Variational Monte Carlo calculations of A ≤ 4 nuclei with an artificial neural-network correlator ansatz

Corey Adams,1, 2 Giuseppe Carleo,3 Alessandro Lovato,1, 4 and Noemi Rocco4, 5 1Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 2Leadership Computing Facility, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 3Institute of Physics, Ecole´ Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 4INFN-TIFPA Trento Institute of Fundamental Physics and Applications, 38123 Trento, Italy 5Theoretical Physics Department, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA (Dated: April 15, 2021) The complexity of many-body quantum wave functions is a central aspect of several fields of physics and chemistry where non-perturbative interactions are prominent. Artificial neural net- works (ANNs) have proven to be a flexible tool to approximate quantum many-body states in con- densed matter and chemistry problems. In this work we introduce a neural-network ansatz to model the ground-state of light nuclei, and approximately solve the nuclear many-body Schr¨odinger equation. Using efficient stochastic sampling and optimization schemes, our approach extends pioneering applications of ANNs in the field, which present exponentially-scaling algorithmic complexity. We compute the binding energies and point-nucleon densities of A ≤ 4 nuclei as emerging from a leading-order pionless effective field theory Hamiltonian. We successfully benchmark the ANN wave function against more conventional parametrizations based on two- and three-body Jastrow functions, and virtually-exact Green’s function Monte Carlo results.

PACS numbers: 21.60.De, 25.30.Pt

Introduction – The last two decades have witnessed re- plex high-dimensional functions, as already leveraged in markable progress in our understanding of how the struc- several domains of physics [14]. For many-body quan- ture and dynamics of atomic nuclei emerge from the in- tum applications, neural-network-based variational rep- dividual interaction among protons and neutrons. This resentations have been introduced in Ref. [15], and have progress has been primarily driven by the widespread found applications as a tool to study ground state and use of nuclear-effective field theories to systematically dynamics of several interacting lattice quantum systems construct realistic Hamiltonians [1–3], and the concur- [16–24]. In a series of recent works [25–27] deep neural rent development of nuclear many-body techniques that networks have been further developed to tackle ab-initio solve the time-independent Schr¨odingerequation with chemistry problems within variational Monte Carlo, of- controlled approximations [4–8]. The variational Monte ten resulting in accuracy improvements over existing vari- Carlo (VMC) and the Green’s Function Monte Carlo ational approaches traditionally used to describe corre- (GFMC) methods are ideally suited to tackle this prob- lated molecules. While applications of ML approaches to lem and have been extensively applied to study properties the many-body problem in condensed matter, quantum of light nuclei [9]. Monte Carlo techniques also face im- chemistry, and quantum information have been prolifer- portant challenges. For example, the calculation of the ating in the past few years, the adoption in low-energy spin-isospin dependent Jastrow correlations used in the nuclear theory is still in its infancy [28, 29]. Pioneering VMC and GFMC scales exponentially with the number work in the field [30] has provided a proof-of-principle of nucleons, limiting the applicability of these methods to application of ANN to solve the Schr¨odingerequation of relatively small nuclear systems. Also, the auxiliary-field the deuteron. Extending the non-stochastic approach of diffusion Monte Carlo [10] (AFDMC) samples the spin Ref. [30] to larger nuclei however presents an intrinsically arXiv:2007.14282v2 [nucl-th] 13 Apr 2021 and isospin degrees of freedom to treat larger nuclei and exponentially scaling challenge. infinite nucleonic matter [11, 12], but it can only take In this work, we expand the domain of applicabil- as inputs somewhat simplified interactions [13]. In ad- ity of ANN-based representations of the wave function dition, the use of wave functions that scale polynomially and compute ground-state properties of A ≤ 4 nuclei as with the number of nucleons exacerbates the AFDMC they emerge from a leading-order pionless effective field fermion sign problem for A > 16 nuclei. Therefore, ex- theory (EFT) Hamiltonian, containing consistent two- tending VMC and GFMC calculations to medium-mass and three-body potentials. Specifically, we develop a nuclei requires devising accurate wave functions that ex- novel VMC algorithm based on an ANN representation hibit a polynomial scaling with A. of the spin-isospin dependent correlator that captures the An alternative class of approaches being actively ex- vast majority of nuclear correlations and scales favorably plored is based on machine learning (ML) techniques. with the number of nucleons. We benchmark our results These techniques typically rely on the ability of artifi- against a more conventional parametrization of the varia- cial neural networks (ANNs) to compactly represent com- tional wave function in terms of two- and three-body Jas- 2

z z trow functions, and virtually-exact GFMC calculations. si = {si , ti }, respectively. For the s-shell nuclei consid- Hamiltonian.- We employ nuclear Hamiltonians de- ered in this work, we take |Φ2Hi = A| ↑p↑ni, |Φ3Hei = rived within pionless EFT, which is based on the tenet A| ↑p↓p↑ni, and |Φ4Hei = A| ↑p↓p↑n↓ni, with A being that the typical momentum of nucleons in nuclei is much the anti-symmetrization operator [37]. smaller than the pion mass mπ [3, 31]. Under this as- The real-valued correlating factors U(r1,..., rA) and sumption, largely justified for studying the structure and and V(s1, r1,..., rA, sA) are parametrized in terms of long-range properties of A ≤ 4 nuclei, pion exchanges permutation-invariant ANNs, so that the total wave func- are unresolved contact interactions and nucleons are the tion is anti-symmetric. To achieve this goal, we make use only relevant degrees of freedom. The singularities of of the Deep Sets architecture [38, 39], and map each of the contact terms are controlled introducing a Gaussian the single-particle inputs separately to a latent-space rep- regulator that suppresses transferred momenta above the resentation. We then apply a sum operation to destroy ultraviolet cutoff Λ. This regulator choice directly leads the ordering of the information and ensure permutation to a Gaussian radial dependence of the potential, which invariance is local in coordinate [32, 33]. The leading-order (LO) ! Hamiltonian reads X F(x1,..., xA) = ρF φF (xi) F = U, V . (4) ~ 2 xi X ∇i X −r2 Λ2/4 HLO = − + (C1 + C2 ~σi · ~σj) e ij 2mN i i

gradient components Gi = ∂iE(p) of the energy with Λ VMC-ANN VMC-JS GFMC GFMCc respect to the variational parameters p read 4 fm−1 −2.224(1) −2.223(1) −2.224(1) - i 2H 6 fm−1 −2.224(4) −2.220(1) −2.225(1) - h∂ Ψ |H|Ψ i h∂ Ψ |Ψ i G = 2 i V V − E i V V (6) 4 fm−1 −8.26(1) −7.80(1) −8.38(2) −7.82(1) i V 3H hΨV |ΨV i hΨV |ΨV i 6 fm−1 −8.27(1) −7.74(1) −8.38(2) −7.81(1) −1 and can be efficiently estimated through Monte Carlo 4 4 fm −23.30(2) −22.54(1) −23.62(3) −22.77(2) He −1 sampling. While stochastic gradient descent can be read- 6 fm −24.47(3) −23.44(2) −25.06(3) −24.10(2) ily used to compute parameters updates, for VMC ap- 2 3 plications it has been found that using a preconditioner TABLE I. Ground-state energies in MeV of the H, H, and 4He for the LO pionless-EFT Hamiltonian for Λ = 4 fm−1 and based on the Quantum Fisher Information Λ = 6 fm−1. Numbers in parentheses indicate the statistical errors on the last digit. h∂iΨV |∂jΨV i h∂iΨV |ΨV ihΨV |∂jΨV i Sij = − , (7) hΨV |ΨV i hΨV |ΨV ihΨV |ΨV i is significantly more efficient. During the optimization, to yield robust convergence patterns for all the nuclei and then parameters at step s are updated as ps+1 = ps − regulator choices that we have analyzed. The adaptive η(S + Λ)−1G, where η is the learning rate and Λ is a schedule of this AdaptiveEta algorithm is selected per- small positive diagonal matrix that is added to stabilize forming heuristic tests on the parameter change, similar the method. This approach, known as the stochastic- to the ones introduced in Ref. [33, 41] for regularizing the reconfiguration (SR) algorithm [43, 44] is equivalent to linear optimization method [48]. performing imaginary-time evolution in the variational Results and discussion. - We analyze the accuracy manifold and it is in turn related to the Natural Gradient of the ANN wave function ansatz by computing the descent method [45] in unsupervised learning. Our com- ground-state energies of 2H, 3H, and 4He. In Table I we putational techniques are based on the general ML frame- benchmark the ANN representation of ΨT (VMC-ANN) work Tensorflow [46], and it is scalable across more than against conventional VMC calculations carried out using 100 GPUs. We also maintain an additional developmen- a spline parametrization for the Jastrow functions [33] tal repository written in JAX [47] for fast prototyping of (VMC-JS), and virtually-exact GFMC results. new features. More information about the architecture The three methods provide fully compatible energies and performance of the software is available in the sup- for 2H nucleus, within statistical errors, showing the flex- plemental material. ibility of the ANN to accurately represent the ground- Figure 1 displays the convergence pattern as function state wave function of the deuteron, consistent with the of the optimization step of the 2H energy for the LO pi- findings of Ref. [30]. Note that, since the LO pionless onless EFT Hamiltonians with Λ = 4 fm−1 and Λ = 6 EFT Hamiltonian does not contain tensor or spin-orbit fm−1. In the initial phase of the optimization, the softer terms, the VMC-JS ansatz is exact. The perfect agree- cutoff exhibits a faster convergence than the stiffer one. ment with the experimental value is not surprising, as However the asymptotic value of the energy is reached af- the potential has been fit to the deuteron binding energy ter about 300 iterations for both values of the regulator. using numerically-exact few-body methods [32]. These results have been obtained using an adaptive learn- The VMC-ANN noticeably improves upon the VMC- ing rate in the range 10−7 ≤ η ≤ 10−2, which has proven JS energies of 3H, by ' 0.5 MeV for both Λ = 4 fm−1 and Λ = 6 fm−1. On the other hand, the GFMC re- sults are ' 0.1 MeV more bound than the VMC-ANN = 4 fm 1 ones. This difference is due to spin-dependent correla- 3 = 6 fm 1

2.100 tions that are automatically generated by the GFMC

2.125 2 imaginary-time propagation, but are not fully accounted 2.150

2.175 for by the correlator ansatz of Eq. (3). To better quan- 1 2.200 tify the spin-independent correlations entailed in the 2.225

2.250 0 ANN, we have considered a simplified “ANNc” ansatz 2.275 ANNc U(r1,...,rA) 2.300 Energy [MeV] |Ψ i = e |Φi. In this case, the NN potential 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 V 1 of Eq. (1) is equivalent to the SU(4)-symmetric interac- −1 2 tionv ˜c(rij) = vc(rij) − vσ(rij). For Λ = 4 fm and −1 Λ = 6 fm ANNc yields −7.85(2) and −7.85(4) MeV, 0 100 200 300 400 500 SR Iteration respectively. These numbers are in excellent agreement with the GFMCc calculations reported in Table I, which 2 FIG. 1. Convergence pattern of the H variational energy for have also been carried out usingv ˜c(rij). Λ = 4 fm−1 and Λ = 6 fm−1 as a function of the number A similar pattern emerges for 4He, with ANN wave of optimization steps of the SR AdaptiveEta algorithm. The functions outperforming the JS ones: the energy is im- dashed line denotes the asymptotic value. proved by about 0.8 MeV and 1.0 MeV for Λ = 4 fm−1 4

4.0 GFMC from VMC-ANN and GFMC calculations that use as in- ANN put the LO pionless-EFT Hamiltonian with Λ = 4 fm−1. 3.5 There is an excellent agreement between the two meth- 3.0 -2 10 ods, which further corroborates the representative power )

3 2.5 − 10-3 of the ANN ansatz for the wave functions of A ≤ 4 nu- m f ( 2.0 clei. The VMC-ANN and GFMC densities overlap both N 10-4 ρ 1.5 at short distances and in the slowly-decaying asymptotic

1.0 10-5 exponential tails, highlighted in the insets of Fig. 2. It 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 0.5 should be emphasised that the ANN learns how to com-

0.0 pensate for the original Gaussian confining function and 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 reproduce the correct exponential falls off of the nuclear r (fm) wave function, which is notoriously delicate to obtain 1.4 GFMC within nuclear methods that rely on harmonic-oscillator ANN 1.2 basis expansions [51, 52].

1.0 10-2 Conclusions – In this work we have carried out proof- )

3 of-principle calculations that demonstrate the capabil- − 0.8 10-3 m

f ity of ANNs to represent the variational state of A ≤ 4 ( 0.6 N 10-4 nuclei encompassing the vast majority of nuclear corre- ρ 0.4 lations and scale favorably with the number of nucle- 10-5 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 ons. Exploiting the Deep Sets architecture, we have de- 0.2 vised permutation-invariant, spin-isospin dependent cor- 0.0 relators whose computational cost scales polynomially 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 r (fm) with the number of nucleons. Using the stochastic- reconfiguration algorithm, we solve the Schr¨odingerequa- GFMC 1.2 ANN tion of a LO pionless-EFT Hamiltonian that contains two- and three-nucleon potentials characterized by highly 1.0 -2 10 non-perturbative, spin dependent, short-range compo- ) 3 0.8 − 10-3 nents. The spin-isospin dependent ANN variational wave m f ( 0.6 function outperforms the routinely employed two- and N 10-4 ρ three-body Jastrow parametrization of the correlation 0.4 10-5 function. The small remaining differences with the exact 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 0.2 GFMC result will likely be solved once spin-dependent backflow correlations are introduced in the Slater deter- 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 minant, as in Ref. [25–27], paving the way for performing r (fm) accurate studies of medium-mass nuclei. FIG. 2. Point-nucleon densities of 2H (upper panel), 3H (mid- The single-particle densities obtained with ANN wave dle panel), and 4He (lower panel) for the LO pionless-EFT Hamiltonian with Λ = 4 fm−1. The solid points and the functions are also in excellent agreement with GFMC re- shaded area represent the VMC-ANN and GFMC results, re- sults, both at short distances and in the slowly-decaying spectively. exponential tails, which are notoriously difficult to repro- duce.

−1 Acknowledgments – The present research is sup- and Λ = 6 fm , respectively. The small discrepancies ported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Sci- with the GFMC are again due to missing spin-isospin ence, Office of Nuclear Physics, under contracts DE- dependent correlations in the ANN. In fact, the ANNc AC02-06CH11357, by the NUCLEI SciDAC program energies turn out to be −22.76(2) MeV and −24.05(5) −1 −1 (A.L. and N.R.) and by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC for Λ = 4 fm and Λ = 6 fm , which are fully compat- under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. ible with the GFMCc results listed in Table I. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High To further elucidate the quality of the ANN wave func- Energy Physics (N.R.). This research used resources of tion we consider the point-nucleon density the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is

1 X int a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under ρN (r) = ΨV δ(r − |r |) ΨV , (8) 4πr2 i Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The calculations were i performed using resources of the Laboratory Computing which is of interest in a variety of experimental set- Resource Center of Argonne National Laboratory. We tings [49, 50]. In the upper, medium, and lower panels of acknowledge discussions with Markus Holzmann, Dean 2 3 4 Fig. 2 we display ρN (r) of H, H, and He as obtained Lee, James Stokes, and James Vary. 5

[17] Hiroki Saito, “Method to solve quantum few-body problems with artificial neural networks,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 074002 (2018), [1] Evgeny Epelbaum, Hans-Werner Hammer, and Ulf- https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.87.074002. G. Meissner, “Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces,” Rev. [18] Kenny Choo, Giuseppe Carleo, Nicolas Regnault, and Mod. Phys. 81, 1773–1825 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl- Titus Neupert, “Symmetries and many-body excitations th]. with neural-network quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [2] R. Machleidt and D.R. Entem, “Chiral effective field the- 121, 167204 (2018). ory and nuclear forces,” Phys. Rept. 503, 1–75 (2011), [19] Yusuke Nomura, “Machine Learning Quantum States arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]. — Extensions to Fermion–Boson Coupled Systems and [3] H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨onig,and U. van Kolck, “Nuclear ef- Excited-State Calculations,” Journal of the Physical So- fective field theory: status and perspectives,” Rev. Mod. ciety of Japan 89, 054706 (2020). Phys. 92, 025004 (2020), arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]. [20] Nobuyuki Yoshioka and Ryusuke Hamazaki, “Construct- [4] Bruce R. Barrett, Petr Navratil, and James P. Vary, “Ab ing neural stationary states for open quantum many- initio no core shell model,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 69, body systems,” Physical Review B 99, 214306 (2019). 131–181 (2013). [21] Alexandra Nagy and Vincenzo Savona, “Variational [5] G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D.J. Quantum with a Neural-Network Dean, “Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei,” Ansatz for Open Quantum Systems,” Physical Review Rept. Prog. Phys. 77, 096302 (2014), arXiv:1312.7872 Letters 122, 250501 (2019). [nucl-th]. [22] Filippo Vicentini, Alberto Biella, Nicolas Regnault, and [6] H. Hergert, S.K. Bogner, T.D. Morris, A. Schwenk, and Cristiano Ciuti, “Variational Neural-Network Ansatz for K. Tsukiyama, “The In-Medium Similarity Renormaliza- Steady States in Open Quantum Systems,” Physical Re- tion Group: A Novel Ab Initio Method for Nuclei,” Phys. view Letters 122, 250503 (2019). Rept. 621, 165–222 (2016), arXiv:1512.06956 [nucl-th]. [23] Michael J. Hartmann and Giuseppe Carleo, “Neural- [7] Arianna Carbone, Andrea Cipollone, Carlo Barbieri, Ar- Network Approach to Dissipative Quantum Many-Body nau Rios, and Artur Polls, “Self-consistent Green’s Dynamics,” Physical Review Letters 122, 250502 (2019). functions formalism with three-body interactions,” Phys. [24] Francesco Ferrari, Federico Becca, and Juan Car- Rev. C 88, 054326 (2013), arXiv:1310.3688 [nucl-th]. rasquilla, “Neural Gutzwiller-projected variational wave [8] Evgeny Epelbaum, Hermann Krebs, Dean Lee, and Ulf- functions,” Physical Review B 100, 125131 (2019), pub- G. Meissner, “Ab initio calculation of the Hoyle state,” lisher: American Physical Society. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 192501 (2011), arXiv:1101.2547 [25] David Pfau, James S. Spencer, Alexand er G. de G. [nucl-th]. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes, “Ab-Initio Solution of [9] J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, Steven C. Pieper, the Many-Electron Schr¨odingerEquation with Deep Neu- R. Schiavilla, K.E. Schmidt, and R.B. Wiringa, “Quan- ral Networks,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1909.02487 (2019), tum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics,” Rev. arXiv:1909.02487 [physics.chem-ph]. Mod. Phys. 87, 1067 (2015), arXiv:1412.3081 [nucl-th]. [26] Jan Hermann, Zeno Sch¨atzle, and Frank No´e,“Deep [10] K.E. Schmidt and S. Fantoni, “A quantum Monte Carlo neural network solution of the electronic Schr¨odinger method for nucleon systems,” Phys. Lett. B 446, 99–103 equation,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1909.08423 (2019), (1999). arXiv:1909.08423 [physics.comp-ph]. [11] M. Piarulli, I. Bombaci, D. Logoteta, A. Lovato, and [27] Kenny Choo, Antonio Mezzacapo, and Giuseppe Carleo, R.B. Wiringa, “Benchmark calculations of pure neu- “Fermionic neural-network states for ab-initio electronic tron matter with realistic nucleon-nucleon interactions,” structure,” Nature Communications 11, 2368 (2020). Phys. Rev. C 101, 045801 (2020), arXiv:1908.04426 [28] Gianina Alina Negoita et al., “Deep learning: Extrapola- [nucl-th]. tion tool for ab initio nuclear theory,” Phys. Rev. C 99, [12] D. Lonardoni, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and J. Carl- 054308 (2019), arXiv:1810.04009 [nucl-th]. son, “Nuclear and neutron-star matter from local chi- [29] W.G. Jiang, G. Hagen, and T. Papenbrock, “Extrap- ral interactions,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 022033 (2020), olation of nuclear structure observables with artificial arXiv:1912.09411 [nucl-th]. neural networks,” Phys. Rev. C 100, 054326 (2019), [13] Stefano Gandolfi, Diego Lonardoni, Alessandro Lovato, arXiv:1905.06317 [nucl-th]. and Maria Piarulli, “Atomic nuclei from quantum Monte [30] J. W. T. Keeble and A. Rios, “Machine learning the Carlo calculations with chiral EFT interactions,” Front. deuteron,” (2019), arXiv:1911.13092 [nucl-th]. Phys. 8, 117 (2020), arXiv:2001.01374 [nucl-th]. [31] Paulo F. Bedaque and Ubirajara van Kolck, “Effective [14] Giuseppe Carleo, Ignacio Cirac, Kyle Cranmer, Lau- field theory for few nucleon systems,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. rent Daudet, Maria Schuld, Naftali Tishby, Leslie Vogt- Part. Sci. 52, 339–396 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0203055. Maranto, and Lenka Zdeborov´a,“Machine learning and [32] N. Barnea, L. Contessi, D. Gazit, F. Pederiva, and U. van the physical sciences,” Reviews of Modern Physics 91, Kolck, “Effective Field Theory for Lattice Nuclei,” Phys. 045002 (2019). Rev. Lett. 114, 052501 (2015), arXiv:1311.4966 [nucl-th]. [15] Giuseppe Carleo and Matthias Troyer, “Solving the [33] L. Contessi, A. Lovato, F. Pederiva, A. Roggero, quantum many-body problem with artificial neural net- J. Kirscher, and U. van Kolck, “Ground-state prop- works,” Science 355, 602–606 (2017). erties of 4He and 16O extrapolated from lattice QCD [16] Yusuke Nomura, Andrew S. Darmawan, Youhei Yamaji, with pionless EFT,” Phys. Lett. B 772, 839–848 (2017), and Masatoshi Imada, “Restricted Boltzmann machine arXiv:1701.06516 [nucl-th]. learning for solving strongly correlated quantum sys- [34] Johannes Kirscher, Nir Barnea, Doron Gazit, Francesco tems,” Physical Review B 96, 205152 (2017). Pederiva, and Ubirajara van Kolck, “Spectra and Scat- 6

tering of Light Lattice Nuclei from Effective Field The- (2005). ory,” Phys. Rev. C 92, 054002 (2015), arXiv:1506.09048 [45] Shun-ichi Amari, “Natural Gradient Works Efficiently in [nucl-th]. Learning,” Neural Computation 10, 251–276 (1998). [35] C.-J. Yang, “Do we know how to count powers in pionless [46] Mart´ın Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene and pionful effective field theory?” Eur. Phys. J. A 56, Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen, Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, 96 (2020), arXiv:1905.12510 [nucl-th]. Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghe- [36] Paulo F. Bedaque, H.W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, mawat, Ian Goodfellow, Andrew Harp, Geoffrey Irving, “Renormalization of the three-body system with short Michael Isard, Yangqing Jia, Rafal Jozefowicz, Lukasz range interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 463–467 (1999), Kaiser, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Dande- arXiv:nucl-th/9809025. lion Man´e, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek Mur- [37] J. Lomnitz-Adler, V.R. Pandharipande, and R.A. Smith, ray, Chris Olah, Mike Schuster, Jonathon Shlens, Benoit “Monte Carlo calculations of triton and 4 He nuclei with Steiner, Ilya Sutskever, Kunal Talwar, Paul Tucker, the Reid potential,” Nucl. Phys. A 361, 399–411 (1981). Vincent Vanhoucke, Vijay Vasudevan, Fernanda Vi´egas, [38] Manzil Zaheer, Satwik Kottur, Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Oriol Vinyals, Pete Warden, Martin Wattenberg, Martin Barnabas Poczos, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Alexander Wicke, Yuan Yu, and Xiaoqiang Zheng, “TensorFlow: Smola, “Deep Sets,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1703.06114 Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems,” (2017), arXiv:1703.06114 [cs.LG]. (2015), software available from tensorflow.org. [39] Edward Wagstaff, Fabian B. Fuchs, Martin Engelcke, In- [47] James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, gmar Posner, and Michael Osborne, “On the Limita- Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclau- tions of Representing Functions on Sets,” arXiv e-prints rin, and Skye Wanderman-Milne, “JAX: composable , arXiv:1901.09006 (2019), arXiv:1901.09006 [cs.LG]. transformations of Python+NumPy programs,” (2018). [40] Charles Dugas, Yoshua Bengio, Fran¸coisB´elisle,Claude [48] Julien Toulouse and C. J. Umrigar, “Optimization of Nadeau, and Ren´eGarcia, “Incorporating Second-Order quantum Monte Carlo wave functions by energy mini- Functional Knowledge for Better Option Pricing,” in mization,” J. Chem. Phys. 126, 084102–084102 (2007), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 13, arXiv:physics/0701039 [physics.chem-ph]. edited by T. K. Leen, T. G. Dietterich, and V. Tresp [49] A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, Ralph Butler, J. Carlson, Ew- (MIT Press, 2001) pp. 472–478. ing Lusk, Steven C. Pieper, and R. Schiavilla, “Charge [41] P. Massella, F. Barranco, D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, Form Factor and Sum Rules of Electromagnetic Response F. Pederiva, and E. Vigezzi, “Exact restoration of Functions in 12C,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 092501 (2013), Galilei invariance in density functional calculations with arXiv:1305.6959 [nucl-th]. quantum Monte Carlo,” J. Phys. G 47, 035105 (2020), [50] Ronen Weiss, Axel Schmidt, Gerald A. Miller, arXiv:1808.00518 [nucl-th]. and Nir Barnea, “Short-range correlations and the [42] R. Schiavilla, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- charge density,” Phys. Lett. B 790, 484–489 (2019), vato, L. E. Marcucci, M. Piarulli, and M. Viviani, “Two- arXiv:1807.08677 [nucl-th]. and three-nucleon contact interactions and ground-state [51] James P. Vary, Pieter Maris, Patrick J. Fasano, and energies of light- and medium-mass nuclei,” (2021), Mark A. Caprio, “Perspectives on Nuclear Structure and arXiv:2102.02327 [nucl-th]. Scattering with the AbInitio No-Core Shell Model,” JPS [43] Sandro Sorella, “Green Function Monte Carlo with Conf. Proc. 23, 012001 (2018), arXiv:1804.10995 [nucl- Stochastic Reconfiguration,” Physical Review Letters 80, th]. 4558–4561 (1998). [52] Mamoon Sharaf, Ryan McCarty, Robert A.M. Basili, [44] Sandro Sorella, “Wave function optimization in the vari- and James P. Vary, “Comparing Sinc and Harmonic Os- ational Monte Carlo method,” Phys. Rev. B 71, 241103 cillator Basis for Bound States of a Gaussian Interac- tion,” (2019), arXiv:1912.07155 [nucl-th].