matter platforms. Prx Quantum3(1), 010201 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Nature Communications13(1), 2285 (2022)

Masson, S.J., Asenjo-Garcia, A.: Universality of dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters. Nature Communications13(1), 2285 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics79(3), 033814 (2009)

Willis, R., Becerra, F., Orozco, L., Rolston, S.: Four-wave mixing in the diamond configuration in an atomic vapor. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics79(3), 033814 (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Physical Review Letters123(24), 243604 (2019)

Ogden, T.P., Whittaker, K., Keaveney, J., Wrathmall, S., Adams, C., Potvliege, R.: Quasisimultons in thermal atomic vapors. Physical Review Letters123(24), 243604 (2019)

work page 2019