Expressivity of Determinantal Ansatzes for Neural Network Wave Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural network wave functions have shown promise as a way to achieve high accuracy in solving the many-body quantum problem. These wave functions most commonly use a determinant or a sum of determinants to antisymmetrize many-body orbitals, which are described by a neural network. In many cases, the wave function is projected onto a fixed-spin state. Such a treatment is allowed for spin-independent operators; however, it cannot be applied to spin-dependent problems, such as Hamiltonians containing spin–orbit interactions. We show that for spin-independent Hamiltonians, a strict upper bound property is obeyed between a traditional Hartree–Fock-like determinant, full spinor wave function, the full determinant wave function, and a generalized spinor wave function. The relationship between a spinor wave function and the full determinant arises because the full determinant wave function is the spinor wave function projected onto a fixed-spin, after which antisymmetry is implicitly restored in the spin-independent case. For spin-dependent Hamiltonians, the full determinant wave function is not applicable, because it is not antisymmetric. Numerical experiments on the H 3 molecule and two-dimensional homogeneous electron gas confirm these bounds.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".