Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Observation geometry for uncertainty-aware Hamiltonian inference and experimental design in quantum magnets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spectral geometry predicts which spin-Hamiltonian parameters a neutron experiment can resolve before any data are collected.

desk verdict Worth a serious look, but the uncertainty claim needs a calibration check before I'd trust the posterior widths. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10350 v1 pith:UEYVRPCE submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Roy Liu , Venugopal Ranganathan , David Dahlbom , Shizhou Xu , Tianyu Zhang , Yuan Ni , Daniel M. Pajerowski , Garrett Granroth
show 7 more authors
Thomas Strohmer Matthew B. Stone Andrew F. May Mark D. Lumsden Joshua J. Turner Yongqiang Cheng Zhantao Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords observationgeometrysloppinessanalysisHamiltonianinferenceBayesianexperimentaldesignimplicitneuralrepresentationsinelasticneutronscatteringNiPS3quantummagnets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to prove a practical claim: before any neutron beam time is spent, the forward model alone can tell you which spin-Hamiltonian parameters a proposed measurement will determine and which it will leave ambiguous. The authors define an observation metric on Hamiltonian parameter space from derivatives of a neural surrogate of the dynamical structure factor, so that large-eigenvalue stiff directions are well constrained and small-eigenvalue sloppy directions are not. They show, on simulated and experimental inelastic neutron scattering from the quantum magnet NiPS3, that the sloppiness score computed from this metric correlates with the posterior uncertainty left after sequential Bayesian inference, and that a powder measurement can reshape the choice of subsequent single-crystal orientations. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a route from which Hamiltonian fits the data to which Hamiltonian the data can actually see, and because the same surrogate-plus-metric machinery transfers to any differentiable forward model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the observation metric $G_{mn}(\theta)=\langle\partial_{\theta_m} S,\partial_{\theta_n} S\rangle_\Omega$, a Gram matrix of spectral derivatives integrated over the accessible momentum–energy domain and approximated with Monte Carlo samples; its eigenvalue decomposition separates stiff parameter combinations, which produce large spectral response, from sloppy ones, which are nearly invisible, and the diagonal of its inverse, after rescaling by parameter magnitudes, gives a per-parameter sloppiness score. The computational enabler is a Hamiltonian-conditioned neural surrogate: a shared embedding network feeding feature-wise linear modulation (FiLM) into modality-specific coordinate networks with periodic activations, returning differentiable spectra $S(\mathbf{Q},\omega;\theta)$ and $S(|\mathbf{Q}|,\omega;\theta)$ almost instantly. A sequential Monte Carlo particle filter supplies the posterior, and a predictive-variance utility selects the next crystal orientation.

What would settle it

Generate a held-out set of about 2,000 parameter vectors drawn uniformly from the prior, compute the spin-wave spectra and parameter derivatives with the true forward solver, and compare them with the surrogate's spectra, derivatives, sloppiness scores, and posterior widths obtained by re-running the particle filter with the true solver for a subset of particles; if the surrogate–solver disagreement in any region is comparable to the spectral separation between stiff and sloppy directions, the predicted identifiability ranking and the reported correlation would not survive re-computation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the intensity-induced $L^2$ pullback metric $G_{mn}(\theta)=\langle\partial_{\theta_m} S,\partial_{\theta_n} S\rangle_\Omega$, computed by Monte Carlo from surrogate derivatives, defines the local observation geometry of neutron scattering, and that this geometry's stiff and sloppy eigendirections predict the identifiability of microscopic interactions before data are acquired. Concretely, the paper asserts that the diagonal of the inverse scaled metric is an effective a priori predictor of the remaining posterior uncertainty after inference, and demonstrates the correlation for the nine-parameter Hamiltonian of NiPS3 across powder and single-crystal modalities. It further claims that sequential Bayesian inference coupled with this geometry lets a powder posterior initialize and reshape the adaptive selection of single-crystal orientation, and that the resulting joint posterior contains Hamiltonians that reproduce both experimental spectra while explicitly exhibiting which parameters, notably $A_x$, $A_z$, $J_{2a}$, and $J_{2b}$, remain poorly resolved.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the neural surrogate being an accurate and smooth stand-in for the spin-wave spectra across the entire nine-dimensional parameter range, including the derivatives that build the metric and the likelihood, yet the paper reports only an overall validation error and does not compare held-out surrogate spectra or gradients against the true solver.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Given only the forward model, one can pre-compute which Hamiltonian parameters a proposed single-crystal orientation or powder configuration will constrain, without collecting data.
  • Powder and single-crystal INS can be joined through the shared Hamiltonian parameter space: powder inference shrinks the posterior before single-crystal beam time, and the subsequent adaptive orientation sequence shifts to target remaining sloppy directions.
  • Posterior samples, not just a best fit, can be checked against both modalities; the NiPS3 analysis shows many Hamiltonians fit the powder spectrum indistinguishably while single-crystal data discriminate more sharply among them.
  • Because the metric requires only derivatives of a differentiable forward map, the same observation-geometry diagnostics and design loop extend to other spectroscopic probes and to control variables such as incident energy, magnetic field, or pressure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct robustness test would be to recompute the sloppiness ranking with derivatives from the spin-wave solver itself, or from a second independent emulator, on a modest grid; if the ranking and the reported correlation survive, the surrogate is not the source of the geometry.
  • One could replace SMC-based Bayesian experimental design with a derivative-only criterion, for example selecting the setting that maximizes the volume or smallest eigenvalue of $G$ over the accessible region; the paper's equations make that alternative testable with the same machinery.
  • Because the experimental powder spectrum enters through an extracted magnon estimate rather than raw counts, the posterior's dependence on that preprocessing remains an open question; the metric provides a quick way to predict which parameters would shift under an alternative extraction.
  • If surrogate uncertainty were propagated through ensembles or Bayesian networks, the same geometry could flag regions where the emulator itself is untrustworthy, turning model mismatch into a diagnosed quantity rather than a silent bias.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for uncertainty-aware Hamiltonian inference and adaptive experimental design in quantum magnets, demonstrated on NiPS3 with multimodal inelastic neutron scattering (INS). The central idea is to equip Hamiltonian-conditioned neural surrogates with an observation geometry: the pullback metric G_mn(θ) = <∂_m S, ∂_n S>_Ω (Eq. 3) computed from surrogate derivatives, whose inverse diagonal entries define parameter sloppiness scores. These scores are claimed to predict, a priori from the forward model, the posterior uncertainty remaining after Bayesian inference (Fig. 3e). The framework is demonstrated with simulated sequential single-crystal measurements, with and without powder-informed initialization, and with experimental powder and single-crystal INS data, where posterior samples are checked against independent Sunny/LSWT spectra (Fig. 4b). The paper also introduces a Poisson-derived robust particle score (Supplementary Note 2) that defines an 'effective (generalized) posterior', and a Bayesian experimental design utility based on predictive spectral variance (Eq. 10).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a practical and general methodology for a real problem: determining which Hamiltonian parameters are identifiable from a given scattering experiment and which additional measurements best resolve the remaining ambiguity. The use of a differentiable surrogate to compute the observation geometry, the sequential powder-then-single-crystal workflow, and the posterior-predictive validation against independent Sunny calculations (Fig. 4b) are genuine strengths. The paper also provides detailed architecture and data-generation descriptions, which is valuable for reproducibility. However, the load-bearing uncertainty claims currently rest on an uncalibrated generalized posterior and on surrogate derivatives that are not validated against the physics forward model. These gaps are fixable but are central to the paper's stated contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Note 2; Methods, 'Bayesian inference and experimental design'] The particle weights that define the posterior behind Fig. 3(e) and the BOED utility in Eq. (10) are updated with the min-max normalized 'robust score' ℓ_n defined in Eqs. (S4)–(S8), and the text states that the result 'should be interpreted as an effective (generalized) posterior' rather than a likelihood-based posterior. No coverage or calibration check is reported anywhere in the paper. Because the central claim is that the observation geometry predicts the parameter uncertainty remaining after inference, the posterior widths in Fig. 3(e) must be shown to have a well-defined relationship to actual remaining ambiguity; as it stands, they are a function of the particular normalization choices in the score. I would require a calibration or coverage validation on simulated data, for example empirical coverage of posterior credible intervals over many ground-truth draws under Poisson noise, or a comparison with an exact Poisson-likelihood posterior for a subset of parameters, before the uncertainty-aware claims can be assessed.
  2. [Eqs. (3)–(5); Methods, 'Neural surrogate model'] The observation metric G, the sloppiness scores S_m, and the stiff/sloppy eigen-directions in Fig. 2 are all computed from derivatives of the neural surrogate, yet the paper reports only the validation MSE (0.01319) and gives no held-out spectral error or derivative error against Sunny. If the surrogate is biased in any region of parameter space, the metric, the sloppiness ordering, and the posterior widths all inherit that bias. Please provide a quantitative comparison of surrogate predictions and surrogate derivatives with Sunny/LSWT at held-out Hamiltonian parameters, for example relative L2 error of ∂S/∂θ_m as a function of parameter location, and show that the sloppiness ordering and the stiff/sloppy directions are stable under this validation.
  3. [Fig. 3(e); 'Posterior-guided multimodal Hamiltonian inference'] The positive correlation in Fig. 3(e) is computed between two quantities generated by the same surrogate and the same effective likelihood, so it is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation of the 'a priori predictor' claim; moreover, it is based on only nine points, one per Hamiltonian parameter. Please report the correlation coefficient with its uncertainty, state explicitly that this is an internal consistency result, and ideally re-evaluate the sloppiness scores and posterior widths using independent Sunny spectra and a calibrated posterior for at least a subset of the benchmark cases.
  4. [Supplementary Note 10; 'Validation with experimental multimodal INS data'] The experimental powder spectrum used for inference is the output of source-separation and feature-enhancement vision transformers whose details are deferred to a separate publication, and the note itself states that the result 'should be interpreted as an effective magnetic-spectrum estimate' and that 'quantitative differences in the inferred Hamiltonian may depend on the specific preprocessing procedure.' The demonstration with experimental powder data is therefore conditional on an unpublished, model-dependent preprocessing pipeline. Either the preprocessing must be described and validated against alternative approaches, or the main-text claims about experimental multimodal validation should be correspondingly softened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The predictive-variance utility is described as an approximation to expected information gain, but the text does not discuss the conditions under which this approximation is accurate or its known biases; a clarifying sentence about its heuristic status would be helpful.
  2. [Fig. 3(e)] Please report the numerical correlation coefficient, and preferably a rank correlation, for the nine plotted points, since visual inspection of a nine-point scatter is not sufficient to support the claimed predictive relation.
  3. [Methods, 'Training data generation'] The training ranges θ_i ∼ U(0, 2θ_ref,i), or the reflected version, are broader than the prior bounds in Eq. (14); please clarify whether any prior-supported region lies outside the training support and whether surrogate extrapolation is a concern there.
  4. [Fig. 2(c) and main text] Because the sloppiness scores are normalized independently within each modality, the cross-modality comparison in the text is only about relative rankings; this is stated in the caption but should also be stated in the main text.
  5. [Results, 'Validation with experimental multimodal INS data'] The scaling argument that a nine-dimensional grid with the same forward-model budget gives 'about three grid points along each parameter dimension' assumes a uniform Cartesian grid; a brief clarification that other sampling strategies may fare differently would improve the discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity; central inference is externally grounded, with a non-load-bearing self-consistency check in Fig. 3e and minor self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: surrogate S_pred defines the observation metric G (Eq. 3), the sloppiness score S_m (Eq. 8), and the SMC posterior via the robust score (Supp. Note 2). The Fig. 3e correlation uses the same surrogate for both axes, so it is a self-consistency check rather than an independent test of the 'a priori predictor' claim. It is not, however, an equation-level circular reduction: the effective posterior width is not defined to be [(G+eps I)^{-1}]_mm, and the robust score in Supp. Note 2 (per-particle softmax and min-max normalization) breaks any exact local-quadratic equivalence between sloppiness and posterior standard deviation. The experimental validation is genuinely external: 2,048 posterior samples are re-evaluated with independent Sunny calculations against experimental data (Fig. 4b), and the literature Hamiltonian of Ref. 3 provides an external benchmark. Self-citations (Refs. 44, 45, 51) support the INR architecture and predictive-variance utility but are not load-bearing: the surrogate is trained and evaluated in this paper, and the utility approximation is standard (Refs. 48, 49). The paper's own stated limitations, that the posterior is an 'effective (generalized) posterior' without a calibration check (Supp. Note 2) and that the processed powder spectrum is a model-dependent estimate (Supp. Note 10), are important correctness/robustness caveats but not instances of circularity. Score 2 reflects the minor self-consistency presentation and non-load-bearing self-citations; no construction-level circular step was found.

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

The central result rests on a 9-parameter spin-wave model, an unvalidated surrogate, an ad hoc robust likelihood, and a data-processing pipeline whose details are not yet public. None of these are fitted to the target claim, but they collectively cap the physical fidelity of the inferred posterior.

free parameters (6)
  • Prior bounds θ_lb, θ_ub = (-0.020,0.15,-3.2,-2.2,0.15,0.15,13.5,13.5,-0.76) to (-0.005,0.35,-2.5,-1.5,0.26,0.26,15.0,15.0,-0.25) meV
    Eq. (14): chosen by hand to encompass physically plausible values around the reference Hamiltonian; posterior and BOED depend on these bounds.
  • Gaussian energy broadening FWHM = 4 meV
    Used for all training spectra; not fitted to experimental resolution; affects the surrogate spectra and the likelihood comparisons.
  • Robust score smoothing and normalization parameters = ρ=0.95, ε=10^-12
    Supplementary Notes 1-2: the min-max normalization and exponential smoothing define the effective posterior update and are not calibrated.
  • BOED history penalties γ_rep, γ_dist, ℓ_ψ = 0.5, 0.1, 15°
    Supplementary Note 3: hand-set regularizers that alter the selected orientation when acquisition utilities are similar.
  • Liu-West rejuvenation constants = a=0.98, jitter variance 10^-6 I
    Methods Eq. (20): tuning parameters for particle rejuvenation; affect posterior smoothness but not the physical model.
  • Regularizer ε for inverse metric = 10^-12
    Eq. (8): numerical stabilization when inverting the scaled observation metric to obtain sloppiness scores.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nine-parameter spin Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with relaxed J2 and J3 constraints, is the correct model for NiPS3 within the measured energy window.
    The posterior is only over these 9 parameters; missing interactions, disorder, and domains are not represented, which the paper acknowledges in the Discussion.
  • domain assumption Linear spin wave theory (Sunny.jl) accurately predicts the inelastic neutron scattering dynamical structure factor of NiPS3.
    All training spectra are LSWT with classical ground-state minimization on a single unit cell; no benchmarking against exact methods is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The source-separation and feature-enhancement vision transformers produce a valid magnetic-spectrum estimate from raw powder INS.
    Supplementary Note 10: the pipeline is described only schematically and deferred to a separate publication; the paper states the result is an effective estimate, not a model-independent observable.
  • ad hoc to paper The min-max normalized Poisson-derived 'robust score' defines a meaningful generalized posterior.
    Supplementary Note 2: the update is not a standard Bayes rule, and the calibration of the resulting posterior is unstated.
  • domain assumption Independent uniform priors over hand-set bounds represent prior knowledge.
    Eqs. (13)-(14); the posterior is prior-dependent, especially for poorly constrained parameters such as Ax.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation geometry for uncertainty-aware Hamiltonian inference and experimental design in quantum magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UEYVRPCE

@misc{pith2026260810350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation geometry for uncertainty-aware Hamiltonian inference and experimental design in quantum magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UEYVRPCE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10350}
}
abstract

Determining microscopic interactions from spectroscopic and scattering measurements is central to understanding quantum materials, yet it often remains unclear which interactions can be reliably revealed by the available experimental data and how additional experimental modalities should be designed to resolve the remaining ambiguities. Here we present an artificial intelligence-enabled framework for uncertainty-aware Hamiltonian inference and adaptive experimental design. By combining Hamiltonian-conditioned neural surrogates with Bayesian inference and observation geometry, the framework characterizes how measurements constrain Hamiltonian parameter space, quantifies the identifiability of microscopic interactions, and propagates posterior uncertainty directly in the physical Hamiltonian parameter space rather than an abstract learned representation. Using multimodal powder and single-crystal inelastic neutron scattering measurements of the quantum magnet NiPS$_{3}$, we demonstrate physically interpretable Hamiltonian inference, modality-aware uncertainty quantification, and adaptive experimental design. The framework provides a general strategy for uncertainty-aware microscopic characterization and multimodal experimental design across quantum materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 3(c) compares the posterior evolution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ntallis, V

    N. Ntallis, V. Borisov, Y. O. Kvashnin, D. Thonig, E. Sj¨ oqvist, A. Bergman, A. Delin, O. Eriksson, and M. Pereiro, Connection between magnetic interactions and the spin-wave gap of the insulating phase of NaOsO3, Physical Review B104, 134433 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Petsch, N

    A. Petsch, N. Headings, D. Prabhakaran, A. Kolesnikov, C. Frost, A. Boothroyd, R. Coldea, and S. Hayden, High- energy spin waves in the spin-1 square-lattice antiferro- magnet La 2NiO4, Physical Review Research5, 033113 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Training data generation

    The next measurement was selected by maximizing the adjusted utility: ψt+1 = arg max ψ ˜U(t+1)(ψ).(22) For the default Bayesian optimal experimental design (BOED) runs, utilities were estimated using 1000 sam- pled coordinates and 500 parameter samples at each de- sign step. Neural surrogate model We used a multimodal neural surrogate to ap- proximate the...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Park, J. W. Villanova,et al., Spin wave hamiltonian and anomalous scattering in NiPS 3, Phys. Rev. B108, 104402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    M. Hase, R. Tamura, K. Hukushima, S. Asai, T. Masuda, S. Itoh, and A. D¨ onni, Inelastic neutron scattering stud- ies on the eight-spin zigzag-chain compound KCu4P3O12: Confirmation of the validity of a data-driven technique based on machine learning, Physical Review B109, 094434 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    R. N. Gutenkunst, J. J. Waterfall, F. P. Casey, K. S. Brown, C. R. Myers, and J. P. Sethna, Universally sloppy parameter sensitivities in systems biology models, PLoS computational biology3, e189 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    M. K. Transtrum, B. B. Machta, K. S. Brown, B. C. Daniels, C. R. Myers, and J. P. Sethna, Perspective: Sloppiness and emergent theories in physics, biology, and beyond, The Journal of chemical physics143(2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Amari,Information geometry and its applications (Springer, 2016)

    S.-i. Amari,Information geometry and its applications (Springer, 2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Samarakoon, K. Barros, Y. W. Li, M. Eisenbach, Q. Zhang, F. Ye, V. Sharma, Z. Dun, H. Zhou, S. A. Grig- era,et al., Machine-learning-assisted insight into spin ice Dy2Ti2O7, Nature communications11, 892 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Z. Chen, X. Shen, N. Andrejevic, T. Liu, D. Luo, T. Nguyen, N. C. Drucker, M. E. Kozina, Q. Song, C. Hua,et al., Panoramic mapping of phonon transport from ultrafast electron diffraction and scientific machine learning, Advanced Materials35, 2206997 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    A. M. Samarakoon and D. Alan Tennant, Machine learn- ing for magnetic phase diagrams and inverse scattering problems, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter34, 044002 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Misawa, R

    T. Misawa, R. Tamura, K. Yoshimi, and Y. Yamaji, Re- visiting spin hamiltonian parameters in a kitaev material via bayesian optimization of magnetization curves, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.24857 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tarantola,Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation(SIAM, 2005)

    A. Tarantola,Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation(SIAM, 2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    A. M. Stuart, Inverse problems: a bayesian perspective, Acta numerica19, 451 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    G. L. Squires,Introduction to the theory of thermal neu- tron scattering(Courier Corporation, 1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    S. W. Lovesey,Theory of Neutron Scattering from Con- densed Matter, Volume 2: Polarization Effects and Mag- netic Scattering(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984)

    1984

  9. [17]

    J. R. Copley and T. J. Udovic, Neutron time-of-flight spectroscopy, Journal of research of the National Insti- tute of Standards and Technology98, 71 (1993)

    1993

  10. [18]

    Ivanov and P

    A. Ivanov and P. Alekseev, Neutron spectroscopy: Prin- ciples and equipment, Crystallography Reports67, 18 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chatterji,Neutron scattering from magnetic materials (Elsevier, 2005)

    T. Chatterji,Neutron scattering from magnetic materials (Elsevier, 2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Jakliˇ c and P

    J. Jakliˇ c and P. Prelovˇ sek, Lanczos method for the calcu- lation of finite-temperature quantities in correlated sys- tems, Physical Review B49, 5065 (1994). 16

    1994

  13. [21]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, Linear spin wave theory for single-q incommensurate magnetic structures, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Blosser, N

    D. Blosser, N. Kestin, K. Y. Povarov, R. Bewley, E. Coira, T. Giamarchi, and A. Zheludev, Finite- temperature correlations in a quantum spin chain near saturation, Physical Review B96, 134406 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, et al., Sunny.jl: A Julia package for spin dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13095 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Carleo and M

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

    2017

  18. [26]

    Mendes-Santos, M

    T. Mendes-Santos, M. Schmitt, and M. Heyl, Highly re- solved spectral functions of two-dimensional systems with neural quantum states, Physical Review Letters131, 046501 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Chillal, Y

    S. Chillal, Y. Iqbal, H. O. Jeschke, J. A. Rodriguez- Rivera, R. Bewley, P. Manuel, D. Khalyavin, P. Steffens, R. Thomale, A. N. Islam,et al., Evidence for a three- dimensional quantum spin liquid in PbCuTe 2O6, Nature communications11, 2348 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Huang, H

    X. Huang, H. Miao, H. Kim, A. Townsend, K. Champ- ley, J. Tringe, V. Pascucci, and P.-T. Bremer, Bimodal visualization of industrial x-ray and neutron computed tomography data, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics31, 2196 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Vestin, E

    P. Vestin, E. Schlautmann, O. Sans-Planell, N. Kardjilov, R. Woracek, A. Tengattini, W. G. Zeier, and S. Hall, 4D multimodal neutron and x-ray tomography of lithium transport in all-solid-state batteries using Li-7 contrast enhancement, Cell Reports Physical Science7(2026)

    2026

  22. [30]

    Park, K.-X

    J.-G. Park, K.-X. Zhang, H. Cheong, J. H. Kim, C. A. Belvin, D. Hsieh, H. Ning, and N. Gedik, 2D van der waals magnets: from fundamental physics to applica- tions, Reviews of Modern Physics98, 025003 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    I. A. Moses, C. Chen, J. M. Redwing, and W. F. Rein- hart, Cross-modal characterization of thin-film MoS 2 us- ing generative models, Advanced Intelligent Systems8, 2500613 (2026)

    2026

  24. [32]

    S. M. Avdoshenko, A. A. Kulbakov, E. H¨ außler, P. Schlender, T. Doert, J. Ollivier, and D. S. Inosov, Spin-wave dynamics in the KCeS 2 delafossite: A theo- retical description of powder inelastic neutron-scattering data, Physical Review B106, 214431 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Su and C

    Y. Su and C. Li, Uncovering obscured phonon dynamics from powder inelastic neutron scattering using machine learning, Machine Learning: Science and Technology5, 035080 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Cheng, M

    Y. Cheng, M. B. Stone, and A. J. Ramirez-Cuesta, A database of synthetic inelastic neutron scattering spec- tra from molecules and crystals, Scientific Data10, 54 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Z. Chen, N. Andrejevic, N. C. Drucker, T. Nguyen, R. P. Xian, T. Smidt, Y. Wang, R. Ernstorfer, D. A. Tennant, M. Chan,et al., Machine learning on neutron and x-ray scattering and spectroscopies, Chemical Physics Reviews 2(2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Plumley, S

    R. Plumley, S. Chitturi, C. Peng, T. Assefa, N. Burdet, L. Shen, Z. Chen, A. Reid, G. Dakovski, M. Seaberg, et al., On ultrafast x-ray scattering methods for mag- netism, Advances in Physics: X9, 2423935 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    J. P. Horwath, X.-M. Lin, H. He, Q. Zhang, E. M. Dufresne, M. Chu, S. K. Sankaranarayanan, W. Chen, S. Narayanan, and M. J. Cherukara, Ai-nerd: Elucida- tion of relaxation dynamics beyond equilibrium through ai-informed x-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Na- ture Communica...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Q. Li, R. Jiao, L. Wu, T. Zhu, W. Huang, S. Jin, Y. Liu, H. Weng, and X. Chen, Powder diffraction crystal structure determination using generative models, Nature Communications16, 7428 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    K. T. Butler, D. W. Davies, H. Cartwright, O. Isayev, and A. Walsh, Machine learning for molecular and ma- terials science, Nature559, 547 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Papamakarios and I

    G. Papamakarios and I. Murray, Fastε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density es- timation, Advances in neural information processing sys- tems29(2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Lueckmann, J

    J.-M. Lueckmann, J. Boelts, D. Greenberg, P. Goncalves, and J. Macke, Benchmarking simulation-based inference, inInternational conference on artificial intelligence and statistics(PMLR, 2021) pp. 343–351

    2021

  34. [42]

    Baltrusaitis, C

    T. Baltrusaitis, C. Ahuja, and L.-P. Morency, Multi- modal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 41, 423 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    P. P. Liang, A. Zadeh, and L.-P. Morency, Foundations & trends in multimodal machine learning: Principles, chal- lenges, and open questions, ACM computing surveys56, 1 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Sitzmann, J

    V. Sitzmann, J. Martel, A. Bergman, D. Lindell, and G. Wetzstein, Implicit neural representations with peri- odic activation functions, Advances in neural information processing systems33, 7462 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Chitturi, Z

    S. Chitturi, Z. Ji, A. Petsch, C. Peng, Z. Chen, R. Plum- ley, M. Dunne, S. Mardanya, S. Chowdhury, H. Chen, et al., Capturing dynamical correlations using implicit neural representations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03949 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Z. Chen, A. N. Petsch, Z. Ji, S. R. Chitturi, C. Peng, C. Jia, A. I. Kolesnikov, J. B. Thayer, and J. J. Turner, Implicit neural representations for experimental steering of advanced experiments, Cell Reports Physical Science 6(2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Chaloner and I

    K. Chaloner and I. Verdinelli, Bayesian experimental de- sign: A review, Statistical science , 273 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    C. E. Granade, C. Ferrie, N. Wiebe, and D. G. Cory, Ro- bust online hamiltonian learning, New Journal of Physics 14, 103013 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Huan and Y

    X. Huan and Y. M. Marzouk, Simulation-based opti- mal bayesian experimental design for nonlinear systems, Journal of Computational Physics232, 288 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    R. D. McMichael and S. M. Blakley, Simplified algo- rithms for adaptive experiment design in parameter esti- mation, Physical review applied18, 10 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    X. Huan, J. Jagalur, and Y. Marzouk, Optimal exper- imental design: Formulations and computations, Acta Numerica33, 715 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Z. Chen, C. Peng, A. N. Petsch, S. R. Chitturi, A. Okullo, S. Chowdhury, C. H. Yoon, and J. J. Turner, Bayesian ex- perimental design and parameter estimation for ultrafast spin dynamics, Machine Learning: Science and Technol- ogy4, 045056 (2023). 17

    2023

  45. [53]

    D. A. Boiko, R. MacKnight, B. Kline, and G. Gomes, Au- tonomous chemical research with large language models, Nature624, 570 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Z. Xiao, G. Zhang, Z. Morgan, V. Reshniak, and X. Wang, CrystalPilot: A machine-learning based soft- ware platform for single crystal neutron diffraction ex- periments, Structural Dynamics12, A125 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Hellert, D

    T. Hellert, D. Bertwistle, S. C. Leemann, A. Sulc, and M. Venturini, Agentic artificial intelligence for multistage physics experiments at a large-scale user facility particle accelerator, Physical Review Research8, L012017 (2026)

    2026

  48. [56]

    Z. Chen, A. N. Petsch, A. J. Israelski, R. Plumley, L. Shen, C. Wang, C. Peng, Y. Ni, A. Bansil, S. Chowd- hury,et al., An agentic artificially intelligent x-ray scien- tist, Nature Machine Intelligence , 1 (2026)

    2026

  49. [57]

    S. Qiu, P. D. Suh, N. H. Tran, X. Wang, H. Park, K. Akin, K. K. Multani, S. Jung, W. Cai, X. Liu,et al., AIMS: An uncertainty-aware ai experimentalist for quan- tum matter, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.16544 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Liu and M

    J. Liu and M. West, Combined parameter and state esti- mation in simulation-based filtering, inSequential Monte Carlo methods in practice(Springer, 2001) pp. 197–223

    2001

  51. [59]

    Perez, F

    E. Perez, F. Strub, H. De Vries, V. Dumoulin, and A. Courville, FiLM: Visual reasoning with a general con- ditioning layer, inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 32 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    M. B. Stone, G. E. Granroth, D. M. Pajerowski, D. L. Abernathy, D. L. Conner, L. DeBeer-Schmitt, V. R. Fanelli, R. Goyette, A. I. Kolesnikov, R. Mills, M. Odom, A. Podlesnyak, C. Schmitt, T. E. Sherline, L. Solomon, and J. F. Wenzel, Sample changers for direct geometry neutron...

    2025

  53. [61]

    Arnold, J

    O. Arnold, J. C. Bilheux, J. M. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. I. Campbell, L. Chapon,et al., Mantid—data analysis and visualization package for neutron scattering andµSR ex- periments, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A764, 156 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    A. T. Savici, M. A. Gigg, O. Arnold, R. Tolchenov, R. E. Whitfield, S. E. Hahn, W. Zhou, and I. A. Zaliznyak, Efficient data reduction for time-of-flight neutron scat- tering experiments on single crystals, Journal of Applied Crystallography55, 1514 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    A. T. Savici, SHIVER: Spectroscopy histogram visualizer for event reduction (2025), Oak Ridge National Labora- tory. 1 Supplementary Note 1. Global scale factor For each particle, the surrogate forward model produced an intensity predictionS pred(Qj,ωj;θ (t) n ). Since the sur...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.