- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Intelligence

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Interpretable Artificial Intelligence Analysis of Strongly Correlated Electrons

Changkai Zhang (张昌凯)* and Jan von Delft

  • *Contact author: cxzh@hku.hk
PDF

PRX Intelligence 1, 023010 – Published 29 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/jsgs-9tx8

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an exceptionally powerful tool for analyzing scientific data. In particular, attention-based architectures have demonstrated a remarkable capability to capture complex correlations and to furnish interpretable insights into latent, otherwise inconspicuous patterns. This progress motivates the application of AI techniques to the analysis of strongly correlated electrons, which remain notoriously challenging to study using conventional theoretical approaches. Here, we propose AI workflows for analyzing snapshot datasets from tensor-network simulations of the two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard model over a broad range of temperature and doping. The 2D Hubbard model is an archetypal strongly correlated system, hosting diverse intriguing phenomena including Mott insulators, anomalous metals, and high-Tc superconductivity. Our AI techniques yield fresh perspectives on the intricate quantum correlations underpinning these phenomena and facilitate universal omnimetry for ultracold-atom simulations of the corresponding strongly correlated systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (165)

  1. D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio, Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2015), arXiv:1409.0473.
  2. T. Rocktäschel, E. Grefenstette, K. M. Hermann, T. Kočiský, and P. Blunsom, Reasoning about entailment with neural attention, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2016), arXiv:1509.06664.
  3. K. Xu, J. Ba, R. Kiros, K. Cho, A. Courville, R. Salakhudinov, R. Zemel, and Y. Bengio, Show, attend and tell: Neural image caption generation with visual attention, in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by F. Bach and D. Blei (PMLR, 2015), Vol. 37, pp. 2048–2057.
  4. Y. Wang, M. Huang, X. Zhu, and L. Zhao, Attention-based LSTM for aspect-level sentiment classification, in Proceed- ings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, edited by J. Su, K. Duh, and X. Carreras (Association for Computational Linguistics, Austin, TX, 2016), pp. 606–615.
  5. Y. Kim, C. Denton, L. Hoang, and A. M. Rush, Structured attention networks, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2017).
  6. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by I. Guyon, U. von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2017), Vol. 30.
  7. L. Dong, S. Xu, and B. Xu, Speech-transformer: A no-recurrence sequence-to-sequence model for speech recognition, in Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2018), pp. 5884–5888.
  8. J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Comp- utational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol. 1 (Long and Short Papers), edited by J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio (Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, MN, 2019), pp. 4171–4186.
  9. Y. Ren, Y. Ruan, X. Tan, T. Qin, S. Zhao, Z. Zhao, and T.-Y. Liu, FastSpeech: Fast, robust and controllable text to speech, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2019), Vol. 32.
  10. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al., Language models are few-shot learners, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2020), Vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901.
  11. A. Gulati, J. Qin, C.-C. Chiu, N. Parmar, Y. Zhang, J. Yu, W. Han, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y. Wu, and R. Pang, Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition, in Proceedings of Interspeech 2020 (International Speech Communication Association, 2020), pp. 5036– 5040.
  12. S. Latif, S. Zaidi, H. Cuayahuitl, F. Shamshad, M. Shoukat, M. Usama, and J. Qadir, Transformers in speech processing: Overcoming challenges and paving the future, Comput. Sci. Rev. 58, 100768 (2025).
  13. N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, End-to-end object detection with transformers, in Computer Vision—ECCV 2020, edited by A. Vedaldi, H. Bischof, T. Brox, and J.-M. Frahm, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020), Vol. 12346, pp. 213–229.
  14. A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2021), arXiv:2010.11929.
  15. Z. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Cao, H. Hu, Y. Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo, Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2021), pp. 9992–10002.
  16. S. Khan, M. Naseer, M. Hayat, S. W. Zamir, F. S. Khan, and M. Shah, Transformers in vision: A survey, ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 1 (2022).
  17. A. Jaegle, F. Gimeno, A. Brock, O. Vinyals, A. Zisserman, and J. Carreira, Perceiver: General perception with iterative attention, in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by M. Meila and T. Zhang (PMLR, 2021), Vol. 139, pp. 4651–4664.
  18. J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Figurnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. Žídek, A. Potapenko, et al., Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold, Nature (London) 596, 583 (2021).
  19. A. Rives, J. Meier, T. Sercu, S. Goyal, Z. Lin, J. Liu, D. Guo, M. Ott, C. L. Zitnick, J. Ma, and R. Fergus, Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2016239118 (2021).
  20. L. Chen, K. Lu, A. Rajeswaran, K. Lee, A. Grover, M. Laskin, P. Abbeel, A. Srinivas, and I. Mordatch, Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2021), Vol. 34, pp. 15084–15097.
  21. Q. Wen, T. Zhou, C. Zhang, W. Chen, Z. Ma, J. Yan, and L. Sun, Transformers in time series: A survey, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-23), edited by E. Elkind (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2023), pp. 6778–6786.
  22. H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting, Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intellig. 35, 11106 (2021).
  23. P. Veličković, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Liò, and Y. Bengio, Graph attention networks, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2018).
  24. E. Dagotto, Complexity in strongly correlated electronic systems, Science 309, 257 (2005).
  25. Strongly Correlated Systems: Theoretical Methods, edited by A. Avella and F. Mancini, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences Vol. 171 (Springer, Berlin, 2012).
  26. Strongly Correlated Systems: Numerical Methods, edited by A. Avella and F. Mancini, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences Vol. 176 (Springer, Berlin, 2013).
  27. Strongly Correlated Systems: Experimental Techniques, edited by A. Avella and F. Mancini, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences Vol. 180 (Springer, Berlin, 2015).
  28. N. F. Mott, The basis of the electron theory of metals, with special reference to the transition metals, Proc. Phys. Soc. London, Sect. A 62, 416 (1949).
  29. D. B. McWhan, A. Menth, J. P. Remeika, W. F. Brinkman, and T. M. Rice, Metal-insulator transitions in pure and doped V2O3, Phys. Rev. B 7, 1920 (1973).
  30. M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Metal-insulator transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998).
  31. J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller, Possible highTc superconductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 64, 189 (1986).
  32. M. K. Wu, J. R. Ashburn, C. J. Torng, P. H. Hor, R. L. Meng, L. Gao, Z. J. Huang, Y. Q. Wang, and C. W. Chu, Superconductivity at 93 K in a new mixed-phase Y-Ba-Cu-O compound system at ambient pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 908 (1987).
  33. Y. Tokura, H. Takagi, and S. Uchida, A superconducting copper oxide compound with electrons as the charge carriers, Nature (London) 337, 345 (1989).
  34. A. Schilling, M. Cantoni, J. D. Guo, and H. R. Ott, Superconductivity above 130 K in the Hg-Ba-Ca-Cu-O system, Nature (London) 363, 56 (1993).
  35. J. Kondo, Resistance minimum in dilute magnetic alloys, Prog. Theor. Phys. 32, 37 (1964).
  36. K. Andres, J. E. Graebner, and H. R. Ott, 4f-virtual-bound-state formation in CeAl3 at low temperatures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1779 (1975).
  37. F. Steglich, J. Aarts, C. D. Bredl, W. Lieke, D. Meschede, W. Franz, and H. Schäfer, Superconductivity in the presence of strong Pauli paramagnetism: CeCu2Si2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1892 (1979).
  38. Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, Iron-based layered superconductor La[O1−xFx]FeAs(x=0.05–0.12) with Tc=26K, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 3296 (2008).
  39. D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Two-dimensional magnetotransport in the extreme quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982).
  40. R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous quantum Hall effect: An incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983).
  41. H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, and A. C. Gossard, The fractional quantum Hall effect, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S298 (1999).
  42. P. W. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?, Mater. Res. Bull. 8, 153 (1973).
  43. F. D. M. Haldane, Nonlinear field theory of large-spin Heisenberg antiferromagnets: Semiclassically quantized solitons of the one-dimensional easy-axis Néel State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1153 (1983).
  44. Y. Shimizu, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M. Maesato, and G. Saito, Spin liquid state in an organic Mott insulator with a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 107001 (2003).
  45. P. Szirmai, C. Mézière, G. Bastien, P. Wzietek, P. Batail, E. Martino, K. Mantulnikovs, A. Pisoni, K. Riedl, S. Cottrell, C. Baines, L. Forró, and B. Náfrádi, Quantum spin-liquid states in an organic magnetic layer and molecular rotor hybrid, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 29555 (2020).
  46. D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet behavior of non-Abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973).
  47. H. D. Politzer, Asymptotic freedom: An approach to strong interactions, Phys. Rep. 14, 129 (1974).
  48. P. Koch, B. Müller, and J. Rafelski, Strangeness in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rep. 142, 167 (1986).
  49. K. G. Wilson, The origins of lattice gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B 140, 3 (2005).
  50. R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Monte Carlo calculations of coupled boson-fermion systems. I, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2278 (1981).
  51. G. Sugiyama and S. Koonin, Auxiliary field Monte-Carlo for quantum many-body ground states, Ann. Phys. 168, 1 (1986).
  52. M. Qin, C.-M. Chung, H. Shi, E. Vitali, C. Hubig, U. Schollwöck, S. R. White, and S. Zhang (Simons Collaboration on the Many-Electron Problem), Absence of superconductivity in the pure two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031016 (2020).
  53. H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollwöck, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Coexistence of superconductivity with partially filled stripes in the Hubbard model, Science 384, eadh7691 (2024).
  54. M. Capone and G. Kotliar, Competition between d-wave superconductivity and antiferromagnetism in the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 74, 054513 (2006).
  55. G. Knizia and G. K.-L. Chan, Density matrix embedding: A simple alternative to dynamical mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 186404 (2012).
  56. B.-X. Zheng and G. K.-L. Chan, Ground-state phase diagram of the square lattice Hubbard model from density matrix embedding theory, Phys. Rev. B 93, 035126 (2016).
  57. T. I. Vanhala and P. Törmä, Dynamical mean-field theory study of stripe order and d-wave superconductivity in the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 97, 075112 (2018).
  58. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  59. S. R. White and D. J. Scalapino, Density matrix renormalization group study of the striped phase in the 2D t−J model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1272 (1998).
  60. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011).
  61. E. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Studying two-dimensional systems with the density matrix renormalization group, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 3, 111 (2012).
  62. A. Gleis, J.-W. Li, and J. von Delft, Controlled bond expansion for density matrix renormalization group ground state search at single-site costs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 246402 (2023).
  63. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066.
  64. J. Jordan, R. Orús, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008).
  65. H. C. Jiang, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Accurate determination of tensor network state of quantum lattice models in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 090603 (2008).
  66. T. Barthel, C. Pineda, and J. Eisert, Contraction of fermionic operator circuits and the simulation of strongly correlated fermions, Phys. Rev. A 80, 042333 (2009).
  67. C. V. Kraus, N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Fermionic projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052338 (2010).
  68. P. Corboz, R. Orús, B. Bauer, and G. Vidal, Simulation of strongly correlated fermions in two spatial dimensions with fermionic projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 81, 165104 (2010).
  69. P. Corboz, J. Jordan, and G. Vidal, Simulation of fermionic lattice models in two dimensions with projected entangled-pair states: Next-nearest neighbor Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. B 82, 245119 (2010).
  70. C. Zhang, J.-W. Li, D. Nikolaidou, and J. von Delft, Frustration-induced superconductivity in the t−t′ Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 116502 (2025).
  71. S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical quantum states at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 190601 (2009).
  72. E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical thermal state algorithms, New J. Phys. 12, 055026 (2010).
  73. W. Li, S.-J. Ran, S.-S. Gong, Y. Zhao, B. Xi, F. Ye, and G. Su, Linearized tensor renormalization group algorithm for the calculation of thermodynamic properties of quantum lattice models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 127202 (2011).
  74. P. Czarnik, L. Cincio, and J. Dziarmaga, Projected entangled pair states at finite temperature: Imaginary time evolution with ancillas, Phys. Rev. B 86, 245101 (2012).
  75. P. Czarnik and J. Dziarmaga, Variational approach to projected entangled pair states at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. B 92, 035152 (2015).
  76. B.-B. Chen, L. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Li, and A. Weichselbaum, Exponential thermal tensor network approach for quantum lattice models, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031082 (2018).
  77. H. Li, B.-B. Chen, Z. Chen, J. von Delft, A. Weichselbaum, and W. Li, Thermal tensor renormalization group simulations of square-lattice quantum spin models, Phys. Rev. B 100, 045110 (2019).
  78. Q. Li, Y. Gao, Y.-Y. He, Y. Qi, B.-B. Chen, and W. Li, Tangent space approach for thermal tensor network simulations of the 2D Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 226502 (2023).
  79. C. Zhang and J. von Delft, Finite-temperature study of the Hubbard model via enhanced exponential tensor renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 114, 125114 (2026).
  80. A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kanász-Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, A cold-atom Fermi-Hubbard antiferromagnet, Nature (London) 545, 462 (2017).
  81. C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, A. Mazurenko, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Quantum state engineering of a Hubbard system with ultracold fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 243201 (2018).
  82. J. Koepsell, J. Vijayan, P. Sompet, F. Grusdt, T. A. Hilker, E. Demler, G. Salomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Imaging magnetic polarons in the doped Fermi–Hubbard model, Nature (London) 572, 358 (2019).
  83. J. Koepsell, S. Hirthe, D. Bourgund, P. Sompet, J. Vijayan, G. Salomon, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Robust bilayer charge pumping for spin- and density-resolved quantum gas microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010403 (2020).
  84. T. Chalopin, P. Bojović, D. Bourgund, S. Wang, T. Franz, I. Bloch, and T. Hilker, Optical superlattice for engineering Hubbard couplings in quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 053402 (2025).
  85. M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, A neutral-atom Hubbard quantum simulator in the cryogenic regime, Nature (London) 642, 909 (2025).
  86. J. Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands V. A perturbation expansion about the atomic limit, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 296, 82 (1967).
  87. P. W. Anderson, The resonating valence bond state in La2CuO4 and superconductivity, Science 235, 1196 (1987).
  88. J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, G. K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jiménez-Hoyos, et al., Solutions of the two-dimensional Hubbard model: Benchmarks and results from a wide range of numerical algorithms, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041041 (2015).
  89. B.-X. Zheng, C.-M. Chung, P. Corboz, G. Ehlers, M.-P. Qin, R. M. Noack, H. Shi, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Stripe order in the underdoped region of the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Science 358, 1155 (2017).
  90. N. J. Robinson, P. D. Johnson, T. M. Rice, and A. M. Tsvelik, Anomalies in the pseudogap phase of the cuprates: Competing ground states and the role of umklapp scattering, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 126501 (2019).
  91. M. Qin, T. Schäfer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The Hubbard model: A computational perspective, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 13, 275 (2022).
  92. H.-C. Jiang and T. P. Devereaux, Superconductivity in the doped Hubbard model and its interplay with next-nearest hopping t′, Science 365, 1424 (2019).
  93. Y.-F. Jiang, J. Zaanen, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Ground state phase diagram of the doped Hubbard model on the four-leg cylinder, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033073 (2020).
  94. C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, S. Zhang, U. Schollwöck, and S. R. White, Plaquette versus ordinary d-wave pairing in the t′-Hubbard model on a width-4 cylinder, Phys. Rev. B 102, 041106 (2020).
  95. Y.-F. Jiang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Ground-state phase diagram and superconductivity of the doped Hubbard model on six-leg square cylinders, Phys. Rev. B 109, 085121 (2024).
  96. B. Ponsioen, S. S. Chung, and P. Corboz, Period 4 stripe in the extended two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 100, 195141 (2019).
  97. A. Wietek, Y.-Y. He, S. R. White, A. Georges, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Stripes, antiferromagnetism, and the pseudogap in the doped Hubbard model at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031007 (2021).
  98. A. Bohrdt, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. Xu, D. Greif, M. Greiner, E. Demler, F. Grusdt, and M. Knap, Classifying snapshots of the doped Hubbard model with machine learning, Nat. Phys. 15, 921 (2019).
  99. C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, A. Bohrdt, M. Xu, M. Knap, E. Demler, F. Grusdt, M. Greiner, and D. Greif, String patterns in the doped Hubbard model, Science 365, 251 (2019).
  100. G. Salomon, J. Koepsell, J. Vijayan, T. A. Hilker, J. Nespolo, L. Pollet, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Direct observation of incommensurate magnetism in Hubbard chains, Nature (London) 565, 56 (2019).
  101. B.-B. Chen, C. Chen, Z. Chen, J. Cui, Y. Zhai, A. Weichselbaum, J. von Delft, Z. Y. Meng, and W. Li, Quantum many-body simulations of the two-dimensional Fermi-Hubbard model in ultracold optical lattices, Phys. Rev. B 103, L041107 (2021).
  102. J. Koepsell, D. Bourgund, P. Sompet, S. Hirthe, A. Bohrdt, Y. Wang, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, G. Salomon, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Microscopic evolution of doped Mott insulators from polaronic metal to Fermi liquid, Science 374, 82 (2021).
  103. P. Sompet, S. Hirthe, D. Bourgund, T. Chalopin, J. Bibo, J. Koepsell, P. Bojović, R. Verresen, F. Pollmann, G. Salomon, C. Gross, T. A. Hilker, and I. Bloch, Realizing the symmetry-protected Haldane phase in Fermi-Hubbard ladders, Nature (London) 606, 484 (2022).
  104. S. Hirthe, T. Chalopin, D. Bourgund, P. Bojović, A. Bohrdt, E. Demler, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, Magnetically mediated hole pairing in fermionic ladders of ultracold atoms, Nature (London) 613, 463 (2023).
  105. M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, G. Ji, R. T. Scalettar, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Frustration- and doping-induced magnetism in a Fermi-Hubbard simulator, Nature (London) 620, 971 (2023).
  106. T. Chalopin, P. Bojović, S. Wang, T. Franz, A. Sinha, Z. Wang, D. Bourgund, J. Obermeyer, F. Grusdt, A. Bohrdt, L. Pollet, A. Wietek, A. Georges, T. Hilker, and I. Bloch, Observation of emergent scaling of spin-charge correlations at the onset of the pseudogap., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 123, e2525539123 (2026).
  107. G. Pasqualetti, O. Bettermann, N. Darkwah Oppong, E. Ibarra-García-Padilla, S. Dasgupta, R. T. Scalettar, K. R. A. Hazzard, I. Bloch, and S. Fölling, Equation of state and thermometry of the 2D SU(N) Fermi-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 083401 (2024).
  108. D. Bourgund, T. Chalopin, P. Bojović, H. Schlömer, S. Wang, T. Franz, S. Hirthe, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, Formation of individual stripes in a mixed-dimensional cold-atom Fermi-Hubbard system, Nature (London) 637, 57 (2025).
  109. X. Dong, E. Gull, and A. J. Millis, Quantifying the role of antiferromagnetic fluctuations in the superconductivity of the doped Hubbard model, Nat. Phys. 18, 1293 (2022).
  110. H. Xu, H. Shi, E. Vitali, M. Qin, and S. Zhang, Stripes and spin-density waves in the doped two-dimensional Hubbard model: Ground state phase diagram, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013239 (2022).
  111. B. Xiao, Y.-Y. He, A. Georges, and S. Zhang, Temperature dependence of spin and charge orders in the doped two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011007 (2023).
  112. S. d. A. Sousa-Júnior, N. C. Costa, and R. R. dos Santos, Half-filled extended Hubbard model on a square lattice: Phase boundaries from determinant quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. B 109, 165102 (2024).
  113. S. Jiang, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Density matrix renormalization group based downfolding of the three-band Hubbard model: Importance of density-assisted hopping, Phys. Rev. B 108, L161111 (2023).
  114. A. Bohrdt, Y. Wang, J. Koepsell, M. Kánasz-Nagy, E. Demler, and F. Grusdt, Dominant fifth-order correlations in doped quantum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 026401 (2021).
  115. C. Miles, A. Bohrdt, R. Wu, C. Chiu, M. Xu, G. Ji, M. Greiner, K. Q. Weinberger, E. Demler, and E.-A. Kim, Correlator convolutional neural networks as an interpretable architecture for image-like quantum matter data, Nat. Commun. 12, 3905 (2021).
  116. L. W. Cheuk, M. A. Nichols, K. R. Lawrence, M. Okan, H. Zhang, E. Khatami, N. Trivedi, T. Paiva, M. Rigol, and M. W. Zwierlein, Observation of spatial charge and spin correlations in the 2D Fermi-Hubbard model, Science 353, 1260 (2016).
  117. T. A. Hilker, G. Salomon, F. Grusdt, A. Omran, M. Boll, E. Demler, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Revealing hidden antiferromagnetic correlations in doped Hubbard chains via string correlators, Science 357, 484 (2017).
  118. F. Grusdt, M. Kánasz-Nagy, A. Bohrdt, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. Greiner, D. Greif, and E. Demler, Parton theory of magnetic polarons: Mesonic resonances and signatures in dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011046 (2018).
  119. F. Grusdt and L. Pollet, Z2 parton phases in the mixed-dimensional t−Jz model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 256401 (2020).
  120. Z. Y. Weng, D. N. Sheng, Y.-C. Chen, and C. S. Ting, Phase string effect in the t–J model: General theory, Phys. Rev. B 55, 3894 (1997).
  121. T.-L. Ho, Imaging the Holon string of the Hubbard model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 26141 (2020).
  122. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/jsgs-9tx8 for an introduction to the transformer architecture for physicists, additional technical details, benchmarks and analysis, and a performance preview of a 25-category omnimeter.
  123. M. Hirayama, Y. Yamaji, T. Misawa, and M. Imada, Ab initio effective Hamiltonians for cuprate superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134501 (2018).
  124. M. Hirayama, T. Misawa, T. Ohgoe, Y. Yamaji, and M. Imada, Effective Hamiltonian for cuprate superconductors derived from multiscale ab initio scheme with level renormalization, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245155 (2019).
  125. X. Lin, B.-B. Chen, W. Li, Z. Y. Meng, and T. Shi, Exciton proliferation and fate of the topological Mott insulator in a twisted bilayer graphene lattice model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 157201 (2022).
  126. K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2016), pp. 770–778.
  127. J. L. Ba, J. R. Kiros, and G. E. Hinton, Layer normalization, arXiv:1607.06450.
  128. X. Glorot and Y. Bengio, Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks, in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, edited by Y. W. Teh and M. Titterington, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 9 (JMLR, Chia Laguna Resort, Sardinia, Italy, 2010), pp. 249–256.
  129. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2015), arXiv:1412.6980.
  130. N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. Salakhutdinov, Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15, 1929 (2014).
  131. C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna, Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision, in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2016), pp. 2818–2826.
  132. A. Bibal and B. Frénay, Interpretability of machine learning models and representations: An introduction, in Proceedings of the 24th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning (ESANN 2016), edited by M. Verleysen (CIACO, Bruges, Belgium, 2016), pp. 77–82.
  133. R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, S. Ruggieri, F. Turini, F. Giannotti, and D. Pedreschi, A survey of methods for explaining black box models, ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 1 (2018).
  134. E. Choi, M. T. Bahadori, J. Sun, J. Kulas, A. Schuetz, and W. Stewart, RETAIN: An interpretable predictive model for healthcare using reverse time attention mechanism, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, edited by D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. von Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2016), pp. 3504–3512.
  135. A. Martins and R. Astudillo, From Softmax to Sparsemax: A sparse model of attention and multi-label classification, in Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by M. F. Balcan and K. Q. Weinberger (PMLR, New York, NY, 2016), Vol. 48, pp. 1614–1623.
  136. J. Lee, J.-H. Shin, and J.-S. Kim, Interactive visualization and manipulation of attention-based neural machine translation, in Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, edited by L. Specia, M. Post, and M. Paul (Association for Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017), pp. 121–126.
  137. Q. Xie, X. Ma, Z. Dai, and E. Hovy, An interpretable knowledge transfer model for knowledge base completion, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1: Long Papers), edited by R. Barzilay and M.-Y. Kan (Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, 2017), pp. 950–962.
  138. M. Dehghani, S. Gouws, O. Vinyals, J. Uszkoreit, and Ł. Kaiser, Universal transformers, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2019), arXiv:1807.03819.
  139. G. Brunner, Y. Liu, D. Pascual, O. Richter, M. Ciaramita, and R. Wattenhofer, On identifiability in transformers, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2020), arXiv:1908.04211.
  140. H. Chen and Y. Ji, Improving the Explainability of Neural Sentiment Classifiers via Data Augmentation, was presented at the NeurIPS 2019 Workshop on Robust AI in Financial Services (Vancouver, Canada, 2019), https://sites.google.com/view/robust-ai-in-fs-2019.
  141. K. Clark, U. Khandelwal, O. Levy, and C. D. Manning, What does Bert look at? An analysis of Bert's attention, in Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, edited by T. Linzen, G. Chrupała, Y. Belinkov, and D. Hupkes (Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 2019), pp. 276–286.
  142. A. Coenen, E. Reif, A. Yuan, B. Kim, A. Pearce, F. Viégas, and M. Wattenberg, Visualizing and measuring the geometry of BERT, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2019), Vol. 32.
  143. S. Jain and B. C. Wallace, Attention is not explanation, in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol. 1 (Long and Short Papers), edited by J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio (Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, MN, 2019), pp. 3543–3556.
  144. S. Vashishth, S. Upadhyay, G. S. Tomar, and M. Faruqui, Attention interpretability across NLP tasks, arXiv:1909.11218.
  145. J. Vig, Visualizing attention in transformer-based language representation models, arXiv:1904.02679.
  146. S. Wiegreffe and Y. Pinter, Attention is not not explanation, in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th Inter- national Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), edited by K. Inui, J. Jiang, V. Ng, and X. Wan (Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 2019), pp. 11–20.
  147. H. Zhang, I. Goodfellow, D. Metaxas, and A. Odena, Self-attention generative adversarial networks, in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, edited by K. Chaudhuri and R. Salakhutdinov (PMLR, 2019), Vol. 97, pp. 7354–7363.
  148. D. Pruthi, M. Gupta, B. Dhingra, G. Neubig, and Z. C. Lipton, Learning to deceive with attention-based explanations, in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, edited by D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020), pp. 4782–4793.
  149. B. Bai, J. Liang, G. Zhang, H. Li, K. Bai, and F. Wang, Why attentions may not be interpretable? in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (KDD '21) (ACM Press, New York, 2021), pp. 25–34.
  150. A. Galassi, M. Lippi, and P. Torroni, Attention in natural language processing, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. 32, 4291 (2021).
  151. A. Bibal, R. Cardon, D. Alfter, R. Wilkens, X. Wang, T. François, and P. Watrin, Is attention explanation? An introduction to the debate, in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1: Long Papers), edited by S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio (Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 2022), pp. 3889–3900.
  152. S. Abnar and W. Zuidema, Quantifying attention flow in transformers, in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, edited by D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020), pp. 4190–4197.
  153. T. Yuan, X. Li, H. Xiong, H. Cao, and D. Dou, Explaining information flow inside vision transformers using Markov chain, in NeurIPS 2021 Workshop on eXplainable AI Approaches for Debugging and Diagnosis (OpenReview, 2021), paper TT-cf6QSDaQ.
  154. L. Xu, X. Yan, W. Ding, and Z. Liu, Attribution rollout: A new way to interpret visual transformer, J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput. 14, 163 (2023).
  155. N. Metzger, C. Hahn, J. Siber, F. Schmitt, and B. Finkbeiner, Attention flows for general transformers, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2023).
  156. B. Azarkhalili and M. W. Libbrecht, Generalized attention flow: Feature attribution for transformer models via maximum flow, in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1: Long Papers), edited by W. Che, J. Nabende, E. Shutova, and M. T. Pilehvar (Association for Computational Linguistics, Vienna, Austria, 2025), pp. 19954–19974.
  157. T. Hartke, B. Oreg, N. Jia, and M. Zwierlein, Doublon-hole correlations and fluctuation thermometry in a Fermi-Hubbard gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 113601 (2020).
  158. M. Hibat-Allah, M. Ganahl, L. E. Hayward, R. G. Melko, and J. Carrasquilla, Recurrent neural network wave functions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023358 (2020).
  159. D. Luo, Z. Chen, K. Hu, Z. Zhao, V. M. Hur, and B. K. Clark, Gauge-invariant and anyonic-symmetric autoregressive neural network for quantum lattice models, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013216 (2023).
  160. Y.-H. Zhang, Transformer quantum state: A multipurpose model for quantum many-body problems, Phys. Rev. B 107, 075147 (2023).
  161. E. Ibarra-García-Padilla, H. Lange, R. G. Melko, R. T. Scalettar, J. Carrasquilla, A. Bohrdt, and E. Khatami, Autoregressive neural quantum states of Fermi Hubbard models, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013122 (2025).
  162. H. Lange, G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, T. Lahaye, S. Kienle, A. Browaeys, and A. Bohrdt, Transformer neural networks and quantum simulators: A hybrid approach for simulating strongly correlated systems, Quantum 9, 1675 (2025).
  163. D. Luo and B. K. Clark, Backflow transformations via neural networks for quantum many-body wave functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 226401 (2019).
  164. A.-J. Liu and B. K. Clark, Neural network backflow for abinitio quantum chemistry, Phys. Rev. B 110, 115137 (2024).
  165. L. Zhang and D. Luo, Neural transformer backflow for solving momentum-resolved ground states of strongly correlated materials, arXiv:2509.09275.

Outline

Information

PRX Intelligence 1, 023010– Published 29 October, 2026
  • Received 16 December 2025
  • Accepted 15 September 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation