Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

A minimal tensor network beyond free fermions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes an exact duality between a quartic Ising model and an interacting Majorana-fermion system, with the two partition functions equal for every system size, and argues that the resulting two-parameter phase diagram has…

desk verdict The exact tensor-network duality is solid; the advertised phase diagram is an NNNI analogy backed by unpublished numerics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04216 v2 pith:YP3AMGCM submitted 2024-12-05 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Carolin Wille , Maksimilian Usoltcev , Jens Eisert , Alexander Altland This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph MSC 82B2082B2682B27
keywords tensornetworkJordan-WignertransformationIsingmodelMajoranafermionsfreefermiondualityloopgasphasediagrammulticriticalpoint
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds a deliberately small two-parameter model in which a classical spin system and an interacting Majorana-fermion system are exactly dual to each other: with empty boundary conditions, the partition function of a quartic Ising model, whose nearest-neighbor coupling is set by $a$ and four-spin plaquette coupling by $b$, equals a Grassmann integral over Majorana fields with hopping $a$ and a four-fermion ring-exchange term $b$, for all system sizes. The interest is that a known free-fermion duality of the two-dimensional Ising model survives the addition of interactions, so the same tensor network can be read as a spin model, a fermionic system, and a loop gas. The paper then argues that the phase diagram in the $(a,b)$ plane contains three phases, ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and anti-ferromagnetic, separated by second-order lines that for strong $b$ become first-order, all meeting at a multicritical point, a structure claimed to be topologically equivalent to the next-nearest-neighbor Ising model. If right, the model gives a minimal reference system for studying non-linearities in tensor networks through duality.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Jordan-Wigner transformation, the standard mapping that trades spin variables for fermion operators, applied to a two-dimensional tensor network: each parity-preserving two-qubit gate is replaced by a fermionic tensor, index contractions become Grassmann integrals, and a consistent mode ordering eliminates sign factors, turning the spin partition function into a Grassmann integral. The specific two-parameter model sets the Gaussian part by the anti-symmetric matrix $A_{i,j}=a\,\mathrm{sgn}(j-i)$, giving hopping $a$ inside each four-Majorana unit cell, with unit-strength inter-cell hopping $C$, and adds a quartic term of strength $b$. The duality is carried through three equivalent pictures, a spin Ising model, a loop gas with string weight $a^{|l|}(1+b/a^2)^{n_c}$, and an interacting Majorana system, so that the crossing weight $c=1+b/a^2$ controls the deviation from the free-fermion condition $b=0$.

What would settle it

A direct large-scale numerical evaluation of the quartic Ising model, for instance by transfer-matrix or Monte Carlo methods, would settle the claim: if the second-order lines do not meet the first-order line at a single multicritical point, or if the transition at fixed small $a$ is not first-order at $b=1$, the inferred equivalence to the next-nearest-neighbor Ising model fails. A second check is to compute the central charge or critical exponents along the $b>0$ second-order lines and see whether they match the values implied by the claimed universality class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the partition sum $Z_{\rm spin}$ of the quartic Ising model with $J_2=-(1/2)\ln a$ and $J_4=-\ln(1+b/a^2)$ equals the partition sum $Z_{\rm fermion}$ of the Grassmann integral with action $S=-\frac12\theta^T(\oplus_x A+C)\theta-b\sum_x\theta_1\theta_2\theta_3\theta_4$, provided the tensor network is contracted with empty, all-zero boundary conditions and the fermionic mode ordering is chosen as in the construction. This identity follows from applying a Jordan-Wigner transformation to a planar tensor network of parity-preserving two-qubit gates, and it holds for every system size, not only asymptotically. From this equivalence the paper derives a qualitative phase diagram: the $b=0$ line reproduces the known Ising transitions at $a_\pm=\sqrt2\pm1$, weak non-linearities merely shift the mass term of the effective Haldane-Chern Hamiltonian, and comparison with the next-nearest-neighbor Ising model gives the three-phase structure with ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and anti-ferromagnetic phases, a first-order ferromagnetic-to-anti-ferromagnetic transition near $a\to0$, $b=1$, and a multicritical point where all three transition lines meet.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quartic Ising model and the next-nearest-neighbor Ising model stay in the same phase-transition class across the whole parameter plane, even though the paper only matches the two models at a few special points and says explicitly there is no one-to-one correspondence; the slopes of the transition lines in the phase diagram also rely on numerical studies that are not shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For empty boundary conditions, the quartic Ising and interacting Majorana partition functions coincide exactly for all lattice sizes, so results on either side transfer directly to the other.
  • The free-fermion matchgate limit is exactly the $b=0$ line, and the paper's scaling analysis implies that weak quartic couplings only renormalize the mass of the effective Haldane-Chern Hamiltonian, so all three phases survive small $b$.
  • For strong $b$, the phase diagram inherits the next-nearest-neighbor Ising topology: a first-order transition separates the ferromagnetic and anti-ferromagnetic phases, and a multicritical point joins the three transition lines.
  • The same tensor network can be read as a parity-preserving non-unitary quantum circuit, connecting the duality results to questions of classical simulatability of quantum circuits.
  • The loop-gas picture gives exact weights $a^{|l|}c^{n_c}$, making the model a minimal vertex model whose free-fermion condition is simply $b=0$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the multicritical point is confirmed by direct numerics, this model would be one of the simplest statistical-mechanics settings in which a tricritical point is tied to fermionic band topology.
  • The exact partition-function identity suggests a concrete finite-size test: contracting the tensor network for small lattices with $b\neq0$ should yield the same number in the spin and Grassmann formulations, and an efficient approximate contraction could probe whether the first-order line bends or terminates away from $a=0$.
  • The same construction with other matrices $A$ or with non-empty boundary conditions would produce a family of beyond-free dualities; the sign factors noted for non-empty boundaries may themselves encode boundary topological data.
  • Because the model is a parity-preserving circuit, the duality may provide a route to certified classical simulation of non-matchgate circuits at small $b$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a two-parameter tensor network built from parity-preserving two-qubit gates and uses a Jordan-Wigner transformation to establish an exact equality between its contracted ('empty' boundary) value and a Grassmann integral. In the spin picture the same object is interpreted as a classical quartic Ising (QI) model with nearest-neighbor coupling J2=-(1/2)ln a and four-spin coupling J4=-ln(1+b/a^2); in the fermionic picture it is a Majorana action with hopping a, unit inter-cell coupling, and a four-fermion term of strength b. The authors argue that for b=0 the model reduces to the free-fermion/Ising case, that weak b is irrelevant near the free critical points, and that the full (a,b) phase diagram contains ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and antiferromagnetic phases separated by second-order lines that, for small a and large b, terminate in a first-order line and a multicritical point. The qualitative phase diagram is proposed by analogy with the NNNI model, and the slopes of the transition lines are said to follow from preliminary numerical studies in a companion paper.

Significance. If the central identity is correct, the paper supplies a genuinely minimal and checkable bridge between a classical spin model, a loop gas, a non-unitary parity-preserving circuit, and an interacting Majorana system, extending the known matchgate/free-fermion duality. The explicit tensor parametrization, the exact free-fermion limit, the closed-form loop weights in Eq. (10), and the scaling argument in Sec. 2.1 are concrete strengths that make the construction reproducible and testable. The limitation is that the headline phase diagram, including the first-order F-AF line and the multicritical point, is not derived for the QI model itself but is inferred from the NNNI model and from unpublished numerics; this is the main barrier to accepting the paper's strongest claims as established results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Table 1] The first-order transition between the 'empty' (F) and 'full' (AF) phases is located by mapping the NNNI beta=0 limit to the QI limit b=a^2, a=0. At exactly a=0 the QI partition function reduces to Z=2+2 b^{L^2}, which indeed gives a first-order transition at b=1, but for any finite a>0 the argument does not apply because the mapping to NNNI is only a limiting correspondence and the paper explicitly states that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two models. Consequently the first-order character of the F-AF line, and its termination at a multicritical point, is not established for the QI model. Please provide a direct derivation or explicit numerical evidence for the first-order nature away from a=0.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The existence and location of the multicritical point are inferred by matching the NNNI decoupling point alpha=1, beta=beta_c to approximate QI parameters, and the topology of the RG flow is fixed 'under the assumption that the multicritical point is completely unstable'. This is an assumption rather than a result for the QI model. Because the multicritical point is a central new feature of Fig. 2, the paper should either prove its existence (for example by an exact analysis of a suitable limit or by a controlled numerical determination) or clearly label it as conjectural.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Sec. 3.2] The slopes of the transition lines in Fig. 2 are attributed to 'preliminary numerical studies' in Ref. [34], which is listed as in preparation. Since the phase diagram is the paper's main new claim, the supporting numerical data should be presented in the manuscript or the relevant curves should be described as conjectural. As written, a reader cannot verify the shape of the phase diagram beyond the b=0 axis and the a=0, b=1 point.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 3] The abstract calls the meeting point a 'tricritical point' while the body consistently uses 'multicritical point'; please make the terminology consistent and define precisely what is meant by the term in this context.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The identity Z_spin = Z_fermion is stated before the tensor-network construction is introduced; the normalization, the role of beta=1, and the 'empty boundary' condition are only explained later. A sentence referring forward to Sec. 2 and to the sign convention for the i in H_fermion would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, after Eq. (7)] The sentence 'H+ is not adiabatically connected to H-' is confusing because H_+ and H_- are two-band approximations around different gap-closing points; please clarify whether the statement refers to the full four-band Hamiltonian and its Chern numbers.
  4. [Eq. (10)] The relation between the crossing weight c=1+b/a^2 and the four-spin coupling J4=-ln(1+b/a^2) in Eq. (1) is stated without derivation; a short explanation of how the vertex weights map to the Ising couplings would be helpful.
  5. [Fig. 2] The phase diagram has no axis labels or parameter ticks; adding them would make the comparison with the analytic limits (a_±, b=1, and the estimated multicritical region) much easier for the reader.
  6. [References] Ref. [39] contains a likely typographical error in the author name ('Strelchuck'); please check the spelling against the published record.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-fermion identity is an explicit Jordan-Wigner construction, and the NNNI-based phase diagram is an openly labeled analogy, not a fit or self-citation reduction.

full rationale

The central claim Z_spin = Z_fermion for empty boundary conditions is not circular. The paper constructs a parity-preserving tensor network and maps it to a Grassmann integral by an explicit Jordan-Wigner assignment (Sec. 2, Eq. (5)); the spin Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is defined by the same tensor weights, but the equality is a derived statement about the two representations, not an input. The reliance on Ref. [16] for mode-ordering assignments is a citation to a published, parameter-free construction with stated assumptions; it does not assume the present identity and is checkable independently, so under the review rules it counts as real evidence rather than a self-citation cycle. The phase diagram in Sec. 3 is the only potentially load-bearing step: the first-order F-AF line and multicritical point are transferred from the NNNI model, with the paper explicitly stating there is no one-to-one correspondence and that line slopes come from unreported preliminary numerics [34]. That is an unsupported analogy and an evidence gap, but it is not circularity: the NNNI result is external, the matched limits are genuine limiting checks, and no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted. Similarly, the weak-b stability argument uses standard power counting and a mass-shift calculation; it does not reduce to the phase diagram it is used to explain. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has two tunable couplings a and b, but these are scanned, not fitted, so they are not free parameters in the fitting sense. The main unproved inputs are the sign-free JW contraction (from prior work), the free-fermion condition of vertex models, the NNNI phase diagram used as a benchmark, and the assumption that the multicritical point is fully unstable.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A sign-free Jordan-Wigner contraction exists for the planar parity-preserving tensor network with empty boundary conditions.
    Sec. 2 (after Eq. 5) asserts Z_b = Z_f; the construction is attributed to the authors' earlier work Ref. [16] and not re-derived here.
  • standard math The vertex model free-fermion condition omega1*omega2 + omega3*omega4 = omega5*omega6 + omega7*omega8 is satisfied iff b=0.
    Sec. 2.2 uses the Fan-Wu condition (Refs. [31,32]) to identify b as the nonlinearity parameter.
  • domain assumption The NNNI model phase diagram is known: first-order F-AF transition at alpha=1 in the beta=0 limit and a multicritical point at alpha=1, beta=sqrt(2)-1.
    Sec. 3.2 uses these known results to locate the QI first-order line at b=1 and to estimate the multicritical point.
  • domain assumption The quartic term is irrelevant at weak coupling and the multicritical point is completely unstable.
    Sec. 2.1 gives a scaling argument for irrelevance; Sec. 3.2 states the instability assumption to fix the topology of the RG flow.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A minimal tensor network beyond free fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YP3AMGCM

@misc{pith2026241204216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A minimal tensor network beyond free fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YP3AMGCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04216}
}
read the original abstract

This work proposes a minimal model extending the duality between classical statistical spin systems and fermionic systems beyond the case of free fermions. A Jordan-Wigner transformation applied to a two-dimensional tensor network maps the partition sum of a classical statistical mechanics model to a Grassmann variable integral, structurally similar to the path integral for interacting fermions in two dimensions. The resulting model is simple, featuring only two parameters: one governing spin-spin interaction (dual to effective hopping strength in the fermionic picture), the other measuring the deviation from the free fermion limit. Nevertheless, it exhibits a rich phase diagram, partially stabilized by elements of topology, and featuring three phases meeting at a tricritical point. Besides the interpretation as a spin and fermionic system, the model is closely related to loop gas and vertex models and can be interpreted as a parity-preserving (non-unitary) circuit. Its minimal construction makes it an ideal reference system for studying non-linearities in tensor networks and deriving results by means of duality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The model in its spin (left) and fermionic (right) version. Left: Classical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase diagram (qualitative). Solid (dashed) lines mark second (first) order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mapping a planar TN of 2-qubit parity preseving gates to a fermionic Gaus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Band structure of the (four-band) pseudo-Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Weights of the vertex model (using established nomenclature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Partition sum of the QI model (left) and the NNNI model (right) in TN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Wille, J

    C. Wille, J. Eisert and A. Altland, Topological dualities via tensor networks , Phys. Rev. Research 6, 013302 (2024), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevResearch.6.013302

    work page 2024

  2. [34]

    Usoltcev, C

    M. Usoltcev, C. Wille and A. Altland, et. al., In preparation (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    Jordan and E

    P . Jordan and E. P . Wigner,Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot, pp. 109–129, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, doi:10.1007 /978-3-662-02781-3_9 (1993). 13 SciPost Physics Submission

    work page 1993

  4. [2]

    Onsager, Crystal statistics

    L. Onsager, Crystal statistics. I. A two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition, Phys. Rev. 65, 117 (1944), doi:10.1103 /PhysRev.65.117

    work page 1944

  5. [3]

    J. A. Blackman, Two-dimensional frustrated Ising network as an eigenvalue problem, Phys. Rev. B 26, 4987 (1982), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.26.4987

    work page 1982

  6. [4]

    J. A. Blackman and J. Poulter, Gauge-invariant method for the± spin-glass model, Phys. Rev. B 44, 4374 (1991), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.44.4374

    work page 1991

  7. [5]

    J. A. Blackman, J. R. Gonçalves and J. Poulter,Properties of the two-dimensional random- bond Ising spin glass, Phys. Rev. E 58, 1502 (1998), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevE.58.1502

    work page 1998

  8. [6]

    F . A. Berezin, The plane Ising model , Russ. Math. Surv. 24, 1 (1969), doi:10.1070/RM1969v024n03ABEH001346

    work page doi:10.1070/rm1969v024n03abeh001346 1969

Show all 58 references
  1. [7]

    V . N. Plechko, Th. Math. Phys.64, 748–756 (1985), doi:10.1007 /BF01017042

    1985

  2. [8]

    V . S. Dotsenko and V . S. Dotsenko,Critical behaviour of the phase transition in the 2D Ising model with impurities, Adv. Phys. 32, 129 (1983), doi:10.1080 /00018738300101541

    1983

  3. [9]

    Merz and J

    F . Merz and J. T . Chalker,Two-dimensional random-bond Ising model, free fermions, and the network model, Phys. Rev. B 65, 054425 (2002), doi:10.1103 /physrevb.65.054425

    2002

  4. [10]

    Castelnovo and C

    C. Castelnovo and C. Chamon, Quantum topological phase transition at the microscopic level, Phys. Rev. B 77, 054433 (2008), doi:10.1103 /physrevb.77.054433

    2008

  5. [11]

    Zhu and G.-M

    G.-Y. Zhu and G.-M. Zhang, Gapless coulomb state emerging from a self- dual topological tensor-network state , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 176401 (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.176401

    2019 doi

  6. [12]

    Aasen, R

    D. Aasen, R. S. K. Mong and P . Fendley ,Topological defects on the lattice: I. the ising model, J. Phys. A 49(35), 354001 (2016), doi:10.1088 /1751-8113/49/35/354001

    2016

  7. [13]

    Aasen, P

    D. Aasen, P . Fendley and R. S. K. Mong, Topological defects on the lattice: Dualities and degeneracies (2020), 2008.08598

    2020 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Lootens, C

    L. Lootens, C. Delcamp and F . Verstraete, Dualities in one-dimensional quantum lattice models: topological sectors (2022), 2211.03777

    2022 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Lootens, C

    L. Lootens, C. Delcamp, G. Ortiz and F . Verstraete,Dualities in One-dimensional quantum lattice models: Symmetric Hamiltonians and matrix product operator intertwiners , PRX Quantum 4, 020357 (2023), doi:10.1103 /PRXQuantum.4.020357

    2023

  10. [17]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4916(02)00018-0

    2003 doi

  11. [18]

    S. Ryu, A. P . Schnyder, A. Furusaki and A. W . W . Ludwig, Topological insulators and superconductors: tenfold way and dimensional hierarchy, New J. Phys.12, 065010 (2010), doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065010

    2010 doi

  12. [19]

    J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch and F . Verstraete, Matrix product states and pro- jected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.93.045003. 14 SciPost Physics Submission

    2021

  13. [20]

    J. C. Bridgeman and C. T . Chubb, Hand-waving and interpretive dance: An introduc- tory course on tensor networks , J. Phys. A 50, 223001 (2017), doi:10.1088 /1751- 8121/aa6dc3

    2017

  14. [21]

    Verstraete, J

    F . Verstraete, J. I. Cirac and V . Murg,Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems, Adv. Phys. 57, 143 (2008), doi:10.1080 /14789940801912366

    2008

  15. [22]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer and M. B. Plenio, Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.82.277

    2010

  16. [23]

    L. G. Valiant, Quantum circuits that can be simulated classically in polynomial time, SIAM J. Comp. 31, 1229 (2002), doi:10.1137 /S0097539700377025

    2002

  17. [24]

    Bravyi, Contraction of matchgate tensor networks on non-planar graphs , Adv

    S. Bravyi, Contraction of matchgate tensor networks on non-planar graphs , Adv. Quant. Comp. 482, 179 (2009), doi:10.1090 /conm/482/09419

    2009

  18. [25]

    A. Jahn, M. Gluza, F . Pastawski and J. Eisert, Holography and criticality in matchgate tensor networks, Science Adv. 5, eaaw0092 (2019), doi:10.1126 /sciadv.aaw0092

    2019

  19. [26]

    H. J. W . Zandvliet, Phase diagram of the square 2d ising lattice with near- est neighbor and next-nearest neighbor interactions , Phase Transitions 96, 187 (2023), doi:10.1080 /01411594.2022.2162897, https: //doi.org/10.1080/01411594. 2022.2162897

    2023

  20. [27]

    J. M. J. van Leeuwen, Singularities in the critical surface and universality for ising-like spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1056 (1975), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.34.1056

    1975

  21. [28]

    Domb and R

    C. Domb and R. B. Potts, Order-disorder statistics. IV . A two-dimensional model with first and second interactions , Proc. Roy . Soc. Lond. Ser. A 210, 125 (1951), doi:10.1098/rspa.1951.0235

    1951

  22. [29]

    M. E. Fisher and W . Selke,Infinitely many commensurate phases in a simple Ising model , Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1502 (1980), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.44.1502

    1980

  23. [30]

    Selke,The annni model — theoretical analysis and experimental application, Phys

    W . Selke,The annni model — theoretical analysis and experimental application, Phys. Rep. 170, 213 (1988), doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(88)90140-8

    1988 doi

  24. [31]

    Maillard and C.-M

    J.-M. Maillard and C.-M. Viallet, A comment on free-fermion conditions for lat- tice models in two and more dimensions , Phys. Lett. B 381, 269 (1996), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00580-1

    1996 doi

  25. [32]

    Fan and F

    C. Fan and F . Y. Wu,General lattice model of phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B2, 723 (1970), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.2.723

    1970 doi

  26. [33]

    R. J. Baxter, Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics , doi:10.1142/9789814415255_0002 (1982)

    1982 doi

  27. [35]

    Corboz and G

    P . Corboz and G. Vidal,Fermionic multiscale entanglement renormalization ansatz, Phys. Rev. B 80, 165129 (2009), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.80.165129

    2009

  28. [36]

    Barthel, C

    T . Barthel, C. Pineda and J. Eisert, Contraction of fermionic operator circuits and the simulation of strongly correlated fermions , Phys. Rev. A 80, 042333 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.042333. 15 SciPost Physics Submission

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    Corboz, G

    P . Corboz, G. Evenbly , F . Verstraete and G. Vidal, Simulation of interacting fermions with entanglement renormalization , Phys. Rev. A 81, 010303 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.010303

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    Mortier, L

    Q. Mortier, L. Devos, L. Burgelman, B. Vanhecke, N. Bultinck, F . Verstraete, J. Haegeman and L. Vanderstraeten, Fermionic tensor network methods (2024), 2404.14611

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wille and S

    C. Wille and S. Strelchuck, Classical simulation of parity preserving circuits (in prepara- tion) (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Z.-C. Gu, F . Verstraete and X.-G. Wen,Grassmann tensor network states and its renormal- ization for strongly correlated fermionic and bosonic states (2010), 1004.2563

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bultinck, D

    N. Bultinck, D. J. Williamson, J. Haegeman and F . Verstraete, Fermionic pro- jected entangled-pair states and topological phases , J. Phys. A 51, 025202 (2017), doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa99cc

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    C. V . Kraus, N. Schuch, F . Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Fermionic projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052338 (2010), doi:10.1103 /physreva.81.052338

    2010

  35. [43]

    Corboz, R

    P . Corboz, R. Orus, B. Bauer and G. Vidal,Simulation of strongly correlated fermions in two spatial dimensions with fermionic projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B81, 165104 (2010), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.81.165104

    2010

  36. [44]

    Wille, O

    C. Wille, O. Buerschaper and J. Eisert, Fermionic topological quantum states as tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 95, 245127 (2017), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.95.245127

    2017

  37. [45]

    Pižorn and F

    I. Pižorn and F . Verstraete, Fermionic implementation of projected entangled pair states algorithm, Phys. Rev. B 81, 245110 (2010), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevB.81.245110

    2010

  38. [46]

    Verstraete and J

    F . Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Mapping local Hamiltonians of fermions to local Hamil- tonians of spins , Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2005(09), P09012–P09012 (2005), doi:10.1088 /1742-5468/2005/09/p09012

    2005

  39. [47]

    O’Brien, L

    O. O’Brien, L. Lootens and F . Verstraete,Local Jordan-Wigner transformations on the torus (2024), 2404.07727

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Altland and B

    A. Altland and B. Simons, Condensed Matter Field Theory, Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511789984 (2023)

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    H. N. V . Temperley ,On the asymptotic behaviour of the mayer cluster series in the antiferro- magnetic problem, Proc. Phys. Soc. 74, 432 (1959), doi:10.1088/0370-1328/74/4/307

    1959 doi

  42. [50]

    F . Y. Wu, Eight-vertex model on the honeycomb lattice , J. Math. Phys. 15, 687 (1974), doi:10.1063/1.1666712, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/15/6/687/ 19077014/687_1_online.pdf

    1974 doi

  43. [51]

    Šamaj and M

    L. Šamaj and M. Kolesík, Mapping of the symmetric vertex model onto the ising model for an arbitrary lattice coordination , Physica A 182, 455 (1992), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4371(92)90354-S

    1992 doi

  44. [52]

    H. A. Kramers and G. H. Wannier, Statistics of the two-dimensional ferromagnet. Part I , Phys. Rev. 60, 252 (1941), doi:10.1103 /PhysRev.60.252

    1941

  45. [53]

    J. B. Kogut, An introduction to lattice gauge theory and spin systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 659 (1979), doi:10.1103 /RevModPhys.51.659. 16 SciPost Physics Submission

    1979

  46. [54]

    Abouie and M

    J. Abouie and M. H. Zarei, Partially topological phase in a quantum loop gas model with tension and pressure, Phys. Rev. B 108 (2023), doi:10.1103 /physrevb.108.165133

    2023

  47. [55]

    Phani, J

    M. Phani, J. Lebowitz and M. Kalos, Monte Carlo studies of an fcc Ising antiferromag- net with nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor interactions , Phys. Rev. B 21, 4027 (1980), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.21.4027

    1980 doi

  48. [56]

    Haferkamp, C

    J. Haferkamp, C. Bertoni, I. Roth and J. Eisert, Emergent statistical mechanics from prop- erties of disordered random matrix product states , PRX Quantum 2, 040308 (2021), doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.040308

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Hayden, S

    P . Hayden, S. Nezami, X.-L. Qi, N. Thomas, M. Walter and Z. Yang, Holographic duality from random tensor networks, JHEP 2016, 9 (2016), doi:10.1007 /JHEP11(2016)009

    2016

  50. [58]

    C. W . M. Usoltcev, J. Eisert, A. Jahn and A. Altland,In preparation (2025). 17

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.