pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.17837 · v2 · pith:AZBAF6GRnew · submitted 2025-01-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Distinguishing Ordered Phases using Machine Learning and Classical Shadows

Leandro Morais , Tiago Pernambuco , Rodrigo G. Pereira , Askery Canabarro , Diogo O. Soares-Pinto , Rafael Chaves This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 04:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum phase transitionsclassical shadowsunsupervised machine learningIsing modelKitaev-Heisenberg modellocal observablesordered phases
0
0 comments X

The pith

Classical shadows of local observables fed to unsupervised clustering can distinguish ordered phases in quantum spin models even with few qubits.

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

The paper proposes combining the classical shadows protocol with unsupervised machine learning to identify quantum phase transitions. It benchmarks the approach on the axial next-nearest-neighbor Ising chain and the Kitaev-Heisenberg ladder, showing that clusters formed from estimated pairwise correlations and plaquette operators align with the distinct ordered phases. Because only a restricted set of local observables is measured, the number of samples required grows logarithmically with the number of features rather than linearly. The authors argue this combination remains effective on small qubit counts and therefore offers a route to studying phase structure in regimes where full classical simulation is impossible.

Core claim

By estimating a small set of local observables through classical shadows and passing the resulting vectors to an unsupervised clustering algorithm, the distinct ordered phases of the axial next-nearest-neighbor Ising model and the Kitaev-Heisenberg two-leg ladder become separable, even when the system size is limited to a few qubits; the sample complexity of the shadow protocol scales only logarithmically with the number of measured features.

What carries the argument

Classical shadows protocol restricted to pairwise correlations and plaquette operators, whose estimates are clustered by unsupervised machine learning.

If this is right

  • Phase diagrams of spin models become accessible from local measurements on systems too large for exact diagonalization.
  • Sample overhead remains modest when the observable set is kept small and local.
  • The same pipeline applies without modification to other one- and two-dimensional Hamiltonians whose phases are characterized by local order parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could be applied directly to experimental data from quantum simulators that can measure only two-body correlators.
  • If the logarithmic scaling holds for larger feature sets, the approach may extend to distinguishing topological phases that require slightly nonlocal but still efficiently estimable operators.
  • The framework supplies a concrete numerical test for whether a given set of local observables is sufficient to resolve a particular phase diagram.

Load-bearing premise

The unsupervised clusters formed from the estimated local observables will correspond to the physically distinct ordered phases rather than to sampling noise or other artifacts.

What would settle it

Running the protocol on the benchmark models with increasing numbers of shadows and finding that the learned clusters fail to separate at the known phase boundaries.

read the original abstract

Classifying phase transitions is a fundamental and complex challenge in condensed matter physics. This work proposes a framework for identifying quantum phase transitions by combining classical shadows with unsupervised machine learning. We use the axial next-nearest neighbor Ising model as our benchmark and extend the analysis to the Kitaev-Heisenberg model on a two-leg ladder. Even with few qubits, we can effectively distinguish between the different phases of the Hamiltonian models. {Furthermore, by relying on a restricted set of local observables, such as pairwise correlations and plaquette operators, the sample complexity of the classical shadows protocol scales logarithmically with the number of measured features. This makes our approach a scalable and efficient tool for studying phase transitions in larger many-body systems where classical verification becomes intractable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework combining classical shadows with unsupervised machine learning to identify quantum phase transitions. It benchmarks the approach on the axial next-nearest-neighbor Ising model and the Kitaev-Heisenberg ladder, asserting that phases can be distinguished even with few qubits via clustering of local observables (pairwise correlations, plaquette operators) and that sample complexity scales logarithmically with the number of features.

Significance. If the unsupervised clustering of shadow-estimated observables is shown to align with physical order parameters rather than noise or finite-size artifacts, the method would offer a scalable route to phase classification in regimes where exact methods fail, exploiting the efficiency of classical shadows for restricted local features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that unsupervised ML 'can effectively distinguish' the phases rests on the unverified assumption that clusters of estimated local observables align with known physical phase boundaries. No quantitative metrics (accuracy, adjusted Rand index, or comparison to exact phase diagrams), error bars, or ablation on the clustering algorithm are supplied, leaving open whether results reflect order parameters or sampling artifacts in the median-of-means estimator.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The stated logarithmic scaling of sample complexity with the number of measured features is asserted without derivation, explicit bound, or numerical demonstration on the benchmark models; this scaling is load-bearing for the scalability claim but is not shown to hold after accounting for the variance of the shadow estimator on the chosen observables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. The points raised about validation metrics and the sample-complexity claim are well taken; we address each below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative evidence and derivations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that unsupervised ML 'can effectively distinguish' the phases rests on the unverified assumption that clusters of estimated local observables align with known physical phase boundaries. No quantitative metrics (accuracy, adjusted Rand index, or comparison to exact phase diagrams), error bars, or ablation on the clustering algorithm are supplied, leaving open whether results reflect order parameters or sampling artifacts in the median-of-means estimator.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation strengthens the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will report adjusted Rand index values between the unsupervised clusters and the known phase labels obtained from exact diagonalization, include error bars obtained from independent shadow realizations, and add an ablation study comparing k-means, hierarchical clustering, and DBSCAN. These additions will directly address whether the observed clusters track physical order parameters rather than estimator artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The stated logarithmic scaling of sample complexity with the number of measured features is asserted without derivation, explicit bound, or numerical demonstration on the benchmark models; this scaling is load-bearing for the scalability claim but is not shown to hold after accounting for the variance of the shadow estimator on the chosen observables.

    Authors: The logarithmic dependence follows from standard concentration arguments for median-of-means estimators applied to a fixed collection of local observables, but we acknowledge that an explicit derivation that folds in the shadow-norm variance of the specific pairwise-correlation and plaquette operators, together with numerical verification on the ANNNI and Kitaev-Heisenberg ladders, was not supplied. We will add both the derivation and the corresponding numerical checks in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical framework tested on benchmarks without self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper presents a computational framework combining classical shadows with unsupervised ML, tested empirically on standard benchmark models (axial next-nearest-neighbor Ising and Kitaev-Heisenberg ladder). No equations, derivations, or load-bearing steps are shown that reduce claims to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The logarithmic scaling claim follows directly from the restricted observable set in the classical shadows protocol, which is an established property independent of the ML clustering step. The central assertion that clusters align with phases is validated by numerical experiments on known Hamiltonians rather than by construction. This is a self-contained empirical study with no detected circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on the unstated assumption that the chosen local observables suffice to separate phases and that the unsupervised algorithm will recover the correct partitioning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5664 in / 1268 out tokens · 67803 ms · 2026-05-23T04:20:16.082935+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Both models are relevant for describing the magnetic properties of real materials and display rich phase diagrams with multiple ordered and disordered phases

    and the Kitaev-Heisenberg ladder [ 22]. Both models are relevant for describing the magnetic properties of real materials and display rich phase diagrams with multiple ordered and disordered phases. The ANNNI model is significant as the simplest model in which different types of competing magnetic orders stem from the interplay between frustrated Ising in...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In this phase, the system spontaneously breaks the Z2 symmetry σz j 7→ −σz j

    For small k and g, the system is in the ferromagnetic phase. In this phase, the system spontaneously breaks the Z2 symmetry σz j 7→ −σz j . The two degenerate ground states are adiabatically connected to the product states in which the spins order themselves either as ↑↑ · · · ↑↑ or as ↓↓ · · · ↓↓ ; 3 FIG. 2. The Kitaev-Heisenberg ladder. Blue, green and ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For large enough g, the transverse field term dominates and the system enters a paramagnetic disordered phase, with a unique ground state of spins aligned with the field

    work page

  4. [4]

    antiphase

    For large k, we have the so-called "antiphase", where the strong antiferromagnetic coupling between NNN spins causes the system to order with the pattern ↑↑↓↓↑↑ ..., breaking the Z2 symmetry as well as translation invariance. The ground state is fourfold degenerate

    work page

  5. [5]

    floating phase

    For a small region of intermediate k and g, the system is in a gapless "floating phase" with power- law-decaying correlations. The phase diagram of the ANNNI chain as a function of k and g is shown in Fig. 1. The ANNNI model has a wide range of practical applications, including the description of rare-earth metals [ 26, 39], the explanation of magnetic or...

    work page

  6. [6]

    A rung-singlet (RS) phase for −0.3π ≤ ϕ ≤ 0.48π, a trivial phase without magnetic order, where the unique ground state is adiabatically connected to a product of singlets on the rungs

    work page

  7. [7]

    This corresponds to a narrow region around the pure Kitaev limit at ϕ = π 2 , where J = 0 and K = 1

    An antiferromagnetic Kitaev spin liquid (AFK) phase for 0.48π < ϕ < 0.53π. This corresponds to a narrow region around the pure Kitaev limit at ϕ = π 2 , where J = 0 and K = 1

    work page

  8. [8]

    The zigzag (ZZ) phase (named after its analog phase in the honeycomb lattice) for 0.53 π ≤ ϕ < FIG. 5. Pictorial representation of neighbors and diagonal pairwise correlations for a states in different phases of a fictitious system 0.8π. This phase has ferromagnetic order on each leg, but the magnetization has opposite signs on different legs

    work page

  9. [9]

    A ferromagnetic (FM) phase for 0.8 π ≤ ϕ < 1.37π, in the region around ϕ = π, where J = −1 and K = 0 ensure ferromagnetic Heisenberg interactions between the spins

    work page

  10. [10]

    Interestingly, this spin liquid phase is significantly wider than its antiferromagnetic counterpart

    A ferromagnetic Kitaev spin liquid (FK) phase for 1.37π ≤ ϕ ≤ 1.57ϕ, the region around ϕ = 3π 2 , where J = 0 and K = −1. Interestingly, this spin liquid phase is significantly wider than its antiferromagnetic counterpart

    work page

  11. [11]

    snapshot

    The stripy (ST) phase for 1.57 π < ϕ < 1.7π, with long-range antiferromagnetic order along each leg but ferromagnetic correlations between spins on the same rung. The phases of the Kitaev-Heisenberg model described above are shown in Figure 3. An interesting point to note about the AFK and FK spin liquid phases is that, although they do not present long-r...

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks

    Giuseppe Carleo and Matthias Troyer. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks. Science, 355(6325):602–606, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Neural-network quantum state tomography

    Giacomo Torlai, Guglielmo Mazzola, Juan Carrasquilla, Matthias Troyer, Roger Melko, and Giuseppe Carleo. Neural-network quantum state tomography. Nature physics, 14(5):447–450, 2018. 11

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Machine learning and the physical sciences

    Giuseppe Carleo, Ignacio Cirac, Kyle Cranmer, Laurent Daudet, Maria Schuld, Naftali Tishby, Leslie Vogt- Maranto, and Lenka Zdeborová. Machine learning and the physical sciences. Reviews of Modern Physics , 91(4):045002, 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Machine learning for quantum matter

    Juan Carrasquilla. Machine learning for quantum matter. Advances in Physics: X , 5(1):1797528, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics , 16(10):1050– 1057, 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Machine learning phases of matter

    Juan Carrasquilla and Roger G Melko. Machine learning phases of matter. Nature Physics, 13(5):431–434, 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Machine learning of quantum phase transitions

    Xiao-Yu Dong, Frank Pollmann, and Xue-Feng Zhang. Machine learning of quantum phase transitions. Phys. Rev. B, 99:121104, Mar 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Unsupervised machine learning of quantum phase transitions using diffusion maps

    Alexander Lidiak and Zhexuan Gong. Unsupervised machine learning of quantum phase transitions using diffusion maps. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:225701, Nov 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Machine learning quantum phases of matter beyond the fermion sign problem

    Peter Broecker, Juan Carrasquilla, Roger G Melko, and Simon Trebst. Machine learning quantum phases of matter beyond the fermion sign problem. Scientific reports, 7(1):8823, 2017

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Identifying topological order through unsupervised machine learning

    Joaquin F Rodriguez-Nieva and Mathias S Scheurer. Identifying topological order through unsupervised machine learning. Nature Physics, 15(8):790–795, 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Machine learning of quantum phase transitions

    Xiao-Yu Dong, Frank Pollmann, and Xue-Feng Zhang. Machine learning of quantum phase transitions. Physical Review B, 99(12):121104, 2019

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Machine learning phase transitions with a quantum processor

    AV Uvarov, AS Kardashin, and Jacob D Biamonte. Machine learning phase transitions with a quantum processor. Physical Review A, 102(1):012415, 2020

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Predicting topological invariants and unconventional superconducting pairing from density of states and machine learning

    Flavio Noronha, Askery Canabarro, Rafael Chaves, and Rodrigo G Pereira. Predicting topological invariants and unconventional superconducting pairing from density of states and machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16499, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Topological quantum phase transitions retrieved through unsupervised machine learning

    Yanming Che, Clemens Gneiting, Tao Liu, and Franco Nori. Topological quantum phase transitions retrieved through unsupervised machine learning. Phys. Rev. B , 102:134213, Oct 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Quantum monte carlo simulations of solids

    William MC Foulkes, Lubos Mitas, RJ Needs, and Guna Rajagopal. Quantum monte carlo simulations of solids. Reviews of Modern Physics, 73(1):33, 2001

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    Efficient quantum state tomography

    Marcus Cramer, Martin B Plenio, Steven T Flammia, Rolando Somma, David Gross, Stephen D Bartlett, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, David Poulin, and Yi-Kai Liu. Efficient quantum state tomography. Nature communications, 1(1):149, 2010

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning

    Marco Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning. Nature Computational Science, 2(9):567–576, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard

    Lennart Bittel and Martin Kliesch. Training variational quantum algorithms is np-hard. Physical review letters , 127(12):120502, 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Power of data in quantum machine learning

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Masoud Mohseni, Ryan Babbush, Sergio Boixo, Hartmut Neven, and Jarrod R McClean. Power of data in quantum machine learning. Nature communications , 12(1):2631, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Shadow tomography of quantum states

    Scott Aaronson. Shadow tomography of quantum states. In Proceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing, pages 325–338, 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    The annni model—theoretical analysis and experimental application

    Walter Selke. The annni model—theoretical analysis and experimental application. Physics Reports, 170(4):213–264, 1988

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    Sørensen, and Hae-Young Kee

    Andrei Catuneanu, Erik S. Sørensen, and Hae-Young Kee. Nonlocal string order parameter in the S = 1 2 Kitaev-Heisenberg ladder. Phys. Rev. B , 99:195112, May 2019

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Topological characterization of quantum phase transitions in a spin-1/2 model

    Xiao-Yong Feng, Guang-Ming Zhang, and Tao Xiang. Topological characterization of quantum phase transitions in a spin-1/2 model. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 98:087204, Feb 2007

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    Hidenori Takagi, Tomohiro Takayama, George Jackeli, Giniyat Khaliullin, and Stephen E. Nagler. Concept and realization of Kitaev quantum spin liquids. Nature Reviews Physics, 1(4):264–280, 2019

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Least squares quantization in pcm

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE transactions on information theory, 28(2):129–137, 1982

    work page 1982

  37. [37]

    R. J. Elliott. Phenomenological discussion of magnetic ordering in the heavy rare-earth metals. Phys. Rev. , 124:346–353, Oct 1961

    work page 1961

  38. [38]

    Villain and P

    J. Villain and P . Bak. Two-dimensional ising model with competing interactions : floating phase, walls and dislocations. Journal de Physique, 42(5):657–668, 1981

    work page 1981

  39. [39]

    A two-leg quantum ising ladder: a bosonization study of the ANNNI model

    D Allen, P Azaria, and P Lecheminant. A two-leg quantum ising ladder: a bosonization study of the ANNNI model. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 34(21):L305–L310, may 2001

    work page 2001

  40. [40]

    The one-dimensional ANNNI model in a transverse field: analytic and numerical study of effective hamiltonians

    Heiko Rieger and Genadi Uimin. The one-dimensional ANNNI model in a transverse field: analytic and numerical study of effective hamiltonians. Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter, 101(4):597–611, dec 1996

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

    Colares Guimarães, João A

    Paulo R. Colares Guimarães, João A. Plascak, Francisco C. Sá Barreto, and João Florencio. Quantum phase transitions in the one-dimensional transverse ising model with second-neighbor interactions. Phys. Rev. B , 66:064413, Aug 2002

    work page 2002

  42. [42]

    Evidence for a floating phase of the transverse annni model at high frustration

    Matteo Beccaria, Massimo Campostrini, and Alessandra Feo. Evidence for a floating phase of the transverse annni model at high frustration. Phys. Rev. B , 76:094410, Sep 2007

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    Exploring phase transitions by finite- entanglement scaling of MPS in the 1d ANNNI model

    Adam Nagy. Exploring phase transitions by finite- entanglement scaling of MPS in the 1d ANNNI model. New Journal of Physics, 13(2):023015, feb 2011

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond

    Alexei Kitaev. Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond. Annals of Physics , 321(1):2–111, 2006. January Special Issue

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    Pereira and Reinhold Egger

    Rodrigo G. Pereira and Reinhold Egger. Electrical Access to Ising Anyons in Kitaev Spin Liquids. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:227202, Nov 2020

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    A.Yu. Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of Physics, 303(1):2–30, 2003

    work page 2003

  47. [47]

    Kitaev-Heisenberg Model on a Honeycomb Lattice: Possible Exotic Phases in Iridium Oxides A2IrO3

    Ji ˇ rí Chaloupka, George Jackeli, and Giniyat Khaliullin. Kitaev-Heisenberg Model on a Honeycomb Lattice: Possible Exotic Phases in Iridium Oxides A2IrO3. Phys. Rev. Lett., 105:027204, Jul 2010

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    Manni, J

    Yogesh Singh, S. Manni, J. Reuther, T. Berlijn, R. Thomale, W. Ku, S. Trebst, and P . Gegenwart. Relevance of the Heisenberg-Kitaev Model for the Honeycomb Lattice 12 Iridates A2IrO3. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:127203, Mar 2012

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    M. Cea, M. Grossi, S. Monaco, E. Rico, L. Tagliacozzo, and S. Vallecorsa. Exploring the phase diagram of the quantum one-dimensional annni model, 2024

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    The annni model — theoretical analysis and experimental application

    Walter Selke. The annni model — theoretical analysis and experimental application. Physics Reports , 170(4):213–264, 1988

    work page 1988

  51. [51]

    Unveiling phase transitions with machine learning

    Askery Canabarro, Felipe Fernandes Fanchini, André Luiz Malvezzi, Rodrigo Pereira, and Rafael Chaves. Unveiling phase transitions with machine learning. Phys. Rev. B, 100:045129, Jul 2019

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    J.-J. Wen, W. Tian, V . O. Garlea, S. M. Koohpayeh, T. M. McQueen, H.-F. Li, J.-Q. Yan, J. A. Rodriguez- Rivera, D. Vaknin, and C. L. Broholm. Disorder from order among anisotropic next-nearest-neighbor Ising spin chains in SrHo2O4. Phys. Rev. B, 91:054424, Feb 2015

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Karrasch and D

    C. Karrasch and D. Schuricht. Dynamical phase transitions after quenches in nonintegrable models. Phys. Rev. B, 87:195104, May 2013

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    Strongly interacting majorana modes in an array of josephson junctions

    Fabian Hassler and Dirk Schuricht. Strongly interacting majorana modes in an array of josephson junctions. New Journal of Physics, 14(12):125018, dec 2012

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    Milsted, L

    A. Milsted, L. Seabra, I. C. Fulga, C. W. J. Beenakker, and E. Cobanera. Statistical translation invariance protects a topological insulator from interactions. Phys. Rev. B , 92:085139, Aug 2015

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    Unveiling phase transitions with machine learning

    Askery Canabarro, Felipe Fernandes Fanchini, André Luiz Malvezzi, Rodrigo Pereira, and Rafael Chaves. Unveiling phase transitions with machine learning. Physical Review B, 100(4):045129, 2019

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Detecting quantum phase transitions in a frustrated spin chain via transfer learning of a quantum classifier algorithm

    André J Ferreira-Martins, Leandro Silva, Alberto Palhares, Rodrigo Pereira, Diogo O Soares-Pinto, Rafael Chaves, and Askery Canabarro. Detecting quantum phase transitions in a frustrated spin chain via transfer learning of a quantum classifier algorithm. Physical Review A, 109(5):052623, 2024

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Quantum spin liquids: a review

    Lucile Savary and Leon Balents. Quantum spin liquids: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys., 80(1):016502, nov 2016

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil. Quantum spin liquids. Science, 367(6475):eaay0668, 2020

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Ground state and low-energy excitations of the Kitaev-Heisenberg two-leg ladder

    Cliò Efthimia Agrapidis, Jeroen van den Brink, and Satoshi Nishimoto. Ground state and low-energy excitations of the Kitaev-Heisenberg two-leg ladder. Phys. Rev. B, 99:224418, Jun 2019

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Rau, Eric Kin-Ho Lee, and Hae-Young Kee

    Jeffrey G. Rau, Eric Kin-Ho Lee, and Hae-Young Kee. Generic spin model for the honeycomb iridates beyond the kitaev limit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:077204, Feb 2014

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Beyond Kitaev physics in strong spin-orbit coupled magnets

    Ioannis Rousochatzakis, Natalia B Perkins, Qiang Luo, and Hae-Young Kee. Beyond Kitaev physics in strong spin-orbit coupled magnets. Rep. Prog. Phys. , 87(2):026502, feb 2024

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    An introduction to topological data analysis: fundamental and practical aspects for data scientists

    Frédéric Chazal and Bertrand Michel. An introduction to topological data analysis: fundamental and practical aspects for data scientists. Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 4:667963, 2021

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    k- means clustering for persistent homology

    Yueqi Cao, Prudence Leung, and Anthea Monod. k- means clustering for persistent homology. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, pages 1–25, 2024

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Efficient estimation of pauli observables by derandomization. Physical review letters , 127(3):030503, 2021

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    Integration k-means clustering method and elbow method for identification of the best customer profile cluster

    Muhammad Ali Syakur, B Khusnul Khotimah, EMS Rochman, and Budi Dwi Satoto. Integration k-means clustering method and elbow method for identification of the best customer profile cluster. In IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, volume 336, page 012017. IOP Publishing, 2018

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Em algorithms for pca and spca

    Sam Roweis. Em algorithms for pca and spca. Advances in neural information processing systems, 10, 1997

    work page 1997