SciPost是荷兰理论物理学家Caux（严格可解模型方面的牛人）创办的开放评审期刊，审稿过程全程公开，任何人都可以参与评审（可选择匿名或者实名，可以是完整的意见也可以是简单的评论），最后发表是免费。

之前的文章收到第一个审稿意见（其他意见还在等待中）

https://scipost.org/submissions/scipost_202107_00052v1/#report_1

感觉这个审稿人是个搞多体的，不知道少体也有意义，也需要专门的办法。他提到了monte carlo方法。对这个方法了解不多，但是感觉在少体问题上，monte carlo会更慢，甚至慢得多，而且能够获得的信息少得多，也不方便得多，毕竟有没有波函数差别很大。

不太确定他这句话是否成立，In fermionic systems, it is common for a Slater determinant to obtain 99% of the total energy and similar single-particle physics, but that is not considered a good wave function because it is missing a lot of important physics

印象中，Hartree-Fock在能量上达不到这个精度，其他物理量就更不用说了。

一个模糊的感觉是，对费米子波函数用slater行列式来逼近，相比对玻色子波函数用permanent来逼近，会差很多。

Strengths

1) The paper is well written and carefully laid out.
2) I think that the paper is quite useful for someone who would like to learn more about permanents for bosonic systems.

Weaknesses

1) The paper does not solve the exponential scaling of the evaluation of the permanent.
2) It is not clear what problem is being solved by the work in the paper.
3) Context is not provided; why this instead of Monte Carlo algorithms for example?

Report

The authors explore the use of permanents for bosonic problems. The paper is well written and carefully laid out. I think that the paper is quite useful for someone who would like to learn more about permanents for bosonic systems.

Looking at the criteria for acceptance, I have trouble finding which one of them would apply to this paper:

1. Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery;

The paper does not solve the exponential scaling of the evaluation of the permanent.

2. Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block;

They do not enable larger or more accurate solutions of bosonic systems. It's not clear to me what problem they are trying to solve. Is it just understanding how a permanent performs? Why is that an important problem if so? Perhaps, if this were explained, the paper would be more suitable.

3. Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multipronged follow-up work;

It's not clear to me why someone would use this algorithm over Monte Carlo.

4. Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.

I'm not sure how this could apply.

The work is done very carefully and thoroughly, but from my perspective, I do not see what problem they are solving and what use this work will have to people in the future. Perhaps the authors can explain this better in a future version of the paper.

Some other comments follow:

I'm confused about the fact that they do not mention Monte Carlo methods. There is no sign problem in bosons, so thousands of particles have been simulated exactly in the literature.

They compare the overlap between the permanent and the true ground state. It's not clear to me what this means--the overlap goes to zero as the system

Similarly, the claim of agreement with total energy and the one-body properties of the exact wave function is missing some context. In fermionic systems, it is common for a Slater determinant to obtain 99% of the total energy and similar single-particle physics, but that is not considered a good wave function because it is missing a lot of important physics. Do the authors have a way of establishing a context in which a permanent is a useful approximation?