Abstract
Stateoftheart machine learning techniques promise to become a powerful tool in statistical mechanics via their capacity to distinguish different phases of matter in an automated way. Here we demonstrate that convolutional neural networks (CNN) can be optimized for quantum manyfermion systems such that they correctly identify and locate quantum phase transitions in such systems. Using auxiliaryfield quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations to sample the manyfermion system, we show that the Green’s function holds sufficient information to allow for the distinction of different fermionic phases via a CNN. We demonstrate that this QMC + machine learning approach works even for systems exhibiting a severe fermion sign problem where conventional approaches to extract information from the Green’s function, e.g. in the form of equaltime correlation functions, fail.
Introduction
In quantum statistical physics, the sign problem refers to the generic inability of quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) approaches to tackle fermionic systems with the same unparalleled efficiency it exhibits for unfrustrated bosonic systems. At its most basic level, it tracks back to the expansion of the partition function of a quantum mechanical system in terms of d + 1 dimensional classical configurations that have both positive and negative (or complex) statistical weights, thus invalidating their usual interpretation as a probability distribution^{1, 2}. In some specific cases, canonical transformations or basis rotations are known that completely eliminate the negative weights^{3,4,5}, resulting in signproblem free models, sometimes called “stoquastic”^{6} or “designer”^{7} Hamiltonians. However, the lack of a general systematic procedure for such transformations^{8} preclude many, if not most, quantum Hamiltonians from being simulated with unbiased QMC methods. This includes one of the most fundamental problems in statistical physics – the manyelectron system, which is known to give rise to some of the most intriguing collective phenomena such as the formation of hightemperature superconductors^{9}, nonFermi liquids^{10, 11}, or Mott insulators with fractionalized excitations^{12}.
When tackling signproblematic Hamiltonians with QMC approaches a common procedure^{13} consists of two steps: (1) taking the absolute value of the configuration weight, thereby allowing interpretation as a probability amenable to sampling; and (2) precisely compensating for this by weighing observables (such as twopoint correlation functions) with the excluded sign. While this procedure allows, in principle, for an unbiased evaluation of observables, it introduces changes into the sampling scheme in two distinct ways. First, the exclusion of the sign in step (1) affects the region of configuration space that is effectively sampled. To what extent this modified sampling imposes severe restrictions or rather subtle constraints very much depends on the actual QMC flavor, such as worldline versus auxiliaryfield approaches. Second, this modified sampling necessitates the sign reweighing of step (2) in any proper statistical analysis. It is, however, precisely this step where the sign problem ultimately manifests itself in a statistical variance of estimators that grows exponentially in system size and inverse temperature.
In this paper, we examine an approach by which these two steps in the sampling procedure of signproblematic QMC can be separated in the context of the manyfermion problem. To do this, we replace step (2), the calculation of thermodynamic observables, with supervised machine learning on configuration data produced in step (1). Neural networks have recently been demonstrated capable of discriminating between classical phases of matter, through direct training on Monte Carlo configurations^{14, 15}. In this paper, we employ auxiliaryfield QMC techniques to sample statistical instances of the wavefunction of a fermionic system. We then train a convolutional neural network (CNN) to discriminate between two fermionic phases, which are known ground states for certain parameters of a fermionic quantum lattice model, directly with QMC samples of the Green’s function. Once trained, the CNN can provide a prediction, for instance, of the parametric location of the phase transition between the two phases, which we demonstrate for a number of Hubbardtype quantum lattice models with competing itinerant and chargeordered phases. Importantly, this robust prediction of quantum critical points appears to work even for systems where the Monte Carlo sampling of conventional observables is plagued by a severe sign problem. Such a machine learning approach to the QMC sampling of manyfermion systems thus allows one to determine whether crucial information about the ground state of the manyfermion system is truly lost in the sampling procedure, or whether it can be retrieved in physical entities beyond statistical estimators, enabling a supervised learning of phases despite the presence of the sign problem.
Circumventing the FermionSign Problem
To begin, consider a ddimensional fermionic quantum system, which can be generically written in terms of a classical statistical mechanics problem defined on a phase space with configurations C in d + 1 dimensions. The partition function of the quantum system can thereby be expressed as a sum of statistical weights over classical configurations, i.e. Z = ∑_{ C } W _{ C }. Unlike classical systems, for quantum Hamiltonians the weights W _{ C } can be both positive and negative (or even complex), which invalidates the usual Monte Carlo interpretation of W _{ C }/Z as a probability distribution. In principle, a stochastic interpretation can be salvaged by considering a modified statistical ensemble with probability distribution P _{ C } ∝ W _{ C } and concomitantly moving the sign of W _{ C } to the observable
This procedure, although formally exact, introduces the QMC sign problem as a manifestation of the “small numbers problem”, where the numerator and denominator in the last expression both approach zero exponentially in system size N and inverse temperature β ^{1, 2}, i.e. we have
where Δf is the difference in the free energy densities of the original fermionic system and the one with absolute weights. Thus resolving the ratio in Eq. (1) within the statistical noise inherent to all Monte Carlo simulations becomes exponentially hard. The advantage of importance sampling, which often translates into polynomial scaling, is lost.
In this work, instead of attempting to obtain exact expectation values of physical observables, or attempting to find a basis where the weights W _{ C } are always nonnegative or that ameliorates the calculation of 〈sign〉_{W}, we introduce a basisdependent “state function” F _{ C } whose goal is to associate configurations C with the most likely phase of matter they belong to for a given Hamiltonian. More precisely, we assume that there exists a function F _{ C } such that its expectation value in the modified ensemble of absolute weights
is 1 when the system is deep in phase A and 0 when the system is deep in the neighboring phase B. Around the critical point separating phase A from B, 〈F〉_{W} crosses over from one to zero. The value 〈F〉_{W} = 1/2 indicates that the function can not make a distinction between phases A and B, and therefore assigns equal probability to both phases. We therefore interpret this value as locating the position of the transition separating the two phases in parameter space. In practice, we use a deep CNN to approximate the state function F, which is trained on “image” representations of configurations C sampled from the modified ensemble W _{ C }/∑_{ C }W _{ C } in the two different phases A and B. We explore several choices for this image representation including colorconversions of the auxiliary field encountered in determinental Monte Carlo approaches, the Green’s function as well as the Green’s function multiplied by the sign. If the above procedure indeed allows the crafting of such a state function F, then one has found a path to a signproblem avoiding discrimination of the two phases and their phase transitions through the evaluation of 〈F〉_{W}.
Convolutional Neural Networks
Artificial neural networks have for some time been identified as the key ingredient of powerful pattern recognition and machine learning algorithms^{16, 17}. Very recently, neural networks and other machine learning algorithms have been brought to the realm of quantum and classical statistical physics^{18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28}. On a conceptual level, parallels between deep learning and renormalization group techniques have been explored^{29, 30}, while on a more practical level machine learning algorithms have been applied to model potential energy surfaces^{31}, relaxation in glassy liquids^{32} or the identification of phase transitions in classical manybody systems^{14, 15}. Boltzmann machines, as well as their quantum extensions^{33}, have been applied to statistical mechanics models^{34} and quantum systems^{35}. In addition, new supervised learning algorithms inspired by tensornetwork representations of quantum states have been recently proposed^{36}.
In machine learning, the goal of artificial neural networks is to learn to recognize patterns in a (typically high dimensional) data set. CNNs, in particular, are nonlinear functions which are optimized (in an initial “training” step) such that the resulting function F allows for the extraction of patterns (or “features”) present in the data. Here we take this approach to construct a function F, represented as a deep CNN, that allows the classification of manyfermion phases as outlined in the previous section. Our choice of employing a deep CNN is rooted in the above observation that the configurations generated from a quantum Monte Carlo algorithm can be often interpreted as “images”. As we explain below in more detail, our analysis can be regarded as an image classification problem – an extremely successful application of CNNs.
The architecture of the CNN we use is depicted schematically in Fig. 1 with a more detailed technical discussion of the individual components presented in the Methods section. We feed the CNN with Monte Carlo configurations (illustrated on the left), which, processed through the network, provide a twocomponent softmax output layer (on the right). The two components of this function, which by construction always add up to one, can be interpreted as the probabilities that a given configuration belongs to the two different phases under consideration and can thus be used for classification. In the initial training step, we optimize the CNN on a set of (typically) 2 × 8192 representative configurations sampled deep in the two fermionic phases. The question of which fundamental features, contained in the Monte Carlo configurations, are used in the resulting function F to characterize the phases under consideration, is automatically discovered during the training procedure (and beyond our direct influence).
Machine learning fermionic quantum phases
We apply this QMC + machine learning framework to a family of Hubbardlike fermion models where the competition between kinetic and potential terms gives rise to a phase transition between an itinerant metallic phase and a chargeordered Mott insulating phase. As a first example we consider a system of spinful fermions on the honeycomb lattice subject to the Hamiltonian
with a kinetic term K and a potential term V. At zero temperature and halffilling, this system is well known to undergo a quantum phase transition from a Dirac semimetal to an insulator with antiferromagnetic spindensity wave (SDW) order at U _{ c }/t ≈ 3.85^{37}. For convenience, we will set t = 1 in the following.
To sample configurations for different values of the tuning parameter U we employ determinantal quantum Monte Carlo (DQMC) in its projective zerotemperature formulation. In this scheme, a carefully chosen test wave function ψ _{ T }〉 is projected onto the actual ground state function ψ〉
To compute this projection, we first apply a Trotter decomposition to discretize the projection time θ into N _{ τ } = θ/Δτ time steps and separate the kinetic and potential terms
The quartic interaction term is then decomposed by applying a HubbardStratonovich (HS) transformation on each onsite interaction V _{ i } and on each time slice τ
introducing one auxiliary variable s = ±1 per site and separating the two spin species σ. The entirety of the auxiliary variables makes up the Hubbard Stratonovich field and will be denoted as s in the following. The probability for choosing a configuration is given by
where s and s′ denote the HubbardStratonovich fields associated with the projection of the wavefunction used as bra and ket, respectively. The weight of the configuration 〈ψ(s)ψ(s′)〉 evaluates to a determinant
where P is the matrix representation of the test wave function \({\psi }_{T}\rangle \). For auxiliary field approaches the modified statistical ensemble of absolute weights implies that the sign of the fermionic determinant will be ignored – importantly, such a modified ensemble retains the fermionic exchange statistics, but becomes insensitive to the parity of the total number of fermionic exchanges for a given configuration (which is precisely what is reflected in the sign of the determinant). This should be contrasted to worldline QMC approaches where the modified ensemble weighted by W _{ C } would not preserve any fermionic exchange statistics at all, but effectively sample a bosonic system.
In order to implement our machine learning approach, we begin by choosing the classical configuration space C over which the expectation values in Eqs (1) and (3) are taken. An obvious candidate is the auxiliary field s. This approach is illustrated in Fig. 2, where the CNN has been trained at parameters U = 1 and U = 16, i.e. deep within the Dirac semimetal and the antiferromagnetic SDW phase, respectively. The side panels show representative reference configurations of the auxiliary field at each of these training parameters. Interestingly, the configurations displayed in Fig. 2 show no discernible difference between the two auxiliary field configurations, apparent to the human eye. Indeed, we find that optimizing the CNN of Fig. 1 to extract information directly from these auxiliary field configurations does not yield a function F that allows one to distinguish between the two phases. This apparent inability is possibly rooted in the particular choice of the employed HubbardStratonovich transformation, which preserves SU(2) spin symmetry by decoupling in the charge channel. In the supplementary material we discuss an alternative HubbardStratonovich transformation by decoupling in the spin channel (which does not preserve the SU(2) spin symmetry), which for the phase transition at hand also does not lead to satisfactory results. While it is well known on general grounds^{38, 39} that the auxiliary field can reflect physical correlations (and as such should be amenable to the applied pattern recognition technique^{40}) if the HubbardStratonovich transformation is performed in the right channel, our goal here is to identify a somewhat more general approach that relies on more generic physical quantities.
To alleviate this difficulty, we instead consider the Green’s function \(G(i,j)=\langle {c}_{i}{c}_{j}^{\dagger }\rangle \) as input for our machine learning approach. The Green’s function is an essential quantity in statistical physics, which allows e.g. for the calculation of equaltime correlation functions, and while it can easily be calculated from a given auxiliary field configuration it is not sensitive to the specifics of the HubbardStratonovich transformation. Instead of the bare auxiliary fields, we thus train the CNN on the unprocessed complex valued Green’s matrices \({G}_{s}(i,j)={\langle {c}_{i}{c}_{j}^{\dagger }\rangle }_{s}\) calculated for a given auxiliary field configuration s. For the training, we used 2 × 8192 (2 × 4096 for L = 15) samples of the Green’s function. This modified approach gives a striking improvement in results, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The side panels now show representative examples of the Green’s matrices G _{ s }(i, j) for the two coupling parameters well inside the two respective fermionic phases. For the purpose of visualization, we convert the complexvalued entries of the Green’s matrices to a polar representation which are then interpreted as HSV colors and finally converted to RGB for illustration^{41}. Contrary to the visual inspection of the auxiliary field configuration in Fig. 2, the imageconverted Green’s function exhibits a clearly visible distinction for the two phases. Indeed the CNN trained and applied to the imageconverted Green’s function now succeeds in discriminating the two phases by producing a function F that indicates a phase transition around a value of the interaction U ≈ 4.1 ± 0.1. For a given finite system size L, we identify the location of the phase transition with the parameter U for which the averaged state function F is 1/2, i.e. the parameter for which the CNN cannot make any distinction between the two phases and therefore assigns equal probability to both phases. These estimates for the location of the phase transition and their finitesize trends are in good agreement with the critical value of U _{ c }(L = 15) ≈ 4.3 obtained from Monte Carlo simulations for similar system sizes^{42} and slightly above the critical value U _{ c }(L → ∞) ≈ 3.85 of the thermodynamic limit^{37}.
Signproblematic manyfermion systems
We now turn to manyfermion systems that exhibit a sign problem in the conventional QMC + statistical analysis approach, and ask to what extent the QMC + machine learning framework is sensitive to this sign problem. Simple example systems of this sort are spinless fermion models, which typically exhibit a severe sign problem in the conventional complex fermion basis (as we will illustrate below). We first consider a halffilled honeycomb system subject to the Hamiltonian,
The competition between the kinetic term (which we again set to t = 1) and a repulsive nearest neighbor interaction V drives the system through a quantum phase transition^{43} separating a semimetallic state for V < V _{ c } from a charge density wave (CDW) state for V > V _{ c }. Interestingly, this model can be made to be signproblem free through a basis transformation to a Majorana fermion basis^{5} or by using a continuous time quantum Monte Carlo flavor^{44}, which allows for a precise estimation of the critical repulsion V _{ c } ≈ 1.36 directly from QMC observables^{44,45,46,47,48}. For the purpose of this paper, we will not perform this transformation, but rather sample the model in its signproblematic formulation in the conventional complex fermion basis. The average sign, which here enters as a complex number, is illustrated for a range of couplings in the lower panel of Fig. 4. With a vanishingly small expectation value of the sign, we indeed encounter a severe sign problem.
Analogous to our procedure for the signproblem free case of spinful fermions, we first train the CNN on representative samples of the Green’s function for parameters deep within the two phases. To do so, we generate 8192 (4096 for L = 15) labeled samples for V = 0.1 (semimetal) and V = 2.5 (CDW) from DQMC simulations using the modified statistical ensemble of absolute weights W _{ C } and train the CNN on these labeled instances. The trained CNN we then feed with unlabeled configurations from several different interaction values 0.1 < V < 2.5 and ask the neural network to predict to which phase a particular configuration belongs.
At this point, a decision has to be made about how to provide information about the sign of each configuration to the CNN. We explore two options. First, we multiply each Green’s matrix G _{ s }(i, j) with the sign (in general a complex phase) associated with the underlying configuration, i.e. sign(W _{ C }), for a given Markov chain. Second, we ignore the sign altogether, and feed the CNN the “bare” Green’s function without any information about the sign. Surprisingly, as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 4, the state function F for the phasemultiplied Green’s functions does not exhibit a notable improvement in predicting the position of the phase transition over the bare Green’s function. While the function moves slightly in parameter space, it also acquires a much broader spread (estimated from averaging over 12 epochs, see the Methods section)^{49}. Considering the data for different system sizes in Fig. 4 one can determine a quantitative estimate of the location of the fermionic phase transition, which is in very good agreement with the Monte Carlo results^{5, 44}. This convincingly demonstrates that the CNN is capable of providing a highquality state function F discriminating the two fermionic phases, even when the sign content of the configurations is ignored. Importantly, we note that the approach with bare Green’s matrices can provide a significant gain in computational efficiency over that which includes information about the relative sign of individual configurations, by sampling multiple parallel Markov chains. Thus, in light of the results of Fig. 4 (inset), which show no systematic improvement of the state function F given additional information on the sign structure, we choose to show results for the bare Green’s functions in the examples below. The fact that such an approach produces a highly accurate state function F is a striking demonstration of the power of QMC + machine learning, even in models afflicted with a serious sign problem.
Next, we consider the spinless fermion system of Eq. (10) at onethird filling. Going below halffilling turns the itinerant phase for small coupling V into a conventional metal with a nodal Fermi line, while for large V we still expect some sort of CDWordered Mott insulating state. In contrast to halffilling, the onethirdfilled system has no known signfree (Majorana) basis. Applying our QMC + machine learning approach to this problem, we again find that a state discriminating function F can be identified by a properly optimized CNN. This procedure indicates the existence of a phase transition around V _{ c } ≈ 0.7 ± 0.1 as illustrated in Fig. 5, which matches a recent estimate from entanglement calculations^{48}. The precise nature of the Mott insulating phase at large V has so far remained elusive, which unfortunately is not altered by the supervised learning approach employed in the current study.
Finally, we explore whether we can generate “transfer learning” by training a neural network on one model, then using the trained network to discriminate phases from configurations produced for an entirely different Hamiltonian. This approach was highly successful for neural networks trained with classical Ising configurations in ref. 14. Here, using samples of the Green’s function, we train a CNN to discriminate the fermionic phases of the signproblem free, spinful fermion model (4) and then apply the trained network for supervised learning on the signproblematic, spinless fermion model (10). This procedure seems justified based on the fact that at halffilling the two models exhibit similar physics, with the potential energy driving a GrossNeveu type phase transition from a Dirac semimetal to a SDW/CDW chargeordered phase, respectively. Results for the predictions of the averaged state function are illustrated in Fig. 6, which shows that the CNN is capable of reliably distinguishing the fermionic phases of the spinless model, even producing a rough estimate for the location of the phase transition. Thus, we find that this approach indeed allows for a certain level of transfer learning between signproblem free and signproblematic Hamiltonians, suggesting a fruitful area of future study on the relationship between supervised machine learning and the sign problem.
Discussion
We have introduced a powerful numerical scheme to reliably distinguish fermionic phases of matter by a combination of quantum Monte Carlo sampling and a subsequent machine learning analysis of the sampled Green’s functions via a convolutional neural network. Our numerical experiments for a family of Hubbardtype models demonstrate that this approach extends to signproblematic manyfermion models that are not amenable to the conventional QMC approach of sampling and statistical analysis. These findings thereby provide a perspective on the information content of the sampled ensemble of Green’s functions. In contrast to a conventional statistical physics analysis, in which equaltime correlation functions calculated from this ensemble of Green’s functions exhibit a statistical uncertainty so large that they are rendered completely unusable, the machine learning approach demonstrates that the same ensemble of Green’s functions holds sufficient information to positively discriminate fermionic phases. This Green’s function based machine learning approach is very general and can be applied to QMC flavors beyond the auxiliary field techniques applied in the current work. In particular, this approach can be readily adapted by worldline Monte Carlo approaches which are highly successful in the study of quantum magnets and bosonic systems. For the future, we envision to refine and improve our “phase recognition” machine learning approach such that it can complement the existing statistical analysis of QMC data in mapping out phase diagrams of quantum manybody systems.
Methods
Machine learning
Neural networks come in a huge variety of different architectures; precisely which setup to choose for a specific problem is answered by selecting the empirically most successful architecture. In this paper, we started with a setup, see Fig. 1, that is successfully used to classify images such as the CIFAR10 dataset^{50}. Its network architecture consists of two main components – a convolutional and a fully connected part. The convolutional part processes the data by a combination of two convolutional and max pooling units. Both of these units are activated by a rectified linear function (relu) and have filters of size 3 × 3. The total number of filters is 32 for the first and 64 for the second. The data is then fed into a fully connected, relu activated layer of 512 neurons. To avoid overfitting, we applied a dropout regularization at a rate of 0.5 to this layer. At the output of the CNN we consider a fully connected softmax layer. The optimization of the neural network is performed using a cross entropy as a cost function and ADAM^{51} as a particularly efficient variant of the stochastic gradient at a learning rate of γ = 0.0001. The network was trained over 16 epochs and results were averaged over the last 8 epochs. Our numerical implementation of the neural network is based on the TensorFlow library^{52}.
Location of the phase transition
An alternative choice to identify the location of the phase transition for a finite system size is the parametric location of the inflection point of the prediction function F. At the inflection point the derivative is maximal, i.e. moving the coupling parameters slightly towards any one of the two phases leads to the largest possible change in the prediction. Such an indicator of the phase transition is commonly used e.g. when considering susceptibility measurements of conventional order parameters. For our setup we find almost no distinguishable difference in the location and finitesize scaling of the inflection point and the point at which the prediction function F = 1/2.
Determinantal Quantum Monte Carlo
For our DQMC simulation, we use a projective algorithm with a discretization step of Δτ = 0.1 and a projection time θ = 10. Thus, the auxiliary field for the spinful Hubbard model is of size 2 · L ^{2} × 200. The Green’s functions are of size 2 · L ^{2} × 2 · L ^{2}. The test wave function \({\psi }_{T}\rangle \) is generated by taking the quadratic part of the Hamiltonian and randomizing the hopping strengths strongly enough such that the eigenvalues of adjacent states are separated by more than 10^{−3}. The eigenvectors corresponding to the lowest N _{particles} eigenvalues are used for the test wave function.
The HubbardStratonovich transformation is applied to each quartic operator, introducing the auxiliary field. For the models studied in this paper, one such transformation has to be carried out for each site or each bond, respectively, and on each slice in projection time. There are various ways to perform this transformation, in particular, one is often free to choose the channel one performs the transformation in and what type of field should be created. One possible realization is to decouple a densitydensity interaction of strength U with general indices α and β denoting for example spin and/or lattice site in the following way
where the auxiliary variable s is in {±1} and λ is a constant related to U. This transformation results in complex weights for U > 0, i.e. a repulsive interaction. In the spinful Hubbard model at half filling, the product of the phases of the two determinants and the prefactor result in an overall prefactor of 1 for the weight, i.e. there is no sign problem. This changes drastically once one moves away from half filling or takes away one of the fermion species, resulting in a severe sign or phase problem. An alternative transformation that allows us to work with real numbers only works by decoupling in the magnetization channel. While at first look computationally favorable (because of the real numbers), it turns out that the convergence of magnetic observables is significantly better in the complex case, as it retains the SU(2) symmetry explicitly while in the real case this symmetry is only restored after the summation over all configurations has been carried out.
For the phase sensitive calculations, one can in principle calculate the absolute phase of a weight from the determinant in Eq. (9). However, this approach is found to be plagued by numerical instabilities making its computation prohibitively expensive in terms of computing resources. Alternatively, one may track the changes in the phase along the Markov chain and thus calculate the relative phase with respect to an initial phase for each configuration visited in the Markov chain. The change in phase ϕ′/ϕ is given by the phase of the ratio of weights W(C′)/W _{ C } between the current configuration C and a proposed configuration C′. Using this quantity, the initial phase ϕ is updated by multiplying ϕ with the ratio of phases for adjacent steps on the Markov chain
Using the relative phase has the advantage that it is possible to compute this quantity with very high accuracy, while it is not expected to change any of the physics (a global transformation of the phase of the weights is compensated when normalizing the partition or wave function).
References
 1.
Hirsch, J. E., Sugar, R. L., Scalapino, D. J. & Blankenbecler, R. Monte carlo simulations of onedimensional fermion systems. Phys. Rev. B 26, 5033 (1982).
 2.
Loh, E. Y. et al. Sign problem in the numerical simulation of manyelectron systems. Phys. Rev. B 41, 9301 (1990).
 3.
Chandrasekharan, S. & Wiese, U.J. MeronCluster Solution of Fermion Sign Problems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3116 (1999).
 4.
Chandrasekharan, S. & Li, A. Fermion bag solutions to some sign problems in fourfermion field theories. Phys. Rev. D 85, 091502 (2012).
 5.
Li, Z.X., Jiang, Y.F. & Yao, H. Solving the fermion sign problem in quantum Monte Carlo simulations by Majorana representation. Phys. Rev. B 91, 241117 (2015a).
 6.
Bravyi, S., DiVincenzo, D., Oliveira, R. & Terhal, B. The complexity of stoquastic local Hamiltonian problems. Quant. Inf. Comp. 8, 0361 (2008).
 7.
Kaul, R. K., Melko, R. G. & Sandvik, A. W. Bridging LatticeScale Physics and Continuum Field Theory with Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 179 (2013).
 8.
Troyer, M. & Wiese, U.J. Computational Complexity and Fundamental Limitations to Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005).
 9.
Zaanen, J. et al. Towards a complete theory of high Tc. Nature Phys. 2, 138 (2006).
 10.
Schofield, A. J. NonFermi liquids. Contemp. Phys. 40, 95 (1999).
 11.
Löhneysen, H. V., Rosch, A., Vojta, M. & Wölfle, P. Fermiliquid instabilities at magnetic quantum phase transitions. Mod. Phys. 79, 1015 (2007).
 12.
Balents, L. Spin liquids in frustrated magnets. Nature 464, 199 (2010).
 13.
Landau, D. P. & Binder, K. A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulations in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
 14.
Carrasquilla, J. & Melko, R. G. Machine learning phases of matter. Nature Physics 13, 431 (2017).
 15.
Wang, L. Discovering phase transitions with unsupervised learning. Phys. Rev. B 94, 195105 (2016).
 16.
Schmidhuber, J. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Networks 61, 85 (2015).
 17.
Nielsen, M. A. Neural Networks and Deep Learning (Determination Press, 2015).
 18.
Deng, D.L., Li, X. & Sarma, S. D. Exact machine learning topological states, arXiv:1609.09060.
 19.
Tubman, N. M. Measuring quantum entanglement, machine learning and wave function tomography: Bridging theory and experiment with the quantum gas microscope, arXiv:1609.08142.
 20.
Tanaka, A. & Tomiya, A. Detection of phase transition via convolutional neural network. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 063001 (2017).
 21.
van Nieuwenburg, E. P., Liu, Y.H. & Huber, S. D. Learning phase transitions by confusion. Nature Physics 13, 435 (2017).
 22.
Liu, J., Qi, Y., Meng, Z. Y. & Fu, L. Selflearning monte carlo method. Phys. Rev. B 95, 041101 (2017).
 23.
Huang, L. & Wang, L. Accelerate monte carlo simulations with restricted boltzmann machines. Phys. Rev. B 95, 035105 (2017).
 24.
Zhang, Y. & Kim, E.A. Triangular quantum loop topography for machine learning. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 216401 (2017).
 25.
Portman, N. & Tamblyn, I. Sampling algorithms for validation of supervised learning models for Isinglike systems. arXiv:1611.05891.
 26.
Huang, L., Feng Yang, Y. & Wang, L. Recommender engine for continuous time quantum monte carlo methods. Phys. Rev. E 95, 031301 (2017).
 27.
Ohtsuki, T. & Ohtsuki, T. Deep learning the quantum phase transitions in random electron systems: Applications to three dimensions. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 044708 (2017).
 28.
Biamonte, J. et al. Quantum machine learning, arXiv:1611.09347.
 29.
Bény, C. Deep learning and the renormalization group, arXiv:1301.3124.
 30.
Mehta, P. & Schwab, D. J. An exact mapping between the Variational Renormalization Group and Deep Learning, arXiv:1410.3831.
 31.
Behler, J. & Parrinello, M. Generalized neuralnetwork representation of highdimensional potentialenergy surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146401 (2007).
 32.
Schoenholz, S. S., Cubuk, E. D., Sussman, D. M., Kaxiras, E. & Liu, A. J. A structural approach to relaxation in glassy liquids. Nat. Phys. 12, 469 (2016).
 33.
Amin, M. H., Andriyash, E., Rolfe, J., Kulchytskyy, B. & Melko, R. Quantum Boltzmann Machine, arXiv:1601.02036.
 34.
Torlai, G. & Melko, R. G. Learning thermodynamics with boltzmann machines. Phys. Rev. B 94, 165134 (2016).
 35.
Carleo, G. & Troyer, M. Solving the Quantum ManyBody Problem with Artificial Neural Networks. Science 355, 602 (2017).
 36.
Stoudenmire, E. & Schwab, D. J. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, edited by Lee, D. D., Sugiyama, M., Luxburg, U. V., Guyon, I. & Garnett, R., pp. 4799–4807 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2016).
 37.
Otsuka, Y., Yunoki, S. & Sorella, S. Universal quantum criticality in the metalinsulator transition of twodimensional interacting dirac electrons. Phys. Rev. X 6, 011029 (2016).
 38.
Hirsch, J. E. Discrete hubbardstratonovich transformation for fermion lattice models. Phys. Rev. B 28, 4059 (1983).
 39.
Duchon, E., Loh, Y. L. & Trivedi, N. In Novel Superfluids: Volume 2, edited by Bennemann, K.H. and Ketterson, J. B., Chap. 17 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014).
 40.
Ch’ng, K., Carrasquilla, J., Melko, R. G. & Khatami, E. Machine Learning Phases of Strongly Correlated Fermions, arXiv:1609.02552.
 41.
Foley, J. D., van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K. & Hughes, J. F. Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice (2nd Ed.) (AddisonWesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1990).
 42.
Meng, Z. Y., Lang, T. C., Wessel, S., Assaad, F. F. & Muramatsu, A. Quantum spin liquid emerging in twodimensional correlated Dirac fermions. Nature (London) 464, 847 (2010).
 43.
Gross, D. J. & Neveu, A. Dynamical symmetry breaking in asymptotically free field theories. Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974).
 44.
Wang, L., Corboz, P. & Troyer, M. Fermionic quantum critical point of spinless fermions on a honeycomb lattice. New Journal of Physics 16, 103008 (2014).
 45.
Li, Z.X., Jiang, Y.F. & Yao, H. Fermionsignfree MajaranaquantumMonteCarlo studies of quantum critical phenomena of Dirac fermions in two dimensions. New Journal of Physics 17, 085003 (2015b).
 46.
Motruk, J., Grushin, A. G., de Juan, F. & Pollmann, F. Interactiondriven phases in the halffilled honeycomb lattice: An infinite density matrix renormalization group study. Phys. Rev. B 92, 085147 (2015).
 47.
Capponi, S. & Läuchli, A. M. Phase diagram of interacting spinless fermions on the honeycomb lattice: A comprehensive exact diagonalization study. Phys. Rev. B 92, 085146 (2015).
 48.
Broecker, P. & Trebst, S. Entanglement and the fermion sign problem in auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo simulations. Phys. Rev. B 94, 075144 (2016).
 49.
Multiplying the Green’s matrices by a completely random phase is found to give a similar shift and broadening of the spread.
 50.
Krizhevsky, A. Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images. Tech. Rep. (2009).
 51.
Kingma, D. & Ba, J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv:1412.6980.
 52.
Abadi, M. et al. TensorFlow: LargeScale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems, arXiv:1603.04467; Software available from tensorflow.org.
Acknowledgements
P.B. acknowledges partial support from the Deutsche Telekom Stiftung and the BonnCologne Graduate School of Physics and Astronomy (BCGS). The Cologne group was partially supported by the DFG within the CRC network TR 183 (project B01). The numerical simulations were performed on the CHEOPS cluster at RRZK Cologne. R.M. acknowledges support from NSERC and the Canada Research Chair program. Additional support was provided by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science. R.M. and S.T. thank the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics (NORDITA) for hospitality during the workshop “From Quantum Field Theories to Numerical Methods” where this project was invigorated in its early stages.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
P.B. developed the ideas underlying this manuscript in discussion with all authors. P.B. and J.C. implemented all simulations codes, P.B. collected the numerical data. Data analysis and interpretation was jointly done by all authors. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Broecker, P., Carrasquilla, J., Melko, R.G. et al. Machine learning quantum phases of matter beyond the fermion sign problem. Sci Rep 7, 8823 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598017090980
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Neural network representations of quantum manybody states
Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy (2020)

Geometry of learning neural quantum states
Physical Review Research (2020)

Interpreting machine learning of topological quantum phase transitions
Physical Review Research (2020)

Topological Quantum Compiling with Reinforcement Learning
Physical Review Letters (2020)

Drawing Phase Diagrams of Random Quantum Systems by Deep Learning the Wave Functions
Journal of the Physical Society of Japan (2020)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.