Can neural network wavefunctions learn cusp conditions without explicit programming of the electron-electron distance dependence?

Your question asks something precise: whether neural networks can learn the cusp condition—the distinctive sharp feature in electron wavefunctions near nuclei and between electrons—without explicit hand-coding the electron-electron distance dependence.

The short answer from these preprints: the field is actively exploring this, but the evidence is mixed and incomplete.

What the cusp condition is

When two electrons get very close, quantum mechanics says their wavefunction must have a specific angular slope—roughly proportional to their separation distance. This "cusp" is a real physical constraint, not a detail. Violating it costs energy. Similarly, near a nucleus, the wavefunction must behave a specific way. Classical neural networks don't naturally know about these constraints.

What neural wavefunction methods are doing

Several approaches here try to enforce antisymmetry (the requirement that swapping two electrons flips the wavefunction's sign) without hand-crafted orbital selection [AG-2024.05-2372]. The neural Pfaffian method replaces Slater determinants with Pfaffians—a learnable structure that automatically enforces antisymmetry across arbitrary electron configurations. This is a big step: instead of manually telling the network "use these orbitals," the network learns the antisymmetric form itself.

However, none of these papers directly addresses whether cusps emerge spontaneously during training. The Pfaffian work [AG-2024.05-2372] achieves "chemical accuracy" across molecules, suggesting the network is capturing something real, but it doesn't isolate whether cusp conditions are being learned or imposed.

One paper [AG-2024.03-1588] explores a related question: can you build in antisymmetry *before* the neural part (sign-equivariant networks)? The answer was disappointingly no—it collapsed to a Jastrow factor (a simple multiplicative correction) and offered no improvement. This suggests that the neural architecture *itself* matters for capturing the full complexity, possibly including cusps.

The practical evidence

Work on variational Monte Carlo with neural quantum states [AG-2024.04-1830] achieves accuracies better than coupled-cluster theory on strongly correlated systems like the chromium dimer. If cusps weren't being captured reasonably well, you wouldn't get that accuracy on stretched bonds and multireference regions—exactly where cusps matter most.

Similarly, interpolation of many-body wavefunctions for molecular dynamics [AG-2024.02-1771] reports "near-exact" potential energy surfaces, which again suggests the learned wavefunctions are capturing the physics correctly, cusps included.

The gap

What's missing: an explicit analysis showing whether cusp *coefficients* (the formal quantum-mechanical requirement) emerge during training, or whether the networks are learning effective approximations that *feel* like cusps but aren't formally correct. The papers don't dissect this—they just show: accurate energies, good generalization, sensible physics. That's suggestive but not conclusive.

The archive doesn't contain a paper that directly addresses whether neural networks learn cusp conditions without explicit programming.