Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 58 references

Energy Bunching from Sub-Cycle Ionization Injection in Laser Wakefield Acceleration

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Carrier-envelope phase imprints evenly spaced energy combs on laser-accelerated electron beams.

desk verdict The submission is a different paper: the abstract describes laser-plasma experiments, the full text is tensor networks, so the claimed result is entirely unsupported in this artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10829 v1 pith:KYK5GXBW submitted 2025-08-14 physics.plasm-ph physics.acc-ph

A. Angella , E. Löfquist , C. Gustafsson , V. Poulain , F. D'Souza , C. Guo , A. Persson , P. Eng-Johnsson
show 2 more authors
C.-G. Wahlström O. Lundh
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.acc-ph
keywords laserwakefieldaccelerationcarrier-envelopephaseionizationinjectionfew-cycleelectronenergyspectrabunchingattosecondcontrolplasma
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

The paper reports what it calls the first experimental observation of carrier-envelope phase-driven energy bunching in laser wakefield acceleration. Using a few-cycle (about 9 fs), multi-terawatt laser pulse with ionization injection in a helium-nitrogen mixture, the authors observe electron energy spectra made of multiple narrow quasi-monoenergetic peaks with regular spacing. They attribute this comb structure to intermittent injection from successive half-cycles of the laser field, made possible by the carrier-envelope phase evolving as the pulse propagates through the plasma. If correct, this establishes sub-cycle ionization injection as a route to synchronizing injection and beam structuring with the optical waveform on sub-femtosecond timescales.

What carries the argument

Sub-cycle ionization injection gated by the evolving carrier-envelope phase of a few-cycle laser pulse. The carrier-envelope phase sets the offset between the electric-field oscillations and the pulse envelope; as it changes during propagation in the plasma, ionization injection becomes intermittent on the half-cycle scale, converting the temporal periodicity of the laser field into a periodic energy structure in the accelerated electron beam.

What would settle it

Record the electron energy spectrum on individual shots and compare with the average spectrum. If the comb-like peaks appear only after averaging spectra that individually show a single broad peak with fluctuating mean energy, the bunching is not a carrier-envelope phase effect. Alternatively, vary the initial carrier-envelope phase of the few-cycle pulse; if the peak pattern is unchanged, the evolving phase is not the controlling mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the carrier-envelope phase of a few-cycle laser pulse acts as a sub-cycle gate for ionization injection in a laser wakefield accelerator. As the pulse propagates through a helium-nitrogen plasma, its carrier-envelope phase evolves, so successive half-cycles of the electric field reach the ionization threshold at different times relative to the wakefield. Each half-cycle injects a small bunch of electrons at a distinct phase of the wake, and after acceleration these bunches appear as a comb of quasi-monoenergetic peaks in the measured energy spectrum. The regular narrow spacing of the peaks is presented as the signature of this intermittent sub-cycle injection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the regular comb-like energy spacing is a genuine feature of single-shot electron spectra caused by sub-cycle ionization injection, and not an artifact of shot-to-shot energy jitter, spectrometer response, or alternative injection/dephasing dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Comb-structured electron spectra could serve as an in-situ diagnostic of carrier-envelope phase evolution inside the plasma.
  • The spacing between energy peaks may be tunable through gas mixture, density, and laser parameters, enabling shaped multi-bunch electron beams.
  • Sub-cycle injection timing opens a path to attosecond-scale synchronization of plasma-accelerated beams with the driving optical waveform.
  • The mechanism may generalize to other few-cycle, ionization-injected plasma accelerator configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the comb spacing tracks the carrier-envelope phase slip rate, comparing spectra across plasma densities could yield a direct, in-situ measurement of that slip rate inside the plasma—something usually measured only outside.
  • A natural check on the claim is to compare single-shot spectra with shot-averaged spectra: if the regular peaks appear only after averaging many shots with varying mean energies, the bunching would be shot-to-shot jitter rather than carrier-envelope phase-driven injection.
  • The manuscript body paired with this abstract in the provided record is on an unrelated topic, so the experimental spectra, diagnostics, and reference support for the central claim are not present; a reader cannot verify the observation from this artifact.
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 / 1 minor

Summary. The submission consists of an abstract reporting the first experimental observation of carrier-envelope phase-driven energy bunching in laser wakefield acceleration, together with a full text that is an unrelated condensed-matter paper (arXiv:2508.10822, on gauge fixing in projected entangled-pair states). The abstract claims multi-quasi-monoenergetic peak structures in electron spectra from a few-cycle, multi-terawatt laser with ionization injection in a helium-nitrogen mixture, and attributes the comb structure to intermittent injection from successive half-cycles enabled by evolving carrier-envelope phase during plasma propagation. No methods, experimental setup, data, spectra, simulations, or analysis supporting these claims appear anywhere in the supplied artifact.

Significance. If the abstract's claims were substantiated, this would be a notable experimental result: it would demonstrate sub-femtosecond, waveform-synchronized injection and energy structuring in a plasma accelerator, with direct relevance to attosecond-scale control of electron beams. However, as submitted, the manuscript provides no evidence whatsoever for the claimed observation or mechanism. The supplied full text is a different paper with no topical overlap, so none of the abstract's load-bearing premises can be checked: the existence of the multi-peak spectra, their single-shot nature, the distinction from diagnostic or shot-to-shot artifacts, the controllability of the carrier-envelope phase in plasma, or the causal attribution of the comb spacing to half-cycle injection. The unrelated full text does contain statements about open data and code, but those pertain to the tensor-network paper and cannot be credited to this submission.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The central experimental claim—electron spectra composed of multiple quasi-monoenergetic peaks with regular narrow energy spacing, observed with a ~9 fs multi-terawatt laser and ionization injection in a He-N2 mixture—is stated without any supporting data. No spectra are shown, no electron spectrometer resolution or calibration is described, no single-shot versus averaged data are compared, and no shot-to-shot statistics are provided. Without this information, the reported comb structure cannot be distinguished from spectrometer binning, detector response, or shot-to-shot energy jitter. This is the primary observation on which the entire paper rests, so the omission is load-bearing.
  2. [Abstract, mechanism] The attribution of the comb structure to intermittent injection from successive half-cycles, enabled by an evolving carrier-envelope phase during propagation in plasma, is an interpretation with no supporting derivation, simulation, or phase measurement. The artifact gives no plasma density, mixture ratio, laser pulse parameters beyond nominal duration and power, propagation model, or injection model. No equation, parameter scan, or control experiment is presented to connect the evolving carrier-envelope phase to the observed spacing. The causal mechanism is therefore entirely unverifiable from the submitted material.
  3. [Full text (arXiv:2508.10822)] The supplied full text is 'Gauging the variational optimization of projected entangled-pair states,' a condensed-matter theory paper with no overlap with the abstract in topic, methods, diagnostics, or references. It contains no material on laser wakefield acceleration, carrier-envelope phase, ionization injection, or electron spectroscopy. Under the reviewing rule that all supplied text is in-scope evidence, this represents an explicit absence of support for every assertion in the abstract. The manuscript as submitted cannot be assessed for internal consistency because there is no relevant physics argument to audit.
minor comments (1)
  1. [General] Because the supplied full text is a different paper, the usual presentation checks—figure clarity, notation, references, and supporting appendices—cannot be meaningfully applied to the claimed plasma-acceleration work. This issue is subsumed by the major comments above.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No derivation to audit: the abstract's CEP-driven comb claim has no supporting text in the artifact (the supplied full text is an unrelated tensor-network paper), so no circular reduction can be exhibited; the defect is missing support, not circularity.

  1. other [Abstract (no supporting sections present; supplied Full Text is arXiv:2508.10822, 'Gauging the variational optimization of projected entangled-pair states')]
    "We report the first experimental observation of carrier-envelope phase-driven energy bunching in laser wakefield acceleration. ... This comb structure arises from intermittent injection from successive half-cycles of the laser field, enabled by the evolving carrier-envelope phase during propagation in the plasma."

    Flagged under the reviewing rule as missing support, not as demonstrated circularity. The artifact contains no methods, diagnostics, spectra, shot statistics, error analysis, or CEP-propagation model: the full text is an unrelated PEPS paper with no topical or authorial overlap. The load-bearing premises (single-shot comb spectra vs. jitter/binning artifacts; half-cycle injection attribution; controlled measurable CEP evolution) are asserted only in the abstract and cannot be checked in-scope. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation exists to compare, so no circular reduction can be exhibited; this defect therefore leaves the circularity score low.

full rationale

The artifact under review consists of an abstract claiming the first experimental observation of carrier-envelope phase-driven energy bunching in laser wakefield acceleration, followed by a full text that is a different paper (arXiv:2508.10822, on gauge fixing in projected entangled-pair states). There is no derivation chain in the artifact to walk: no experimental section, no data, no model of CEP evolution, and no equations linking the alleged comb spectra to half-cycle ionization injection. None of the circularity patterns (self-definitional reductions, fitted inputs called predictions, load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, ansatz-smuggling citations, renaming of known results) can be exhibited because the required content is absent. The abstract's mechanism attribution is an unsupported assertion, which is a verifiability/completeness problem rather than a circularity problem. Per the reviewing rule, the missing support is explicitly flagged as a step of kind 'other' and weighed: it does not raise the circularity score. There are also no self-citations (the PEPS full text shares no authors with the abstract), so there is no self-citation load-bearing issue. Honest finding: no significant circularity on the present record; score 1 reflects the absence of any detectable circular reduction while noting that the central claim cannot be audited from this artifact. If the correct supporting text were supplied, the analysis would need to be redone.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim, taken from the abstract, depends on experimental settings (gas mixture, plasma density, pulse parameters) that are only partially stated, and on three interpretive premises (ionization injection dominates; carrier-envelope phase evolution is the causal variable; spectral peaks map to bunches). Because the artifact contains no data and no derivation, there are no fitted parameters to audit in the usual sense; the ledger records the unquantified experimental inputs and domain assumptions that a full review would need to verify.

free parameters (3)
  • carrier-envelope phase evolution during propagation
    The abstract's mechanism requires a phase that evolves during propagation and determines injection timing; no value, model, or measurement is given anywhere in the artifact.
  • helium-nitrogen mixture composition / plasma density
    Stated only as a 'helium-nitrogen gas mixture'; the nitrogen fraction and resulting plasma density, which set the ionization injection condition, are absent from the artifact.
  • laser pulse duration and energy = ~9 fs, multi-TW (energy not given)
    Reported as experimental settings in the abstract; no shot-to-shot characterization, stability, or focusing geometry is provided.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ionization injection is the operative injection mechanism in the helium-nitrogen mixture
    The abstract frames the result entirely in terms of ionization injection without discussing competing mechanisms such as self-injection or density-gradient injection.
  • domain assumption The few-cycle pulse maintains a meaningful, evolving carrier-envelope phase during plasma propagation
    The attribution of the comb structure to half-cycle injection depends on this; no propagation model or phase measurement is supplied in the artifact.
  • domain assumption Measured spectral peaks correspond one-to-one to distinct injected bunches
    Interpreting multiple quasi-monoenergetic peaks as separate injection events assumes spectral structure maps directly to electron bunch structure, with no diagnostic artifacts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy Bunching from Sub-Cycle Ionization Injection in Laser Wakefield Acceleration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYK5GXBW

@misc{pith2026250810829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy Bunching from Sub-Cycle Ionization Injection in Laser Wakefield Acceleration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYK5GXBW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10829}
}
read the original abstract

We report the first experimental observation of carrier-envelope phase-driven energy bunching in laser wakefield acceleration. Using a few-cycle (~9 fs), multi-terawatt laser pulse and ionization injection in a helium-nitrogen gas mixture, we observe electron spectra composed of multiple quasi-monoenergetic peaks with regular narrow energy spacing. This comb structure arises from intermittent injection from successive half-cycles of the laser field, enabled by the evolving carrier-envelope phase during propagation in the plasma. These findings establish sub-cycle ionization injection as a potential route to attosecond control in plasma acceleration, enabling injection and beam structuring synchronized to the optical waveform on sub-femtosecond timescales.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Ma- trix product states and projected entangled pair states: Con- cepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renormalization (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    T. Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renormalization (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 (2004)

    arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    R. J. Baxter, Dimers on a rectangular lattice, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 9, 650 (1968)

    work page 1968

  5. [5]

    Nishino and K

    T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, Corner transfer matrix renormal- ization group method, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 65, 891 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    Orús and G

    R. Orús and G. Vidal, Simulation of two-dimensional quantum systems on an infinite lattice revisited: Corner transfer matrix for tensor contraction, Phys. Rev. B 80, 094403 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Corboz, T

    P. Corboz, T. M. Rice, and M. Troyer, Competing states in the t- j model: Uniform d-wave state versus stripe state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 046402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Jordan, R

    J. Jordan, R. Orús, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Clas- sical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Haegeman and F

    J. Haegeman and F. Verstraete, Diagonalizing transfer matri- ces and matrix product operators: A medley of exact and com- putational methods, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 8, 355 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    M. T. Fishman, L. Vanderstraeten, V . Zauner-Stauber, J. Haege- man, and F. Verstraete, Faster methods for contracting infi- nite two-dimensional tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B98, 235148 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Nietner, B

    A. Nietner, B. Vanhecke, F. Verstraete, J. Eisert, and L. Vander- straeten, E fficient variational contraction of two-dimensional tensor networks with a non-trivial unit cell, Quantum 4, 328 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Vanderstraeten, L

    L. Vanderstraeten, L. Burgelman, B. Ponsioen, M. Van Damme, B. Vanhecke, P. Corboz, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Vari- ational methods for contracting projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 105, 195140 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    H. C. Jiang, Z. Y . Weng, and T. Xiang, Accurate determina- tion of tensor network state of quantum lattice models in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 090603 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    H. N. Phien, J. A. Bengua, H. D. Tuan, P. Corboz, and R. Orús, Infinite projected entangled pair states algorithm improved: Fast full update and gauge fixing, Phys. Rev. B 92, 035142 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys

    P. Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035133 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Vanderstraeten, J

    L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, P. Corboz, and F. Verstraete, Gradient methods for variational optimization of projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155123 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Liao, J.-G

    H.-J. Liao, J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Differentiable pro- gramming tensor networks, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031041 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Naumann, E

    J. Naumann, E. L. Weerda, M. Rizzi, J. Eisert, and P. Schmoll, An introduction to infinite projected entangled-pair state meth- ods for variational ground state simulations using automatic dif- ferentiation, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 86 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    M. M. Rams, G. Wójtowicz, A. Sinha, and J. Hasik, Y ASTN: Yet another symmetric tensor networks; A Python library for Abelian symmetric tensor network calculations, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 52 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Brehmer, L

    P. Brehmer, L. Burgelman, Z. Yue, and L. Devos, PEPSKit.jl (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Zhang, S

    X.-Y . Zhang, S. Liang, H.-J. Liao, W. Li, and L. Wang, Dif- ferentiable programming tensor networks for kitaev magnets, Phys. Rev. B 108, 085103 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Hasik, D

    J. Hasik, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Investigation of the Néel phase of the frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet by differen- tiable symmetric tensor networks, SciPost Phys.10, 012 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hasik, M

    J. Hasik, M. Van Damme, D. Poilblanc, and L. Vanderstraeten, Simulating chiral spin liquids with projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 177201 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Y . Xu, S. Capponi, J.-Y . Chen, L. Vanderstraeten, J. Hasik, A. H. Nevidomskyy, M. Mambrini, K. Penc, and D. Poil- blanc, Phase diagram of the chiral SU(3) antiferromagnet on the kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B 108, 195153 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    E. L. Weerda and M. Rizzi, Fractional quantum hall states with variational projected entangled-pair states: A study of the bosonic harper-hofstadter model, Phys. Rev. B 109, L241117 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Hasik and P

    J. Hasik and P. Corboz, Incommensurate order with translation- ally invariant projected entangled-pair states: Spiral states and quantum spin liquid on the anisotropic triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 176502 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Corboz, Y

    P. Corboz, Y . Zhang, B. Ponsioen, and F. Mila, Quantum spin liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model revealed by high-precision infinite projected entangled-pair states, arXiv:2502.14091 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Acuaviva, V

    A. Acuaviva, V . Makam, H. Nieuwboer, D. Pérez-García, F. Sit- tner, M. Walter, and F. Witteveen, The minimal canonical form of a tensor network, in 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(2023) pp. 328–362

    2023

  21. [29]

    Tindall and M

    J. Tindall and M. Fishman, Gauging tensor networks with belief propagation, Sci. Phys. 15, 222 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    M. P. Zaletel and F. Pollmann, Isometric tensor network states in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 037201 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Jiang and Y

    S. Jiang and Y . Ran, Symmetric tensor networks and practical simulation algorithms to sharply identify classes of quantum phases distinguishable by short-range physics, Phys. Rev. B92, 104414 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Mambrini, R

    M. Mambrini, R. Orús, and D. Poilblanc, Systematic construc- tion of spin liquids on the square lattice from tensor networks with SU(2) symmetry, Phys. Rev. B94, 205124 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    W. Tang, F. Verstraete, and J. Haegeman, Matrix product state fixed points of non-Hermitian transfer matrices, Phys. Rev. B 111, 035107 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, S

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, S. G. Söyler, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Monte carlo study of the two-dimensional Bose- Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. A 77, 015602 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Pollet and N

    L. Pollet and N. Prokof’ev, Higgs mode in a two-dimensional superfluid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 010401 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Poilblanc, J

    D. Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, and N. Schuch, Chiral topological spin 7 liquids with projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 91, 224431 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Hackenbroich, A

    A. Hackenbroich, A. Sterdyniak, and N. Schuch, Interplay of SU(2), point group, and translational symmetry for projected entangled pair states: Application to a chiral spin liquid, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085151 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    See Supplemental Material for further details on imposing the point group symmetry on the local PEPS tensor, general form of local gauge transformations, Hermiticity ofσ matrices, unique- ness of the gauge-fixed PEPS tensor and the gauge-fixing proce- dure, retraction and vect...

  32. [40]

    minimal canonical form

    One caveat is that, if one releases the spatial symmetry con- straint, the minimal canonical form may not give rise to a ten- sor that satisfies the spatial symmetry locally. Here, we abuse the term “minimal canonical form” to refer to the tensor that minimizes the 2-norm of t...

  33. [41]

    P. A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre, Optimization Algo- rithms on Matrix Manifolds (Princeton University Press, 2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Vanderstraeten, M

    L. Vanderstraeten, M. Mariën, J. Haegeman, N. Schuch, J. Vi- dal, and F. Verstraete, Bridging perturbative expansions with tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 070401 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Zauner-Stauber, L

    V . Zauner-Stauber, L. Vanderstraeten, M. T. Fishman, F. Ver- straete, and J. Haegeman, Variational optimization algorithms for uniform matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045145 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Vanderstraeten, J

    L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Tangent- space methods for uniform matrix product states, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Francuz, N

    A. Francuz, N. Schuch, and B. Vanhecke, Stable and e fficient differentiation of tensor network algorithms, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013237 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Roughly speaking, the preconditioner is a matrix P that is ap- plied to the gradient as P−1g at each optimization step, which twists the search direction of the optimization. The precondi- tioner that we employ is a diagonal matrix, which is defined as P j j = qPk j=1η j−1(g(k...

  39. [47]

    Rader and A

    M. Rader and A. M. Läuchli, Finite correlation length scaling in lorentz-invariant gapless ipeps wave functions, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031030 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Corboz, P

    P. Corboz, P. Czarnik, G. Kapteijns, and L. Tagliacozzo, Finite correlation length scaling with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031031 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Czarnik and P

    P. Czarnik and P. Corboz, Finite correlation length scaling with infinite projected entangled pair states at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245107 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Vanhecke, J

    B. Vanhecke, J. Hasik, F. Verstraete, and L. Vanderstraeten, Scaling hypothesis for projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 200601 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Wang and T

    X. Wang and T. Xiang, Transfer-matrix density-matrix renormalization-group theory for thermodynamics of one- dimensional quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 56, 5061 (1997)

    1997

  44. [52]

    Huang, P

    Y .-K. Huang, P. Chen, and Y .-J. Kao, Accurate computation of low-temperature thermodynamics for quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 86, 235102 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    W. Tang, L. Vanderstraeten, and J. Haegeman, Dataset sup- porting: Gauging the variational optimization of projected entangled-pair states, 10.5281/zenodo.16849083 (2025)

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    Devos and J

    L. Devos and J. Haegeman, TensorKit.jl: A Julia package for large-scale tensor computations, with a hint of category theory, arXiv:2508.xxxxx https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16091021 (2025)

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Tang, SpatiallySymmetricTensors.jl (2025)

    W. Tang, SpatiallySymmetricTensors.jl (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Haegeman, OptimKit.jl (2025)

    J. Haegeman, OptimKit.jl (2025). 8 Supplemental Material for: Gauging the variational optimization of projected entangled-pair states Wei Tang,1 Laurens Vanderstraeten,2 and Jutho Haegeman1 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, 9000 Gent, Belg...

    2025

  49. [57]

    We now find d2 dµ2∥A(µ)∥2 = d dµ2⃗α(µ)T⃗α(µ) =⃗α(µ)T (σR)2⃗α(µ)≥ 0

    Note thatσR is still a real symmetric matrix. We now find d2 dµ2∥A(µ)∥2 = d dµ2⃗α(µ)T⃗α(µ) =⃗α(µ)T (σR)2⃗α(µ)≥ 0. (S10) Because (σR)2 is the square of a real symmetric matrix, it is positive semidefinite, and the latter expression is nonnegative. We thus find that the first de...

  50. [58]

    This proof constitutes a particular example of the general result mentioned in Ref

    This can only happen if A′ 1 = A0, or thus if A0 and A1 were related by a purely unitary gauge transformation. This proof constitutes a particular example of the general result mentioned in Ref. [28], which is known as the Kemph-Ness theorem. To find a tensor with minimal norm...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.