Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 175 references

Hamilton-Zero: A Neural Tensor-Network Foundation Model for Ground States of Arbitrary Quadratic Qubit Hamiltonians

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single 0.5 billion parameter neural network, pretrained on hundreds of thousands of quadratic spin-1/2 Hamiltonians, can produce variational upper bounds for ground-state energies of unseen systems across different…

desk verdict A genuinely new foundation-model approach to ground-state computation with strong small-system results, hobbled by an abstract that overstates the 8100-qubit capability and a variational-bound claim that outruns the sampler. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11911 v2 pith:AIVTO7ZD submitted 2026-08-12 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-elcs.AI

Timothy Heightman , Elena Orlova , Philip Mantrov , Aleksei Ustimenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-elcs.AI
keywords Hamilton-ZerofoundationmodelneuralquantumstatesvariationalMonteCarloquadraticqubitHamiltoniansspin-1/2groundSU(2)manifoldPeter-Weylsector
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

Hamilton-Zero is a single pretrained neural network, roughly 0.5 billion parameters, that aims to compute ground states of arbitrary quadratic spin-1/2 Hamiltonians. Rather than storing amplitudes on exponentially many spin configurations, it writes the wavefunction as a smooth odd function on a product of SU(2) spheres, so the Hamiltonian acts by differentiation. A Peter-Weyl argument restricts this function class to the physical spin-1/2 sector, making the variational upper bound exact for converged expectations. After training on hundreds of thousands of Hamiltonians that vary in size, interaction graph, and interaction type, the model transfers zero-shot to systems up to 8100 qubits, and fine-tuning only the small compiled readout brings median signed gaps to 0.00031-0.006 percent relative to exact diagonalization. The point is that ground-state computation can be amortized: one shared training run replaces per-system optimization for many future Hamiltonians.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the manifold wavefunction: a centrally odd scalar function on SU(2)^N, linear in each site's quaternion. That choice lets the Hamiltonian act through Lie derivatives, computed with custom automatic-differentiation primitives, and the Peter-Weyl theorem provides the sector projection that keeps the energy variational. Around this core sits a transformer trunk that reads only the Hamiltonian's coupling tensors, a per-site leaf builder where quaternion coordinates enter, and a balanced binary merge tree with a shared quadrilinear merge tensor; a reinforcement-learned routing policy picks which sites merge early, so the contraction path adapts to each Hamiltonian's interaction structure. The same machinery yields differentiable wavefunctions and an explicit log-amplitude, so energies and observables are evaluated by variational Monte Carlo with a replica-exchange Langevin sampler on SU(2)^N.

What would settle it

Take the 8100-qubit square J1-J2 system from Table 1: the model reports +0.128 per spin while the comparison scale is about -0.497; rerunning with a much longer burn-in and more walkers and checking whether the estimate crosses below zero would settle whether the variational upper bound actually holds at that size.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single checkpoint, trained once, can serve as a foundation for ground states across a universal family of spin-1/2 Hamiltonians. The construction represents each spin by a unit quaternion, so a state is a centrally odd, per-site linear function on SU(2)^N; spin operators become left-invariant Lie derivatives evaluated by automatic differentiation. By the Peter-Weyl decomposition, per-site oddness plus linearity in each quaternion confines the wavefunction to the spin-1/2 sector, so the Rayleigh quotient is a rigorous upper bound on the true ground-state energy whenever the Monte Carlo expectation is converged. Empirically, the pretrained model generalizes across system sizes, topologies, and interaction types; on held-out systems fine-tuning the compiled merge tree alone reaches median signed gaps of 3.1e-4% to 6.0e-3% relative to exact diagonalization, and zero-shot evaluation extends to systems with thousands of qubits.

Load-bearing premise

The reported energies are variational upper bounds only if the Monte Carlo sampler has converged and mixed within the sampling budget; the paper states this is unverified at the largest system sizes, especially the 8100-qubit case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single pretrained checkpoint replaces per-system training from scratch for quadratic spin-1/2 ground-state problems, making the marginal cost of a new Hamiltonian the cost of sampling and optionally fine-tuning a small compiled readout.
  • Zero-shot transfer to system sizes far above the training range (up to 8100 qubits) is demonstrated, including nonlocal topologies where tensor-network references are hard to obtain.
  • Fine-tuning fewer than one percent of the model's parameters (the compiled merge tree) recovers 0.00031-0.006 percent median signed gaps on held-out systems, with 90-100 percent of systems within one percent of exact diagonalization.
  • A fixed checkpoint can serve as a phase-transition witness: fidelity susceptibility computed from zero-shot weights peaks near the transverse-field Ising critical point without any fine-tuning.
  • The learned routing policy recovers physically natural contraction hierarchies, such as nearest-neighbour pairs, plaquettes, and carbon-orbital blocks, on systems more than thirty times larger than any seen in pretraining.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A step beyond the paper: if the variational upper bound survives careful sampling at scale, the energies could be promoted to rigorous bounds in combinatorial-optimization settings, giving certified cuts or ground-state energies rather than heuristic estimates; the paper does not claim this.
  • One natural extension the paper leaves implicit is using the differentiable wavefunction to compute two-point correlation functions, which would allow a single checkpoint to map complete phase diagrams from correlation-based order parameters, not only fidelity susceptibility.
  • The positive zero-shot energy on the 8100-qubit lattice suggests the current checkpoint's size-extrapolation limit is real; pretraining at larger sizes or conditioning more explicitly on system size is the obvious next stress test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Hamilton-Zero, a roughly 0.5B-parameter neural network that represents spin-1/2 ground states as centrally odd, per-site-linear functions on SU(2)^N, with the Hamiltonian acting through Lie derivatives. Using the Peter-Weyl decomposition, the authors argue that this multilinear ansatz lies in the physical spin-1/2 sector and hence satisfies the variational upper-bound inequality for exact expectations (Sec. 2, SM S1). They pretrain on hundreds of thousands of perturbed quadratic Hamiltonians, evaluate zero-shot and fine-tuned on held-out ED-referenced systems, and report large-system case studies up to 8100 qubits, along with scaling laws, a zero-variance calibration, a phase-transition witness, learned equivariance, and learned contraction routes.

Significance. If the technical claims hold, Hamilton-Zero would be a substantial advance in amortized quantum many-body computation: a single pretrained variational wavefunction transferring across topologies, system sizes, and interaction types at a scale far beyond prior foundation neural quantum states, with a clean Peter-Weyl-based resolution of the phase-space leakage problem. The paper is unusually explicit about limitations (Sec. 6), releases code and model weights, and the small-system exact-diagonalization comparisons support the energy claims in-distribution. The central scientific value, however, depends on whether the gap between the exact-expectation variational bound and the finite-sample Monte-Carlo estimates can be closed or the claims appropriately qualified; in its current form the 'rigorous upper bound' framing overstates what the reported numbers establish.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.5)] The variational inequality in Eq. (2.5) is derived for exact expectations under |ψθ|^2, but the abstract and Sec. 2 state that 'every energy our optimiser reports is a rigorous upper bound.' Sec. 6 itself concedes that finite-sample Monte-Carlo estimates may violate the inequality through estimator noise or mixing bias. All reported energies in Sec. 5.2 and Table 1 are finite-sample averages (e.g., 512 measurement steps, 256 walkers, 8 replicas), with no proof or diagnostic that the chain is unbiased at the largest system sizes. The 'rigorous upper bound' claim is therefore not established for any reported number; please either provide a sampler-certification argument or revise the claims to 'variational estimate subject to sampling error' and remove 'rigorous' from the abstract and Sec. 2.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Figs. 5-6] The zero-variance calibration constant κ=0.2825 is fitted to ED-referenced systems with N≤18 and then used in Fig. 6 to 'predict' relative gaps for N>22, including the statement that the predicted median relative gap is 3.45%. This is model-based extrapolation under the unverified assumption that q=κV is universal across system size and Hamiltonian family; it is not a measured gap. The scaling-law exponents in Fig. 4 are likewise fitted to this pretraining run. The text should clearly label these quantities as extrapolations under an assumption and should not present the 3.45% as a verified accuracy of the model without independent large-system references.
  3. [Table 1, Sec. 5.3] The large-system comparisons use non-certified references: MaxCut rows compare against archived feasible cuts rather than certified optima; PPP rows compare against a thermodynamic-limit literature value under a different convention; and square and triangular lattice rows compare against thermodynamic-limit scales rather than exact finite-size energies. Consequently the recovery percentages do not certify variational accuracy. The 8100-qubit square-lattice row reports E/N=+0.128 versus a reference of −0.4968, which is a clear failure; the abstract's 'evaluate on systems up to 8100 qubits' should be accompanied by the fact that the model fails at that scale, and the introduction's 'up to 8000 qubits' claim should be tempered accordingly.
  4. [Sec. 5.2, SM S4] No evidence is given that the replica-exchange Langevin sampler mixes on a timescale short compared with the measurement budget for the large systems. The stationarity tests mentioned in Sec. 6 are heuristic and cannot distinguish a slowly mixing chain from a converged one within a finite number of steps. Please report effective sample sizes, autocorrelation times, replica-exchange acceptance rates, or a comparison with independent references at intermediate sizes (e.g., N=1024 and 2025) before using the large-system zero-shot energies as support for the variational claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 5.3] The phrase 'evaluate on systems up to 8100 qubits' should be qualified with the failure and degradation reported in Sec. 5.3; as written, it invites overreading of the large-system results.
  2. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 1] The text 'the router’s training has converge to the true optimum' should read 'has converged', and 'electric vehical charging' in the introduction should be 'vehicle charging'.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] '104 KFAC steps' should read '10^4 KFAC steps'; the exponent appears to be missing.
  4. [Figs. 7 and 8] The captions of Figs. 7 and 8 appear identical; if this is not intentional, the captions should be differentiated to describe the zero-shot and fine-tuned panels respectively.
  5. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 6] The spelling 'Supplimentary Material' should be 'Supplementary Material', and 'Hamilton-zero' in Sec. 6 should be consistently capitalized as 'Hamilton-Zero'.
  6. [SM S2.4, Eq. (S2.61)] The operation in Eq. (S2.61) is described as a 'rank-4 quadrilinear merge' but is bilinear in the two child carriers; consider using consistent terminology such as 'rank-4 blockwise bilinear merge' to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central variational principle is self-contained, but the zero-variance 'predicted gaps' for N>22 are the fitted kappa*V calibration relabeled as prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 5 caption and Fig. 6 caption]
    "a bounded zero-variance principle in dashed orange, obtained from q=(E−E_ED)/|E|=κV with κ=0.2825 and r=q/(1+q); ... For N >22, the predicted median relative gap is 3.45%, with an interquartile range of 1.86%–10.21%."

    The constant κ is fit to exact-diagonalization-referenced systems, and the 'predicted' relative gaps for N>22 are then computed as q=κV from the model's V-score on those larger systems. No independent reference enters the prediction; it is the calibration curve itself evaluated at new V. Thus the reported 3.45% median gap is not an independent first-principles result but an algebraic restatement of the earlier ED fit, with the fitted parameter κ carrying the entire predictive content.

full rationale

The central derivation (Sec. 2, SM§S1) is not circular: the per-site odd and multilinear functions are exactly the Peter–Weyl spin-1/2 sector, and the variational inequality ⟨ψ|H|ψ⟩/⟨ψ|ψ⟩ ≥ E0 follows from the sector decomposition and from the fact that the Hamiltonian acts trivially on the row/multiplicity index. This is a theorem with stated assumptions, not an input–output tautology. The zero-shot and fine-tuned energies are direct Monte Carlo estimates of this variational expectation compared against exact diagonalization, and the paper states that ED references are never supplied to evaluation or fine-tuning, so the central energy claims are not fitted-input predictions. The one step that reduces by construction is the auxiliary zero-variance calibration: κ=0.2825 is fit to ED-referenced data, and the 'predicted' N>22 median gap is κV computed on the model's V-score, i.e., the same calibration curve evaluated at new V. This is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; it does not support the main energy results. The scaling-law exponents are explicitly descriptive fits of the pretraining run and are not used to predict held-out data. Sec. 6 explicitly concedes that finite-sample estimates may violate the variational inequality by estimator noise or mixing bias; I treat that as a verification limitation rather than a circular step, because the theoretical upper bound for exact expectations is derived independently.

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

The central variational principle rests on the Peter-Weyl decomposition and the exact multilinearity of the ansatz, which are mathematical facts. The empirical ingredients are the pretraining corpus, the sampler, the zero-variance calibration (fitted), and the scaling-law exponents (fitted). No new physical entities such as particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • zero-variance calibration constant kappa = 0.2825
    Fitted to N<=18 ED-referenced systems (Sec 5.1, Fig 5) and used to predict median relative gaps of 3.45% for N>22. The paper discloses a 'free robust fit' giving r ~ V^0.89, so the linear relation is an empirical calibration, not a derived bound.
  • pretraining scaling-law exponents = -0.53 (V-score), -0.61 (relative gap)
    Fitted to a single 280,000-step pretraining run with compute measured in cumulative eight-H200 hours (Sec 5.1, Fig 4). The claim of '5x better scaling than LLMs' depends on these hardware-dependent exponents.
  • ALiBi tree-distance slope schedule = geometric schedule from 1.5 to ~0.09
    Per-head slopes for the tree-distance attention bias (SM S2.4.4, Eq S2.83), tuned empirically. Affects generalization across tree depths.
  • feature-scale floor tau = 1e-3
    Fixed constant in the polar split of bond and field features (SM S2.2, Eq S2.10). Chosen by hand; minor.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Peter-Weyl theorem decomposes L^2(SU(2)^N) into irreps, and the physical spin-1/2 sector is characterized by the per-site Casimir eigenvalue 3/4.
    Used in Sec 2 and SM S1.3 to define the physical sector and prove the variational principle for multilinear functions.
  • domain assumption The representation sigma^a_i = -i L^a_i maps the physical spin algebra to left-invariant vector fields on SU(2) with the correct commutation relations and Casimir normalization.
    Established in SM S1.2 via the unit-length normalization kappa = -2. If inconsistent, the variational bound would not correspond to the physical Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Quadratic two-body Pauli Hamiltonians are universal for quantum computation and sufficient for the target applications.
    Invoked in Sec 2 and SM S1.2 with citations [44,114]. The model is restricted to quadratic Hamiltonians; higher-order terms are claimed compilable onto ancillas.
  • domain assumption The pretraining corpus of 5,000 topologies with perturbations is representative enough that a single checkpoint generalizes across the space of quadratic qubit Hamiltonians.
    Assumed throughout the generalization claims (Sec 4, Sec 5). Not proven; the held-out Axis C shows degradation to 12.63% median zero-shot gap.
  • ad hoc to paper The bounded zero-variance relation q = kappa V is universal across system sizes and Hamiltonian families.
    Assumed in Sec 5.1 and Figs 5-6 to extrapolate gaps beyond the ED regime. kappa is fitted to N<=18 data, and the relation is an empirical calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamilton-Zero: A Neural Tensor-Network Foundation Model for Ground States of Arbitrary Quadratic Qubit Hamiltonians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIVTO7ZD

@misc{pith2026260811911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamilton-Zero: A Neural Tensor-Network Foundation Model for Ground States of Arbitrary Quadratic Qubit Hamiltonians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIVTO7ZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11911}
}
abstract

A central promise of useful quantum advantage is the ability to compute ground states of Hamiltonian systems beyond the reach of classical simulation methods. Here we demonstrate that this problem can be effectively amortized across an arbitrary and universal set of Hamiltonians by a foundation model with $\sim0.5$B variational parameters, trained with contemporary techniques from large language models and deep reinforcement learning. To do this, we formulate $\text{spin-}1/2$ quantum ground-state learning as manifold variational optimisation over centrally odd scalar functions on $\mathrm{SU}(2)^N$. This replaces explicit Hilbert-space vector amplitudes with manifold functions on which the Hamiltonian acts through Lie derivatives, evaluated by custom automatic differentiation primitives. We prove that the resulting variational principle on this manifold preserves the $\text{spin-}1/2$ sector's ground-state upper bound using the Peter-Weyl theorem, then pre-train our foundation model on a dataset of hundreds of thousands of different Hamiltonian systems, varying the connection topology, system size, interaction types and strengths, bringing together a century of many-body literature. Using a novel $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ replica-exchange Langevin sampler and sharded natural-gradient optimisation, we train our model with our own extension of the Kronecker-Factored Approximate Curvature (KFAC) optimiser on system sizes up to 64 qubits. On a held-out generalisation dataset, we fine-tune our model on system sizes of up to 1024 qubits, and evaluate on systems up to 8100 qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The generalisation surface of foundation wavefunction models. Each bar is one pretrained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Four interaction-graph examples drawn from the training data. The colour map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hamilton-Zero information flow. The Hamiltonian (J, h) is spectrally normalised, featurised in polar form, and propagated through the trunk; a route policy conditioned on the trunk’s outputs permutes sites and padding slots before the leaf contextualiser; the spin configuration q enters only at the odd leaf builder, enforcing per-site oddness before the shared rank-four merge tree returns log ψθ(q | p). The rail ben… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Compute scaling of variance and variational energy error through step 280 000. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zero-variance calibration and held-out size validation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy gap extrapolation across full (a) Orange points show observed median relative gaps where ED is available; the blue curve and band show the median and interquartile range of the zero￾variance predictions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Held-out energy accuracy for the 512-step evaluation. Panels (a)–(c) show the magnitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Held-out energy accuracy for the 512-step evaluation. Panels (a)–(c) show the magnitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Convergence of the fine-tuning runs on the ED-referenced systems of datasets A, B, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Large-system case studies. (a) A weighted graph for MaxCut. Blue and white vertices show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fine-tuning on the large-system case studies. The faint curves are per-step training esti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fidelity susceptibility per site, χF /N, of the periodic transverse-field Ising chain is shown for N = 8, 16, and 32 spins. Every curve is evaluated directly from the same pretrained Hamilton-Zero checkpoint without fine-tuning; markers denote adjacent-field overlap e…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Learning of mean-energy equivariance under joint transformations of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Entropy-realized commitment, 1− Hpolicy/Hmax, by augmentation round for the 13 system categories with S ≥ 80. (a) Round-wise median across categories, with the grey band denoting the interquartile range. (b) Stratification by system-category, see Fig. S13 of SM § S3. …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Router commitment versus relative gap to ED over augmentation rounds 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Learned coarse-graining of the 10 × 10 J1–J2 torus. The panels are read along the arrows, with successive rows traversed in opposite directions. Step 0 shows the 100 physical lattice sites. At Step k, the black boundaries enclose the effective cells remaining after k …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Zero-shot coarse-graining of the 45 × 45 square J1–J2 lattice. The panels follow the arrows from the 2,025 physical sites at Step 0 to the scalar output at Step 11. At each step, black boundaries delimit the current effective cells and disappear when those cells are m…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Learned coarse-graining of the 128-carbon PPP–Ohno chain. The 256 spin orbitals are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

175 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science.Chemical reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, 2020

    Bela Bauer, Sergey Bravyi, Mario Motta, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science.Chemical reviews, 120(22):12685–12717, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Quantum computational chemistry.Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(1):015003, 2020

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Simon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum computational chemistry.Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(1):015003, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Simulating fermions with a digital quantum computer.Nature Reviews Physics, 8(3):131–145, 2026

    Riley W Chien, Mitchell Chiew, Brent Harrison, Jason Necaise, Weishi Wang, Maryam Mudas- sar, Campbell McLauchlan, Thomas M Henderson, Gustavo E Scuseria, Sergii Strelchuk, et al. Simulating fermions with a digital quantum computer.Nature Reviews Physics, 8(3):131–145, 2026. 85

    2026

  4. [4]

    Combinatorial optimization of supply chain net- works: A retrospective & literature review.Materials today: proceedings, 62:1636–1642, 2022

    Guman Singh and Mohammad Rizwanullah. Combinatorial optimization of supply chain net- works: A retrospective & literature review.Materials today: proceedings, 62:1636–1642, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    A two-stage stochastic mixed-integer program modelling and hybrid solution approach to portfolio selection problems.Information Sciences, 289:190–205, 2014

    Fang He and Rong Qu. A two-stage stochastic mixed-integer program modelling and hybrid solution approach to portfolio selection problems.Information Sciences, 289:190–205, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Combinatorial optimization for electric vehicles man- agement.Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, 6(5):738–743, 2012

    Nora Touati-Moungla, Vincent Jost, et al. Combinatorial optimization for electric vehicles man- agement.Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, 6(5):738–743, 2012

    2012

  7. [7]

    Online vehicle routing with neural combinatorial optimization and deep reinforcement learning.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 20 (10):3806–3817, 2019

    JQ James, Wen Yu, and Jiatao Gu. Online vehicle routing with neural combinatorial optimization and deep reinforcement learning.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 20 (10):3806–3817, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    A combinatorial model to optimize air traffic flow management problems.Computers & operations research, 112:104768, 2019

    David Garc´ ıa-Heredia, Antonio Alonso-Ayuso, and Elisenda Molina. A combinatorial model to optimize air traffic flow management problems.Computers & operations research, 112:104768, 2019

    2019

Show all 175 references
  1. [9]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Gang Yu.Industrial applications of combinatorial optimization. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Ding-Zhu Du and Panos M Pardalos.Handbook of combinatorial optimization. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network.Physical Review A, 74(2):022320, 2006

    Yao-Yun Shi, Lu-Ming Duan, and Guifr´ e Vidal. Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network.Physical Review A, 74(2):022320, 2006. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.74.022320

    2006

  4. [12]

    Noack, and Frank Verstraete

    Valentin Murg, ¨Ors Legeza, Reinhard M. Noack, and Frank Verstraete. Simulating strongly correlated quantum systems with tree tensor networks.Physical Review B, 82(20):205105, 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.205105

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Efficient tree tensor network states (TTNS) for quantum chemistry: Generalizations of the density matrix renormalization group algorithm

    Naoki Nakatani and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Efficient tree tensor network states (TTNS) for quantum chemistry: Generalizations of the density matrix renormalization group algorithm. Journal of Chemical Physics, 138(13):134113, 2013. doi: 10.1063/1.4798639

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature Communications, 5:4213, 2014. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5213

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3:625–644, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks.Science, 355:602–606, 2017

    Giuseppe Carleo and Matthias Troyer. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks.Science, 355:602–606, 2017. arXiv:1606.02318

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4): 040501, 2024

    Hannah Lange, Anka Van de Walle, Atiye Abedinnia, and Annabelle Bohrdt. From architectures to applications: A review of neural quantum states.Quantum Science and Technology, 9(4): 040501, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing.Nature Reviews Physics, 7(4):174–189, 2025

    Martin Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Kunal Sharma, Jacob Biamonte, Patrick J Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R McClean, Zo¨ e Holmes, and Marco Cerezo. Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing.Nature Reviews Physics, 7(4):174–189, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    A lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits.Nature Communications, 15(1):7172, 2024

    Michael Ragone, Bojko N Bakalov, Fr´ ed´ eric Sauvage, Alexander F Kemper, Carlos Ortiz Mar- rero, Mart´ ın Larocca, and Marco Cerezo. A lie algebraic theory of barren plateaus for deep parameterized quantum circuits.Nature Communications, 15(1):7172, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature Communications, 9: 4812, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4. 86

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Approaching the thermodynamic limit with neural-network quantum states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02665, 2026

    Luciano Loris Viteritti, Riccardo Rende, Subir Sachdev, and Giuseppe Carleo. Approaching the thermodynamic limit with neural-network quantum states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02665, 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Rende, L

    R. Rende, L. L. Viteritti, F. Becca, A. Scardicchio, A. Laio, and G. Carleo. Foundation neural- network quantum states as a unified ansatz for multiple Hamiltonians.Nature Communications, 16:7213, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-62098-x

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Attention-based foundation model for quantum states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.11962, 2025

    Timothy Zaklama, Daniele Guerci, and Liang Fu. Attention-based foundation model for quantum states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.11962, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Transformer quantum state: A multi-purpose model for quantum many-body problems.Phys

    Yuan-Hang Zhang and Massimiliano Di Ventra. Transformer quantum state: A multi-purpose model for quantum many-body problems.Phys. Rev. B, 107:075147, 2023. arXiv:2208.01758

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fine-tuning neural network quantum states.Phys

    Riccardo Rende, Sebastian Goldt, Federico Becca, and Luciano Loris Viteritti. Fine-tuning neural network quantum states.Phys. Rev. Research, 6:043280, 2024. arXiv:2403.07795

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Foundation neural-network quantum states as a unified ansatz for multiple hamiltonians.Nature Communications, 16:7213, 2025

    Riccardo Rende, Luciano Loris Viteritti, Federico Becca, Antonello Scardicchio, Alessandro Laio, and Giuseppe Carleo. Foundation neural-network quantum states as a unified ansatz for multiple hamiltonians.Nature Communications, 16:7213, 2025. arXiv:2502.09488

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Quantum spin glass in the two- dimensional disordered heisenberg model via foundation neural-network quantum states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05073, 2025

    Luciano Loris Viteritti, Riccardo Rende, Giacomo Bracci-Testasecca, Jacopo Niedda, Roderich Moessner, Giuseppe Carleo, and Antonello Scardicchio. Quantum spin glass in the two- dimensional disordered heisenberg model via foundation neural-network quantum states.arXiv preprint ...

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Spencer, Alexander G

    David Pfau, James S. Spencer, Alexander G. de G. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes. Ab- initio solution of the many-electron Schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural networks.Phys. Rev. Research, 2:033429, 2020. arXiv:1909.02487

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schr¨ odinger equation.Nature Chemistry, 12:891–897, 2020

    Jan Hermann, Zeno Sch¨ atzle, and Frank No´ e. Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schr¨ odinger equation.Nature Chemistry, 12:891–897, 2020. arXiv:1909.08423

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gold-standard solu- tions to the Schr¨ odinger equation using deep learning: How much physics do we need?Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 35, 2022

    Leon Gerard, Michael Scherbela, Philipp Marquetand, and Philipp Grohs. Gold-standard solu- tions to the Schr¨ odinger equation using deep learning: How much physics do we need?Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 35, 2022. arXiv:2205.09438

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Large electron model: A universal ground state predictor.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02346, 2026

    Timothy Zaklama, Max Geier, and Liang Fu. Large electron model: A universal ground state predictor.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02346, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  24. [32]

    QERNEL: A scalable large electron model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26018, 2026

    Khachatur Nazaryan and Liang Fu. QERNEL: A scalable large electron model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26018, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Solving the electronic Schr¨ odinger equation for multiple nuclear geometries with weight-sharing deep neural networks.Nature Computational Science, 2:331–341, 2022

    Michael Scherbela, Rafael Reisenhofer, Leon Gerard, Philipp Marquetand, and Philipp Grohs. Solving the electronic Schr¨ odinger equation for multiple nuclear geometries with weight-sharing deep neural networks.Nature Computational Science, 2:331–341, 2022. arXiv:2105.08351

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Towards a foundation model for neural network wavefunctions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09949, 2023

    Michael Scherbela, Leon Gerard, and Philipp Grohs. Towards a foundation model for neural network wavefunctions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09949, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Generalizing neural wave functions.International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023

    Nicholas Gao and Stephan G¨ unnemann. Generalizing neural wave functions.International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023. arXiv:2302.04168

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bern´ at Szab´ o, Lixue Cheng, Jonas K¨ ohler, Gino Cassella, Nicholas Gao, Jiawei Li, Frank No´ e, and Jan Hermann

    Adam Foster, Zeno Sch¨ atzle, P. Bern´ at Szab´ o, Lixue Cheng, Jonas K¨ ohler, Gino Cassella, Nicholas Gao, Jiawei Li, Frank No´ e, and Jan Hermann. An ab initio foundation model of wave- functions that accurately describes chemical bond breaking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19960, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Trans- former wave function for quantum long-range models.Phys

    Sebasti´ an Roca-Jerat, Manuel Gallego, Fernando Luis, Jes´ us Carrete, and David Zueco. Trans- former wave function for quantum long-range models.Phys. Rev. B, 110:205147, 2024. arXiv:2407.04773. 87

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pham, Ji Chen, Di He, William A

    Du Jiang, Xuelan Wen, Yixiao Chen, Ruichen Li, Weizhong Fu, Hung Q. Pham, Ji Chen, Di He, William A. Goddard, Liwei Wang, and Weiluo Ren. Neural scaling laws surpass chemical accuracy for the many-electron Schr¨ odinger equation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02570, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Scaling laws for neural-network quantum states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02794, 2026

    Riccardo Rende, Alessandro Sinibaldi, Luciano Loris Viteritti, Roeland Wiersema, Antoine Georges, and Giuseppe Carleo. Scaling laws for neural-network quantum states.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02794, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Quantum machine learning in multi-qubit phase-space Part I: Foundations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12117, 2025

    Timothy Heightman, Edward Jiang, Ruth Mora-Soto, Maciej Lewenstein, and Marcin P lodzie´ n. Quantum machine learning in multi-qubit phase-space Part I: Foundations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12117, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018

    James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Yash Katariya, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclaurin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake VanderPlas, Skye Wanderman- Milne, and Qiao Zhang. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018. URLhttp://github...

    2018

  34. [42]

    Version 0.2.5

    Nicholas Gao, Jonas K¨ ohler, and Adam Foster.folx– forward laplacian for JAX.https: //github.com/microsoft/folx, 2023. Version 0.2.5

    2023

  35. [43]

    Optimizing neural networks with kronecker-factored approx- imate curvature

    James Martens and Roger Grosse. Optimizing neural networks with kronecker-factored approx- imate curvature. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2408–2417. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2000

    Michael A Nielsen, Isaac L Chuang, et al.Quantum computation and quantum information, volume 1. Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  37. [45]

    Heart of entan- glement: Chiral, nematic, and incommensurate phases in the kitaev-gamma ladder in a field

    Erik S Sørensen, Andrei Catuneanu, Jacob S Gordon, and Hae-Young Kee. Heart of entan- glement: Chiral, nematic, and incommensurate phases in the kitaev-gamma ladder in a field. Physical Review X, 11(1):011013, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Variational study of the kitaev-heisenberg-gamma model.Physical Review B, 104(1):014411, 2021

    Shang-Shun Zhang, G´ abor B Hal´ asz, Wei Zhu, and Cristian D Batista. Variational study of the kitaev-heisenberg-gamma model.Physical Review B, 104(1):014411, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    First-principles calculations for dzyaloshinskii– moriya interaction.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):43–61, 2023

    Hongxin Yang, Jinghua Liang, and Qirui Cui. First-principles calculations for dzyaloshinskii– moriya interaction.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):43–61, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Hall.Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction, volume 222 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics

    Brian C. Hall.Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction, volume 222 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2 edition, 2015. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-319-13467-3

    2015

  41. [49]

    Peter and H

    F. Peter and H. Weyl. Die vollst¨ andigkeit der primitiven darstellungen einer geschlossenen kontinuierlichen gruppe.Mathematische Annalen, 97:737–755, 1927. URLhttps://eudml.org/ doc/182662

    1927

  42. [50]

    Folland.A Course in Abstract Harmonic Analysis

    Gerald B. Folland.A Course in Abstract Harmonic Analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2 edition,

  43. [51]

    Knapp.Representation Theory of Semisimple Groups: An Overview Based on Examples, volume 36 ofPrinceton Mathematical Series

    Anthony W. Knapp.Representation Theory of Semisimple Groups: An Overview Based on Examples, volume 36 ofPrinceton Mathematical Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001. ISBN 9780691090894. Paperback reprint with a new preface; originally published in 1986

    2001

  44. [52]

    Sutton and Andrew G

    Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto.Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. ISBN 9780262193986

    1998

  45. [53]

    Bellemare, and Joelle Pineau

    Vincent Fran¸ cois-Lavet, Peter Henderson, Riashat Islam, Marc G. Bellemare, and Joelle Pineau. An introduction to deep reinforcement learning.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 11(3–4):219–354, 2018. doi: 10.1561/2200000071

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    P. W. Anderson. Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices.Physical Review, 109(5): 1492–1505, 1958. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.109.1492. 88

    1958 doi

  47. [55]

    Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain.Annals of Physics, 16(3):407–466, 1961

    Elliott Lieb, Theodore Schultz, and Daniel Mattis. Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain.Annals of Physics, 16(3):407–466, 1961. doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(61)90115-4

    1961 doi

  48. [56]

    J. Hubbard. Electron correlations in narrow energy bands.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 276(1365):238–257, 1963. doi: 10.1098/ rspa.1963.0204

    1963

  49. [57]

    Majumdar and Dipan K

    Chanchal K. Majumdar and Dipan K. Ghosh. On next-nearest-neighbor interaction in linear chain. I.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 10(8):1388–1398, 1969. doi: 10.1063/1.1664978

    1969 doi

  50. [58]

    Beitrag zur theorie des ferromagnetismus.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 31:253–258, 1925

    Ernst Ising. Beitrag zur theorie des ferromagnetismus.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 31:253–258, 1925. doi: 10.1007/BF02980577

    1925 doi

  51. [59]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger. Solitons in polyacetylene.Physical Review Letters, 42(25):1698–1701, 1979. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.1698

    1979 doi

  52. [60]

    M. J. Rice and E. J. Mele. Elementary excitations of a linearly conjugated diatomic polymer. Physical Review Letters, 49(19):1455–1459, 1982. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1455

    1982 doi

  53. [61]

    Alexei Yu. Kitaev. Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires.Physics-Uspekhi, 44(10S): 131–136, 2001. doi: 10.1070/1063-7869/44/10S/S29

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin systems.Physical Review B, 83(3):035107, 2011

    Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, and Xiao-Gang Wen. Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin systems.Physical Review B, 83(3):035107, 2011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB. 83.035107

    2011 doi

  55. [63]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    Subir Sachdev.Quantum Phase Transitions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999. ISBN 9780521582548. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511622540

    1999 doi

  56. [64]

    Anders W. Sandvik. Evidence for deconfined quantum criticality in a two-dimensional heisenberg model with four-spin interactions.Physical Review Letters, 98(22):227202, 2007. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.98.227202

    2007

  57. [65]

    Senthil, Ashvin Vishwanath, Leon Balents, Subir Sachdev, and Matthew P

    T. Senthil, Ashvin Vishwanath, Leon Balents, Subir Sachdev, and Matthew P. A. Fisher. Decon- fined quantum critical points.Science, 303(5663):1490–1494, 2004. doi: 10.1126/science.1091806

    2004 doi

  58. [66]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao. Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions.Reviews of Modern Physics, 93(2):025001, 2021. doi:...

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms.Nature Physics, 16:132–142, 2020

    Antoine Browaeys and Thierry Lahaye. Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms.Nature Physics, 16:132–142, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41567-019-0733-z

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    Hensgens, T

    T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, L. Janssen, Xiao Li, C. J. Van Diepen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, S. Das Sarma, and L. M. K. Vandersypen. Quantum simulation of a fermi-hubbard model using a semiconductor quantum dot array.Nature, 548(7665):70–73, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nature23022

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    Las Heras, A

    U. Las Heras, A. Mezzacapo, L. Lamata, S. Filipp, A. Wallraff, and E. Solano. Digital quantum simulation of spin systems in superconducting circuits.Physical Review Letters, 112(20):200501,

  62. [70]

    Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond.Annals of Physics, 321(1):2–111,

    Alexei Kitaev. Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond.Annals of Physics, 321(1):2–111,

  63. [71]

    P. W. Anderson. Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?Materials Research Bulletin, 8(2):153–160, 1973. doi: 10.1016/0025-5408(73)90167-0

    1973 doi

  64. [72]

    Spin liquids in frustrated magnets.Nature, 464(7286):199–208, 2010

    Leon Balents. Spin liquids in frustrated magnets.Nature, 464(7286):199–208, 2010. doi: 10. 1038/nature08917

    2010

  65. [73]

    Quantum spin liquids: a review.Reports on Progress in Physics, 80(1):016502, 2017

    Lucile Savary and Leon Balents. Quantum spin liquids: a review.Reports on Progress in Physics, 80(1):016502, 2017. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/80/1/016502. Published online 8 November 2016. 89

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler. Metal–insulator transition in a weakly interacting many-electron system with localized single-particle states.Annals of Physics, 321(5):1126–1205,

  67. [75]

    Rahul Nandkishore and David A. Huse. Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 6(1):15–38, 2015. doi: 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014726

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    Abanin, Ehud Altman, Immanuel Bloch, and Maksym Serbyn

    Dmitry A. Abanin, Ehud Altman, Immanuel Bloch, and Maksym Serbyn. Colloquium: Many- body localization, thermalization, and entanglement.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(2):021001,

  69. [77]

    Don N. Page. Average entropy of a subsystem.Physical Review Letters, 71(9):1291–1294, 1993. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1291

    1993 doi

  70. [78]

    doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2005.11.014

    2005 doi

  71. [79]

    Greenberger, Michael A

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, and Anton Zeilinger. Going beyond bell’s theorem. In Menas Kafatos, editor,Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, pages 69–72. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1989. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4 10

    1989 doi

  72. [80]

    Kenneth G. Wilson. Confinement of quarks.Physical Review D, 10(8):2445–2459, 1974. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2445

    1974 doi

  73. [81]

    Kogut and Leonard Susskind

    John B. Kogut and Leonard Susskind. Hamiltonian formulation of wilson’s lattice gauge theories. Physical Review D, 11(2):395–408, 1975. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.11.395

    1975 doi

  74. [82]

    John B. Kogut. An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems.Reviews of Modern Physics, 51(4):659–713, 1979. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.51.659

    1979 doi

  75. [83]

    H. J. Lipkin, N. Meshkov, and A. J. Glick. Validity of many-body approximation methods for a solvable model. I. exact solutions and perturbation theory.Nuclear Physics, 62(2):188–198,

  76. [84]

    Bravyi and Alexei Yu

    Sergey B. Bravyi and Alexei Yu. Kitaev. Fermionic quantum computation.Annals of Physics, 298(1):210–226, 2002. doi: 10.1006/aphy.2002.6254

    2002

  77. [85]

    Love, Florian Mintert, and Peter V

    Andrew Tranter, Peter J. Love, Florian Mintert, and Peter V. Coveney. A comparison of the bravyi–kitaev and jordan–wigner transformations for the quantum simulation of quan- tum chemistry.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 14(11):5617–5630, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00450

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    Goldstone

    J. Goldstone. Field theories with superconductor solutions.Il Nuovo Cimento, 19:154–164, 1961. doi: 10.1007/BF02812722

    1961 doi

  79. [87]

    Quasi-particles and gauge invariance in the theory of superconductivity.Phys- ical Review, 117(3):648–663, 1960

    Yoichiro Nambu. Quasi-particles and gauge invariance in the theory of superconductivity.Phys- ical Review, 117(3):648–663, 1960. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.117.648

    1960 doi

  80. [88]

    Graduate Texts in Con- temporary Physics

    Assa Auerbach.Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism. Graduate Texts in Con- temporary Physics. Springer, New York, 1994. ISBN 978-0-387-94286-5. doi: 10.1007/ 978-1-4612-0869-3

    1994

  81. [89]

    Pascual Jordan and Eugene P. Wigner. ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 47(9–10):631–651, 1928. doi: 10.1007/BF01331938. English title: About the Pauli exclusion principle

    1928 doi

  82. [90]

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

    Hannes Bernien, Sylvain Schwartz, Alexander Keesling, Harry Levine, Ahmed Omran, Hannes Pichler, Soonwon Choi, Alexander S. Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, Vladan Vuleti´ c, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator.Nature, 551(7682...

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    Lieb, and Hal Tasaki

    Ian Affleck, Tom Kennedy, Elliott H. Lieb, and Hal Tasaki. Valence bond ground states in isotropic quantum antiferromagnets.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 115:477–528,

  84. [92]

    C. N. Yang. Concept of off-diagonal long-range order and the quantum phases of liquid He and of superconductors.Reviews of Modern Physics, 34(4):694–704, 1962. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys. 34.694

    1962 doi

  85. [93]

    Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum heisenberg magnet.Physical Review Letters, 70(21):3339–3342, 1993

    Subir Sachdev and Jinwu Ye. Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum heisenberg magnet.Physical Review Letters, 70(21):3339–3342, 1993. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.3339

    1993 doi

  86. [94]

    Josephine Suh

    Alexei Kitaev and S. Josephine Suh. The soft mode in the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model and its gravity dual.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(5):183, 2018. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2018)183

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    Turner, Alexios A

    Christopher J. Turner, Alexios A. Michailidis, Dmitry A. Abanin, Maksym Serbyn, and Zlatko Papi´ c. Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars.Nature Physics, 14:745–749,

  88. [96]

    Dzyaloshinsky

    I. Dzyaloshinsky. A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, 4(4):241–255, 1958. doi: 10.1016/0022-3697(58) 90076-3

    1958 doi

  89. [97]

    Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism.Physical Review, 120(1):91–98, 1960

    Tˆ oru Moriya. Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism.Physical Review, 120(1):91–98, 1960. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.120.91

    1960 doi

  90. [98]

    K. I. Kugel and D. I. Khomskii. The jahn-teller effect and magnetism: transi- tion metal compounds.Soviet Physics Uspekhi, 25(4):231–256, 1982. doi: 10.1070/ PU1982v025n04ABEH004537

    1982

  91. [99]

    Compass models: Theory and physical motivations

    Zohar Nussinov and Jeroen van den Brink. Compass models: Theory and physical motivations. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87(1):1–59, 2015. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1

    2015 doi

  92. [100]

    Vari- ational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems.Science, 386(6719):296–301, 2024

    Dian Wu, Riccardo Rossi, Filippo Vicentini, Nikita Astrakhantsev, Federico Becca, Xiaodong Cao, Juan Carrasquilla, Francesco Ferrari, Antoine Georges, Mohamed Hibat-Allah, et al. Vari- ational benchmarks for quantum many-body problems.Science, 386(6719):296–301, 2024

    2024

  93. [101]

    A tutorial on formulating and using qubo models

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, and Yu Du. A tutorial on formulating and using qubo models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11538, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Quantum bridge analytics i: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models.Annals of Operations Research, 314(1):141–183, 2022

    Fred Glover, Gary Kochenberger, Rick Hennig, and Yu Du. Quantum bridge analytics i: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models.Annals of Operations Research, 314(1):141–183, 2022

    2022

  95. [103]

    Remarks on the sachdev-ye-kitaev model.Physical Review D, 94(10):106002, 2016

    Juan Maldacena and Douglas Stanford. Remarks on the sachdev-ye-kitaev model.Physical Review D, 94(10):106002, 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.106002

    2016 doi

  96. [104]

    A semi-empirical theory of the electronic spectra and electronic structure of complex unsaturated molecules

    Rudolph Pariser and Robert G Parr. A semi-empirical theory of the electronic spectra and electronic structure of complex unsaturated molecules. ii.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21 (5):767–776, 1953

    1953

  97. [105]

    Electron interaction in unsaturated hydrocarbons.Transactions of the Faraday Society, 49:1375–1385, 1953

    John A Pople. Electron interaction in unsaturated hydrocarbons.Transactions of the Faraday Society, 49:1375–1385, 1953

    1953

  98. [106]

    Cambridge University Press, 2017

    Federico Becca and Sandro Sorella.Quantum Monte Carlo approaches for correlated systems. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  99. [107]

    Fidelity approach to quantum phase transitions.International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24(23):4371–4458, 2010

    Shi-Jian Gu. Fidelity approach to quantum phase transitions.International Journal of Modern Physics B, 24(23):4371–4458, 2010

    2010

  100. [108]

    Scaling laws for neural language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020. 91

    2001 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Some remarks on the pariser–parr–pople method.Theoretica Chimica Acta, 2: 219–227, 1964

    Kimio Ohno. Some remarks on the pariser–parr–pople method.Theoretica Chimica Acta, 2: 219–227, 1964. doi: 10.1007/BF00528281

    1964 doi

  102. [110]

    Soos and S

    Zolt´ an G. Soos and S. Ramasesha. Valence-bond theory of linear hubbard and pariser–parr–pople models.Physical Review B, 29:5410–5422, 1984. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.29.5410

    1984 doi

  103. [111]

    A semi-empirical theory of the electronic spectra and electronic structure of complex unsaturated molecules

    Rudolph Pariser and Robert G Parr. A semi-empirical theory of the electronic spectra and electronic structure of complex unsaturated molecules. i.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21 (3):466–471, 1953

    1953

  104. [112]

    Amazon braket pricing.https://aws.amazon.com/braket/pricing/,

    Amazon Web Services. Amazon braket pricing.https://aws.amazon.com/braket/pricing/,

  105. [113]

    Mapping phase diagrams of quantum spin systems through semidefinite-programming relaxations.Physical Review Letters, 136(5):050401, 2026

    David Jansen, Donato Farina, Luke Mortimer, Timothy Heightman, Andreas Leitherer, Pere Mujal, Jie Wang, and Antonio Ac´ ın. Mapping phase diagrams of quantum spin systems through semidefinite-programming relaxations.Physical Review Letters, 136(5):050401, 2026

    2026

  106. [114]

    Quantum computation.Annual Reviews of Computational Physics VI, pages 259–346, 1999

    Dorit Aharonov. Quantum computation.Annual Reviews of Computational Physics VI, pages 259–346, 1999

    1999

  107. [115]

    Stein’s method, logarithmic sobolev and transport inequalities.Geometric and Functional Analysis, 25(1):256–306, 2015

    Michel Ledoux, Ivan Nourdin, and Giovanni Peccati. Stein’s method, logarithmic sobolev and transport inequalities.Geometric and Functional Analysis, 25(1):256–306, 2015

    2015

  108. [116]

    Deep stochastic mechanics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19685, 2023

    Elena Orlova, Aleksei Ustimenko, Ruoxi Jiang, Peter Y Lu, and Rebecca Willett. Deep stochastic mechanics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19685, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural net- works.Science, 355(6325):602–606, 2017. doi: 10.1126/science.aag2302

    2017 doi

  110. [118]

    Universal quantum hamiltonians

    Toby S Cubitt, Ashley Montanaro, and Stephen Piddock. Universal quantum hamiltonians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(38):9497–9502, 2018

    2018

  111. [119]

    Shou-Shu Gong, Wei Zhu, D. N. Sheng, Olexei I. Motrunich, and Matthew P. A. Fisher. Plaque- tte ordered phase and quantum phase diagram in the spin-1/2j 1–j2 square heisenberg model. Physical Review Letters, 113(2):027201, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.027201

    2014 doi

  112. [120]

    The complexity of the local hamiltonian problem

    Julia Kempe, Alexei Kitaev, and Oded Regev. The complexity of the local hamiltonian problem. Siam journal on computing, 35(5):1070–1097, 2006

    2006

  113. [121]

    Root mean square layer normalization.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    Biao Zhang and Rico Sennrich. Root mean square layer normalization.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  114. [122]

    DauphVaswaniin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier

    Yann N. DauphVaswaniin, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and David Grangier. Language modeling with gated convolutional networks. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, volume 70 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 933–941. PMLR,

  115. [123]

    GLU variants improve transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202, 2020

    Noam Shazeer. GLU variants improve transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05202

    2002 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  117. [125]

    Batch normalization biases residual blocks towards the identity function in deep networks

    Soham De and Sam Smith. Batch normalization biases residual blocks towards the identity function in deep networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 19964–19975. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/ paper/2020/ha...

    2020

  118. [126]

    nGPT: Normalized trans- former with representation learning on the hypersphere

    Ilya Loshchilov, Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Simeng Sun, and Boris Ginsburg. nGPT: Normalized trans- former with representation learning on the hypersphere. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=se4vjm7h4E. 92

    2025

  119. [127]

    Object-centric learning with slot attention.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:11525–11538, 2020

    Francesco Locatello, Dirk Weissenborn, Thomas Unterthiner, Aravindh Mahendran, Georg Heigold, Jakob Uszkoreit, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Thomas Kipf. Object-centric learning with slot attention.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:11525–11538, 2020

    2020

  120. [128]

    The complexity of quantum spin systems on a two- dimensional square lattice.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0504050, 2005

    Roberto Oliveira and Barbara M Terhal. The complexity of quantum spin systems on a two- dimensional square lattice.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0504050, 2005

    2005 arXiv

  121. [129]

    An optimal lower bound on the number of variables for graph identification.Combinatorica, 12(4):389–410, 1992

    Jin-Yi Cai, Martin F¨ urer, and Neil Immerman. An optimal lower bound on the number of variables for graph identification.Combinatorica, 12(4):389–410, 1992

    1992

  122. [130]

    Provably powerful graph networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    Haggai Maron, Heli Ben-Hamu, Hadar Serviansky, and Yaron Lipman. Provably powerful graph networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  123. [131]

    Dai, and Quoc V

    David Ha, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. HyperNetworks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=rkpACe1lx

    2017

  124. [132]

    FiLM: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer

    Ethan Perez, Florian Strub, Harm de Vries, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron Courville. FiLM: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32, pages 3942–3951, 2018. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11671

    2018 doi

  125. [133]

    The renormalization group and critical phenomena.Reviews of Modern Physics, 55(3):583, 1983

    Kenneth G Wilson. The renormalization group and critical phenomena.Reviews of Modern Physics, 55(3):583, 1983

    1983

  126. [134]

    Scaling laws for ising models near t c.Physics Physique Fizika, 2(6):263, 1966

    Leo P Kadanoff. Scaling laws for ising models near t c.Physics Physique Fizika, 2(6):263, 1966

    1966

  127. [135]

    Kenneth G. Wilson. The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 47(4):773–840, 1975. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.47.773

    1975 doi

  128. [136]

    Entanglement renormalization.Physical Review Letters, 99(22):220405, 2007

    Guifr´ e Vidal. Entanglement renormalization.Physical Review Letters, 99(22):220405, 2007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.220405

    2007 doi

  129. [137]

    Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12409, 2021

    Ofir Press, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12409, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold.nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ron- neberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, AugustinˇZ´ ıdek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold.nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    2021

  131. [139]

    Pointer networks

    Oriol Vinyals, Meire Fortunato, and Navdeep Jaitly. Pointer networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28, 2015. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/ paper/2015/hash/29921001f2f04bd3baee84a12e98098f-Abstract.html

    2015

  132. [140]

    US Government Printing Office, 1954

    Emil Julius Gumbel.Statistical theory of extreme values and some practical applications: a series of lectures, volume 33. US Government Printing Office, 1954

    1954

  133. [141]

    Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning.Machine learning, 8(3):229–256, 1992

    Ronald J Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning.Machine learning, 8(3):229–256, 1992

    1992

  134. [142]

    Algebraic combina- torics in mathematical chemistry

    Luitpold Babel, Irina V Chuvaeva, Mikhail Klin, and Dmitrii V Pasechnik. Algebraic combina- torics in mathematical chemistry. methods and algorithms. ii. program implementation of the weisfeiler-leman algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1002.1921, 2010

    1921 arXiv

  135. [143]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    IA Faradzev, Aleksandr Anatolievich Ivanov, M Klin, and AJ Woldar.Investigations in algebraic theory of combinatorial objects. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  136. [144]

    Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.The journal of chemical physics, 21(6):1087–1092, 1953

    Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W Rosenbluth, Marshall N Rosenbluth, Augusta H Teller, and Edward Teller. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.The journal of chemical physics, 21(6):1087–1092, 1953

    1953

  137. [145]

    Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications

    W Keith Hastings. Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications. Biometrika, 57(1):97–109, 1970. 93

    1970

  138. [146]

    Benchmarking simulacra ai’s quantum accurate synthetic data generation for chemical sciences

    Fabio Falcioni, Elena Orlova, Timothy Heightman, Philip Mantrov, and Aleksei Ustimenko. Benchmarking simulacra ai’s quantum accurate synthetic data generation for chemical sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07433, 2025

    2025

  139. [147]

    Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk metropolis algorithms.The annals of applied probability, 7(1):110–120, 1997

    Gareth O Roberts, Andrew Gelman, and Walter R Gilks. Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk metropolis algorithms.The annals of applied probability, 7(1):110–120, 1997

    1997

  140. [148]

    Shortformer: Better language modeling using shorter inputs

    Ofir Press, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. Shortformer: Better language modeling using shorter inputs. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1:...

    2021

  141. [149]

    Optimal scaling of discrete approximations to langevin diffusions.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 60(1):255–268, 1998

    Gareth O Roberts and Jeffrey S Rosenthal. Optimal scaling of discrete approximations to langevin diffusions.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 60(1):255–268, 1998

    1998

  142. [150]

    Replica monte carlo simulation of spin-glasses

    Robert H Swendsen and Jian-Sheng Wang. Replica monte carlo simulation of spin-glasses. Physical review letters, 57(21):2607, 1986

    1986

  143. [151]

    Exchange monte carlo method and application to spin glass simulations.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 65(6):1604–1608, 1996

    Koji Hukushima and Koji Nemoto. Exchange monte carlo method and application to spin glass simulations.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 65(6):1604–1608, 1996

    1996

  144. [152]

    A tutorial on adaptive mcmc.Statistics and comput- ing, 18(4):343–373, 2008

    Christophe Andrieu and Johannes Thoms. A tutorial on adaptive mcmc.Statistics and comput- ing, 18(4):343–373, 2008

    2008

  145. [153]

    Riemann manifold Langevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 73(2):123–214, 2011

    Mark Girolami and Ben Calderhead. Riemann manifold Langevin and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo methods.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 73(2):123–214, 2011

    2011

  146. [154]

    Geodesic Monte Carlo on embedded manifolds.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 40(4):825–845, 2013

    Simon Byrne and Mark Girolami. Geodesic Monte Carlo on embedded manifolds.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 40(4):825–845, 2013

    2013

  147. [155]

    Non- reversible parallel tempering: A scalable highly parallel mcmc scheme.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 84(2):321–350, 2022

    Saifuddin Syed, Alexandre Bouchard-Cˆ ot´ e, George Deligiannidis, and Arnaud Doucet. Non- reversible parallel tempering: A scalable highly parallel mcmc scheme.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 84(2):321–350, 2022

    2022

  148. [156]

    Towards optimal scaling of metropolis-coupled markov chain monte carlo.Statistics and Computing, 21(4):555–568, 2011

    Yves F Atchad´ e, Gareth O Roberts, and Jeffrey S Rosenthal. Towards optimal scaling of metropolis-coupled markov chain monte carlo.Statistics and Computing, 21(4):555–568, 2011

    2011

  149. [157]

    Monotone piecewise cubic interpolation.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 17(2):238–246, 1980

    Frederick N Fritsch and Ralph E Carlson. Monotone piecewise cubic interpolation.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 17(2):238–246, 1980

    1980

  150. [158]

    Exponential convergence of langevin distributions and their discrete approximations.Bernoulli, 2(4):341–363, 1996

    Gareth O Roberts and Richard L Tweedie. Exponential convergence of langevin distributions and their discrete approximations.Bernoulli, 2(4):341–363, 1996

    1996

  151. [159]

    A stochastic approximation method.The annals of math- ematical statistics, pages 400–407, 1951

    Herbert Robbins and Sutton Monro. A stochastic approximation method.The annals of math- ematical statistics, pages 400–407, 1951

    1951

  152. [160]

    A computational framework for neural network-based variational monte carlo with forward laplacian.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(2):209–219, 2024

    Ruichen Li, Haotian Ye, Du Jiang, Xuelan Wen, Chuwei Wang, Zhe Li, Xiang Li, Di He, Ji Chen, Weiluo Ren, et al. A computational framework for neural network-based variational monte carlo with forward laplacian.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(2):209–219, 2024

    2024

  153. [161]

    Practical gauss-newton optimisation for deep learning

    Aleksandar Botev, Hippolyt Ritter, and David Barber. Practical gauss-newton optimisation for deep learning. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 557–565. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  154. [162]

    Green function monte carlo with stochastic reconfiguration.Physical review letters, 80(20):4558, 1998

    Sandro Sorella. Green function monte carlo with stochastic reconfiguration.Physical review letters, 80(20):4558, 1998

    1998

  155. [163]

    Deep learning in classical and quantum physics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10666, 2025

    Timothy Heightman and Marcin P lodzie´ n. Deep learning in classical and quantum physics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10666, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  156. [164]

    Kronecker-factored curvature approximations for recurrent neural networks

    James Martens, Jimmy Ba, and Matt Johnson. Kronecker-factored curvature approximations for recurrent neural networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  157. [165]

    Gra- dient descent on neural networks typically occurs at the edge of stability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00065, 2021

    Jeremy M Cohen, Simran Kaur, Yuanzhi Li, J Zico Kolter, and Ameet Talwalkar. Gra- dient descent on neural networks typically occurs at the edge of stability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00065, 2021. 94

    2021 arXiv

  158. [168]

    Accurate monotonicity preserving cubic interpolation.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4(4):645–654, 1983

    James M Hyman. Accurate monotonicity preserving cubic interpolation.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4(4):645–654, 1983

    1983

  159. [1965]

    doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(65)90862-X

    doi

  160. [1988]

    The related PRL titled ”Rigorous results on valence-bond ground states in antiferromagnets” is 1987, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.799

    doi: 10.1007/BF01218021. The related PRL titled ”Rigorous results on valence-bond ground states in antiferromagnets” is 1987, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.799

    1987 doi

  161. [2006]

    doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005

    2005 doi

  162. [2014]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.200501

    doi

  163. [2016]

    doi: 10.1201/b19172

    ISBN 9781498727136. doi: 10.1201/b19172

    doi

  164. [2017]

    URLhttps://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/dauphin17a.html

  165. [2018]

    doi: 10.1038/s41567-018-0137-5

    doi

  166. [2019]

    doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021001

    doi

  167. [2026]

    Accessed 3 August 2026

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.