Techniques for translationally invariant matrix product states...2016/12/12 · Techniques for...
Transcript of Techniques for translationally invariant matrix product states...2016/12/12 · Techniques for...
Techniques for translationally invariant matrixproduct states
Ian McCulloch
University of QueenslandCentre for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQuS)
12/12/2016
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 1 / 51
Outline
1 Scaling relations in the thermodynamic limit
2 Expectation values of iMPO’sHigher momentsBinder cumulant
3 Entanglement spectrum
4 Projective representations
5 Triangular Heisenberg model example
6 Binder ratio for symmetric states
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 2 / 51
Correlation Functions
The form of correlation functions are determined by the eigenvalues of thetransfer operator
All eigenvalues ≤ 1One eigenvalue equal to 1,corresponding to the identityoperator
Expansion in terms of eigenspectrum λi:
〈O(x)O(y)〉 =∑
i
ai λ|y−x|i
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 3 / 51
50 100 150 200Number of states kept
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1λ
(0,0) Singlet(1,0) Spin triplet(0,1) Holon Triplet(1/2,1/2) Single-particle
Hubbard Model transfer matrix spectrumHalf-filling, U/t = 4
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 4 / 51
64 128Number of states kept
1
10
100
Cor
rela
tion
leng
th
(0,0) Singlet(1,0) Spin triplet(0,1) Holon Triplet(1/2,1/2) Single-particle
Hubbard model transfer matrix spectrumHalf-filling, U/t=4
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 5 / 51
Critical scaling exampleTwo-species bose gas with linear tunneling Ω, from F. Zhan et al, Phys. Rev. A 90, 023630 2014
1
10
100
50 100 200
Ω = 0.2148Ω = 0.215Ω = 0.2152Ω = 0.2154Ω = 0.2156Ω = 0.2158
ξ
mIan McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 6 / 51
CFT Parameters
For a critial mode, the correlation length increases with number of states m asa power law,
ξ ∼ mκ
[T. Nishino, K. Okunishi, M. Kikuchi, Phys. Lett. A 213, 69 (1996)M. Andersson, M. Boman, S. Östlund, Phys. Rev. B 59, 10493 (1999)L. Tagliacozzo, Thiago. R. de Oliveira, S. Iblisdir, J. I. Latorre, Phys. Rev. B 78, 024410 (2008)]
This exponent is a function only of the central charge,
κ =6√
12c + c
[Pollmann et al, PRL 2009]
Note: in practice this usually isn’t a good way to determine c – better to useentropy scaling
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 7 / 51
Scaling dimensions(Vid Stojevic, IPM et al, Phys. Rev. B 91, 035120 (2015))Suppose we have a two-point correlator that has a power-law at largedistances
〈O(x)O(y)〉 = |y− x|−2∆
As we increase the number of states kept m the correlation length increases,so the region of validity of the power law increases.
Take two different calculations with m1 and m2
Correlation lengths ξ1 and ξ2
We expect:O(ξ2)
O(ξ1)=
(ξ2
ξ1
)∆
for x large, we have: O(x) ' a λx (with ξ = −1/ lnλ)Prefactor a is overlap of operator O with next-leading eigenvector oftransfer operator
a ∝ ξ−∆
This gives directly the operator scaling dimensions by direct fitIan McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 8 / 51
Scaling dimensions(Vid Stojevic, IPM et al, Phys. Rev. B 91, 035120 (2015))Suppose we have a two-point correlator that has a power-law at largedistances
〈O(x)O(y)〉 = |y− x|−2∆
As we increase the number of states kept m the correlation length increases,so the region of validity of the power law increases.
Take two different calculations with m1 and m2
Correlation lengths ξ1 and ξ2
We expect:O(ξ2)
O(ξ1)=
(ξ2
ξ1
)∆
for x large, we have: O(x) ' a λx (with ξ = −1/ lnλ)Prefactor a is overlap of operator O with next-leading eigenvector oftransfer operator
a ∝ ξ−∆
This gives directly the operator scaling dimensions by direct fitIan McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 8 / 51
Scaling dimensions(Vid Stojevic, IPM et al, Phys. Rev. B 91, 035120 (2015))Suppose we have a two-point correlator that has a power-law at largedistances
〈O(x)O(y)〉 = |y− x|−2∆
As we increase the number of states kept m the correlation length increases,so the region of validity of the power law increases.
Take two different calculations with m1 and m2
Correlation lengths ξ1 and ξ2
We expect:O(ξ2)
O(ξ1)=
(ξ2
ξ1
)∆
for x large, we have: O(x) ' a λx (with ξ = −1/ lnλ)Prefactor a is overlap of operator O with next-leading eigenvector oftransfer operator
a ∝ ξ−∆
This gives directly the operator scaling dimensions by direct fitIan McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 8 / 51
0.0078125 0.015625transfer matrix eigenvalue 1 - λ = 1 / ξ
0.03125
0.0625
pref
acto
r of t
he sp
in o
pera
tor a
t thi
s mod
e
iDMRG data for m=15,20,25,30,35y = 0.45126 * x^0.480
Heisenberg model fit for the scaling dimension
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 9 / 51
Expectation values of MPO’s - arxiv:0804.2509
We have seen that we can write many interesting operators in the form of amatrix product operator
Can we evaluate the expectation value of an arbitrary MPO?
If the MPO has no Jordan structure, this is a simple eigenvalue problem
= λW
For a lower triangular MPO, this doesn’t work.
But we can make use of the triangular structure ISz
λSx Sz I
index by index, each component is a function only of the previouslycalculated terms
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 10 / 51
Expectation values of MPO’s - arxiv:0804.2509
We have seen that we can write many interesting operators in the form of amatrix product operator
Can we evaluate the expectation value of an arbitrary MPO?
If the MPO has no Jordan structure, this is a simple eigenvalue problem
= λW
For a lower triangular MPO, this doesn’t work.
But we can make use of the triangular structure ISz
λSx Sz I
index by index, each component is a function only of the previouslycalculated terms
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 10 / 51
Choose bond indices i, j of Wij, and denote TWij
ji W
Example: ISz
λSx Sz I
Eigentensor is (E1 E2 E3)
Starting from E3:E3 = TI(E3) = I
is equivalent to the orthogonality condition - E3 is just the identityE2:
E2 = TSz(E3) = TSz(I) = Sz
E1: doesn’t reach a fixed point, E1 = E1(L) depends on the number ofiterations L
E1(L + 1) = TI(E1(L)) + TSz(E2) + TλSx (E3)= TI(E1(L)) + C
where C is a constant matrix, C = TSz(Sz) + λSx
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 11 / 51
Fixed point equations for E1:
E1(L + 1) = TI(E1(L)) + C
Eigenmatrix expansion of TI :
TI =
m2∑n=1
λn|λ〉〈λ|
giving
E(n)1 (L + 1) = λnE(n)
1 (L) + C(n)
Since λ1 = 1 by construction, this motivates decomposing intocomponents parallel (e1) and perpendicular (E′1) to the identity:
E1(L + 1) = E′1(L) + e1(L) I
where Tr E′1(L)ρ = 0
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 12 / 51
Component in the direction of the identity:
e1(L + 1) = e1(L) + Tr Cρ
Has the solutione1(L) = L Tr Cρ
is the energyComponent perpendicular to the identity:
E′1(L + 1) = TI(E′1(L)) + C′
where C′ = C − (Tr Cρ) I
E′1(L + 1)n = λnE′1(L)n + C′n
Since all |λn| < 1 here, this is a geometric series that converges to a fixedpoint (independent of L),
(1− TI)(E′1) = C′
Linear solver for the unknown matrix E′1
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 13 / 51
Component in the direction of the identity:
e1(L + 1) = e1(L) + Tr Cρ
Has the solutione1(L) = L Tr Cρ
is the energyComponent perpendicular to the identity:
E′1(L + 1) = TI(E′1(L)) + C′
where C′ = C − (Tr Cρ) I
E′1(L + 1)n = λnE′1(L)n + C′n
Since all |λn| < 1 here, this is a geometric series that converges to a fixedpoint (independent of L),
(1− TI)(E′1) = C′
Linear solver for the unknown matrix E′1
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 13 / 51
Summary:
Decompose eigentensor into components parallel and perpendicular tothe identityThe component parallel to the identity is the energy per siteThe perpendicular components reach a fixed point and give theHamiltonian matrix elements
E3 = I Identity operatorE2 = Sz Sz block operatorE1(L) = E′ + Le1 Hamiltonian operator + energy per site
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 14 / 51
Generalization to arbitrary triangular MPO’sarXiv:1008.4667
At the ith iteration, we have
Ei(L + 1) = TWii(Ei(L)) +∑j>i
TWji(Ej(L))︸ ︷︷ ︸= C(L)
Basic idea:if Wii = 0, then Ei = C
if Wii 6= 0, then solve (1− TWii)(Ei) = C
The result will be a polynomial function of L
solve separately for the coefficient of the k-th power of n
If the diagonal element is unitary, then obtain the eigenvalues ofmagnitude 1If any eigenvalues are complex, then expand also in fourier modes
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 15 / 51
Generalization to arbitrary triangular MPO’sarXiv:1008.4667
At the ith iteration, we have
Ei(L + 1) = TWii(Ei(L)) +∑j>i
TWji(Ej(L))︸ ︷︷ ︸= C(L)
Basic idea:if Wii = 0, then Ei = C
if Wii 6= 0, then solve (1− TWii)(Ei) = C
The result will be a polynomial function of L
solve separately for the coefficient of the k-th power of n
If the diagonal element is unitary, then obtain the eigenvalues ofmagnitude 1If any eigenvalues are complex, then expand also in fourier modes
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 15 / 51
Example 1 - Variance
How close is a variational state to an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian?
Sometimes there is an algorithmic measure, often not.
The square of the Hamiltonian operator determines the energy variance
〈H2〉L − 〈H〉2L = 〈(H − E)2〉L = Lσ2
A universal measure for the quality of a variational wavefunctionlower bound for the energy: there is always an eigenstate within σ of E
We can easily construct an MPO representation of H2
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 16 / 51
0 1×10-6
2×10-6
3×10-6
4×10-6
5×10-6
6×10-6
σ2
-0.443148
-0.443147
-0.443146
-0.443145
-0.443144
-0.443143
-0.443142
ESpin 1/2 Heisenberg Model
Energy per site scaling with variance (exact energy = -ln 2 + 0.25 = -0.44314718056)
0 1×10-7
2×10-7
3×10-7
-0.44314720-0.44314715-0.44314710-0.44314705-0.44314700-0.44314695-0.44314690
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 17 / 51
Example 2 - momentum distribution
Momentum-dependent operators have a simple form,
b†k =∑
x
eikxb†x
Wb†k=
(I
b† eikI
)
Momentum occupation:
n(k) =1L
b†kbk
Broken U(1) symmetry: 〈b†〉 6= 0 hence n(k = 0) ∝ L (extensive)With U(1) symmetry: n(k = 0) is finite, but diverges with m in superfluidphase
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 18 / 51
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1k/pi
1
10
100
1000N
(k)
U/J=3.2U/J=3.6U/J=4.0U/J=4.8U/J=6.4
Bose-Hubbard Model N(k)Infinite 1D, one particle per site
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 19 / 51
Higher moments
It is straight forward to evaluate a local order parameter, eg
M =∑
i
Mi
The first moment of this operator gives the order parameter,
〈M〉 = m1(L)
It is also useful to calculate higher moments, eg
〈M2〉 = m2(L)
or generally
〈Mk〉 = mk(L)
These are polynomial functions in the system size L.
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 20 / 51
For finite systems, the Binder cumulant of the order parameter cancels theleading-order finite size effects
UL = 1− 〈m4〉3〈m2〉2
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
L = 50L = 100L = 150L = 200iDMRGfinite size scaling
|〈∆NL/2〉|
Ω
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
L = 50L = 100L = 150L = 200
UL
Ω
0.4
0.425
0.215 0.216
The 2-component Bose-Hubbard model, with a linear coupling betweencomponents, has an Ising-like transition from immiscible (small Ω) to miscible(large Ω).
H =∑
<i,j>,σ
b†i,σbj,σ +H.c.+ U∑i,σ
nσ(nσ−1)+ U12
∑i
n↑n↓+Ω∑<i,j>
b†i,↑bj,↓+H.c.
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 21 / 51
Cumulant expansions
Express the moments mi in terms of the cumulants per site κj,
m1(L) = κ1Lm2(L) = κ2
1L2 + κ2Lm3(L) = κ3
1L3 + 3κ1κ2L2 + κ3Lm4(L) = κ4
1L4 + 6κ21κ2L3 + (3κ2
2 + 4κ1κ3)L2 + κ4L
κ1 is the order parameter itselfκ2 is the variance (related to the susceptibility)κ3 is the skewnessκ4 is the kurtosis
The cumulants per site κk are well-defined for an iMPS
Note: the cumulants are normally written such that they are extensivequantities→ Lκk.
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 22 / 51
iMPS for two-component bose gas
The cumulant expansion already gives a lot of information
κ1 is the order parameter itself
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2Ω
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
κ1
Ising transition in 2-component Bose gasOrder parameter |N_a - N_b|
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 23 / 51
The second cumulant gives the susceptibility
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2Ω
0
10
20
30
40
50
κ2
2-component Bose gasSecond cumulant (susceptibility)
Different to a finite-size scaling, the susceptibility exactly diverges at thecritical point.Sufficiently close to the critical point, it looks mean-field-like (so will generallygive the wrong exponent!)
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 24 / 51
The fourth cumulant changes sign at the transition.
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2Ω
-8e+05
-6e+05
-4e+05
-2e+05
0
κ4
2-component Bose gas
fourth cumulant
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 25 / 51
Binder Cumulant for iMPS
Naively taking the limit L→∞ for the Binder cumulant doesn’t produceanything useful:
if the order parameter κ1 6= 0,
UL = 1− 〈m4〉L
3〈m2〉2L→ 2
3
if κ1 = 0, then m4(L) = 3k22L2 + k4L
Hence
UL = 1− 3k22L2 + k4L3k2
2L2 → 0
Finally, a step function that detects whether the order parameter isnon-zero
Better approach, in the spirit of finite-entanglement scaling: Evaluate themoment polynomial using L ∝ correlation length
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 26 / 51
0.98 1 1.02λ
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Um
m=4m=5m=6m=7m=8m=9m=10m=11m=12
Transverse field Ising modelBinder cumulant, scale factor s=5
0.98 0.99 1 1.01 1.02λ
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7
M m=4m=8m=12
Order parameter
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 27 / 51
Scaling functions
Critical exponentsExponent relationν ξ ∝ |t|−νβ 〈M〉 ∝ (−t)β
α C ∝ |t|αγ χ ∝ |t|γ
Finite-size scaling functions
UL = U0(t L1/ν)〈M〉 = L−β/νM0(t L1/ν)
Finite-entanglement scaling functions
Um = U0(t mκ/ν)〈M〉 = m−βκ/νM0(t mκ/ν)
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 28 / 51
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
(λ−λc) m
κ/ν
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7U
m
m=4m=5m=6m=7m=8m=9m=10m=11m=12
Binder Cumulant scaling function collapse
Fixes κ/ν=2
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 29 / 51
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
(λ−λc)κ/ν
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
<m
>κ
β/ν
Magnetization scaling function below λc
fixes β=1/8
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 30 / 51
String parametersOrder parameters do not have to be local
Mott insulator string order parameter
O2P = lim
|j−i|→∞〈Πj
k=i(−1)nk〉
We can write this as a correlation function of ‘kink operators’,
pi = Πk<i (−1)nk
This turns the string order into a 2-point correlation function:
O2P = lim
|j−i|→∞〈 pi pj 〉
Or as an order parameter:P =
∑i
pi
Then O2p = 1
L2 〈P2〉
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 31 / 51
Real example: 3-leg Bose-Hubbard model with flux phase (F. Kolley, M. Piraud,IPM, U. Schollwoeck, F. Heidrich-Meisner, New J. Phys. 17 (2015) 092001)
For density n = 1/3 (one particle per rung), near flux φ ∼ π, there is atransition from a Mott to critical as a function of J⊥
P has a simple MPO representation
P =
(II (−1)n
)Hence we can calculate higher moments of P.
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 32 / 51
1 1.1 1.2 1.3Jperp
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Op
2
m=100m=150m=200m=300m=400m=500m=800
Bose-Hubbard LadderString order parameter
1 1.1 1.2 1.30.001
0.01
0.1
1
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 33 / 51
100 1000m
1
10
100
1000ξ
Jperp = 0.99
Jperp = 1.00
Jperp = 1.01
Jperp = 1.02
Jperp = 1.03
Jperp = 1.04
Jperp = 1.05
Jperp = 1.06
Jperp = 1.10
Jperp = 1.14
Jperp = 1.25
Bose=Hubbard LadderScaling of correlation length
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 34 / 51
0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08Jperp
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Uξ
m=200m=250m=300m=350m=400m=450m=500m=550m=600
Bose-Hubbard LadderString parameter Binder cumulant
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 35 / 51
Entanglement spectrum spectroscopy
Bipartite cut – reduced density matrix ρEntanglement Hamiltonian H = − ln ρReduced dimension – the entanglement Hamiltonian lives on theboundaryLabel states by global symmetries spin, transverse momentumDegeneracy structure provides information about symmetries
For SU(2) symmetry broken states:If the symmetry is allowed to break: bulk gapunbroken SU(2): Goldstone mode, separated band of excitations belowthe bulk gap
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 36 / 51
Symmetries
Infinite cylinder of circumference Ly
Map onto one-dimensional chain:
Global symmetries
Preserved in the MPS structure:internal symmetries, such asparticle number, spin, . . .
Broken by the real-space structure:spatial symmetries, such astranslation, reflection of thecylinder
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 37 / 51
density matrix as the eigenvector of the transfer operatorLeft eigenvectoridentity matrix
Right eigenvectordensity matrix
=ρ ρ
=
Symmetry-resolved density matrix
ρ ρ=’ ’
Eigenvalues of ρ′ are λieiθi
λi are the density matrix eigenvaluesθi is the corresponding symmetry angle up to a global phase
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 38 / 51
Allowed symmetries of the ES
Let U be a global symmetry of the wavefunction
U|ψ〉 = eiθ|ψ〉
What is the action of U on the reduced density matrix ρ?Bipartition:
|ψ〉 =∑
ab ψab |a〉 ⊗ |b〉U = UA ⊗ UB
Action on ρ is UAρU†A
UA is distinguishable only up to a global phaseUA is a projective representation of the symmetry
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 39 / 51
Projective representationsPhysical states are rays in Hilbert space
a|ψ〉, for a ∈ C represents the same physical state
Symmetry transformations that are ambiguous up to some scalar areprojective representationsAssuming a unitary representation, only the phase is unknown: a = eiθ.A projective representation is defined by:
UxUy = eiθ(x,y)Uxy
The function θ(x, y) defines the representationExample:
Z2 has no non-trivial (unitary) projective representationsZ2 × Z2 has has two projective representations
U2x = I
U2y = I
UxUy = ±UyUx
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 40 / 51
Triangular lattice – frustration
Frustrated lattice – suppress ordering
But ordering may be possibleGroundstate widely established as SU(2)-broken 120 order
Beyond nearest neighbor: H = J1∑〈i,j〉
~Si~Sj + J2∑〈〈i,j〉〉
~Si~Sj
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 41 / 51
Z2 spin liquid
The simplest spin liquid that doesn’t break time reversal symmetryElementary excitations are spinons with non-trivial braiding statistics(anyons)Four anyon types:
1 : vacuumb : bosonic spinon (electric charge e)v : vison (magnetic charge m)f : fermionic spinon (fermion ψ)
Fusion rules for combining excitations:b × b = 1v × v = 1f × f = 1b × v = fb × f = vv × f = b
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 42 / 51
Anyonic statistics
R matrix: counter-clockwise exchangeof particles
S matrix: intertwining two vacuumexcitations
Sab =1D
∑c
dc Tr(Rab
c Rbac
)Rbb
1 = Rvv1 = 1
Rff1 = (Rvb
f )2 = −1
In basis (1, b, v, f ):
S =12
1 1 1 11 1 −1 −11 −1 1 −11 −1 −1 1
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 43 / 51
Identifying the topologyGroundstate degeneracy on a torus
construct a vison or spinon that threads down the torusspinon flips between time-reversal symmetric andantisymmetric statesvison inserts −1 flux – antiperiodic boundary conditionsSymmetry fractionalization – these correspond toprojective symmetries
How to construct these fluxes?translationally invariant infinitesystem and manipulate theboundary conditions
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 44 / 51
Antiperiodic boundary conditions
Dihedral group symmetries around the cut:Ty – translation by one site around the cylinderRy – reflection about a site or bond
This forms the dihedral group D2×Ly
TLyy = R2
y = 1
RyTLy/2y R−1
y = TLy/2y
(a π rotation commutes with a reflection)
The dihedral group has a non-trivial projective representation:
TLyy = R2
y = 1
RyTyR−1y = −T−1
y
(a π rotation anti-commutes with a reflection)This is the subgroup of D2×2×Ly taking only the odd momenta (antiperiodic BC)
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 45 / 51
Antiperiodic boundary conditionsNariman Saadatmand, IPM, Phys. Rev. B 94, 121111 (2016)
We see two (nearly) degenerate statessmaller Ly: the groundstate has a 2-fold degenerate entanglementspectrumfor larger Ly, we obtained a non-degenerate entanglement spectrum
In the two-fold degenerate sector, we measure
〈RyTLy/2y R†yTL/2†
y 〉 = −0.9999970 · · ·
-5π/6 -3π/6 -π/6 π/6 3π/6 5π/6
k, momenta
0
2.5
5
7.5
10S=0S=1S=2
Ly = 6 entanglement spectrumIan McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 46 / 51
Detecting ordered phases
J20.105(5)
only for YC6: algebraic
0.140(5) 0.200(5)0.170(5)
topological spin liquids
columnar order columnar
order columnar
order 120° order
Using SU(2) symmetry the magnetic order parameter is identically zero.can we see signatures of symmetry breaking in higher moments of theorder parameter?Binder cumulant U4 = 1− 〈M4〉
3〈M2〉Cumulant expansion of the 4th moment:
〈M4〉L = κ41L4 + 6κ2κ
21L3 + (4κ1κ3 + 3κ2
2)L2 + κ4L
Symmetry implies all odd cumulants vanish
〈M4〉L = 3κ22L2 + κ4L
Need L length scale – use correlation length ξ from transfer matrixBinder ratio
BR =κ4
κ22ξ
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 47 / 51
Binder ratio – 120 order
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12J
2
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1B
inder
Rati
os o
f M
tri
m=800
m=900
m=1000
m=1200
SL v-sector
120° order
YC6
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 48 / 51
Binder ratio – staggered order
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2J
2
-40
-30
-20
-10
0B
ind
er R
atio
s o
f M
stag
m=1200m=1400m=1600m=1800m→∞
columnar order
SL b-sector
YC10
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 49 / 51
Binder ratio – staggered order YC6
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24J
2
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40B
ind
er R
atio
s o
f M
stag
m=800m=900m=1000m=1200m→∞
500 1000 1500 2000m
0
20
40
SL v-sectorstripedorder
algebraicSL
stripedorder
YC6
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 50 / 51
SummaryDownload the code: https://people.smp.uq.edu.au/IanMcCulloch/mptoolkit
finite entanglement scalinghigher momentsBinder cumulantscaling functionssymmetries of the entanglement spectrumBinder ratio for symmetric states
Ian McCulloch (UQ) iMPS 12/12/2016 51 / 51