What are the 't Hooft papers about classical models underlying QM?

Gerard 't Hooft states in his webpage

I have mathematically sound equations that show how classical models generate quantum mechanics.

and there are some interesting discussions here in Physics.SE about the question, see for example Discreteness and determinism in superstrings and Deterministic quantum mechanics, or searching for Hooft, determinism and the links therein.

Which of the 't Hooft papers in arXiv should I read in order to grasp the question? Could anybody provide an ordered list? I would like to restrict myself for the moment to those strictly related to Quantum Mechanics, to grasp the ideas within a known framework (I have seen that the question extends to the realm of String Theory, where I am for the moment nearly ignorant).

-
@David Zaslavsky: thanks very much for the edit (I always welcome corrections to my non-native english), but, could you re-formulate it again in some other way? Because now it seems that 't Hooft models generate the whole foundations of QM, which is not true. As I have so far understood, they are able to reproduce some simple systems. That is why I wrote 'underlying classical models behind QM' instead 'generating QM'. – Eduardo Guerras Valera Dec 20 '12 at 1:38
It's trivial to see that 't Hooft's models can't emulate a single quantum system for various simple reasons. One of them is that 't Hooft's models disagree with the superposition principle, the fact that for any two states $\psi_1,\psi_2$, an arbitrarily complex combination $a\psi_1+b\psi_2$ is an equally allowed state of the system. This principle or postulates underlies all of quantum mechanics and may be verified in as simple systems as 1 qubit. Because 't Hooft constructs "his foundations" to explicitly contradict this postulate, they can't agree with anything in proper quantum mechanics. – Luboš Motl Dec 20 '12 at 7:15
@DavidZaslavsky: I removed the soft-question tag again. – Qmechanic Dec 20 '12 at 9:33
It is absolutely not a soft-question. What I request is that some theoretician selects for me the paper(s) by 't Hooft that contains the essential idea in a more or less advanced stage and (if possible) before he extends the question to strings. If I were a physicist in the 1920s I wouldn't want to struggle against the Einstein paper with the previous, wrong version of the field equations (of 1915 or so?), or study all Einstein papers about inertia, but rather I would want a direct reference to the 1916 paper in Annalen der Physik. I am not asking for any popular description... – Eduardo Guerras Valera Dec 20 '12 at 11:31
I am working in lensed quasar spectra and in large scale structure computer simulations, this 't Hooft question is far from my field, and I don't want to devote days studying all papers that may seem related. I'm simply asking that some of you theoretical physicists select for me which paper I should study to grasp the question. I have a more or less solid background in QM but have not yet studied strings seriously. – Eduardo Guerras Valera Dec 20 '12 at 11:32