Autoregressive neural quantum states of Fermi Hubbard models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural quantum states (NQS) have emerged as a powerful ansatz for variational quantum Monte Carlo studies of strongly-correlated systems. Here, we apply recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and autoregressive transformer neural networks to the Fermi-Hubbard and the (non-Hermitian) Hatano-Nelson-Hubbard models in one and two dimensions. In both cases, we observe that the convergence of the RNN ansatz is challenged when increasing the interaction strength. We present a physically-motivated and easy-to-implement strategy for improving the optimization, namely, by ramping of the model parameters. Furthermore, we investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the autoregressive sampling property of both network architectures. For the Hatano-Nelson-Hubbard model, we identify convergence issues that stem from the autoregressive sampling scheme in combination with the non-Hermitian nature of the model. Our findings provide insights into the challenges of the NQS approach and make the first step towards exploring strongly-correlated electrons using this ansatz.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".