Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

$\texttt{iNORG}$: An open-source quantum impurity solver package based on the natural orbitals renormalization group

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper aims to establish that the natural orbitals renormalization group, as implemented in the open-source solver iNORG, offers a practical zero-temperature impurity solver for DMFT that is both accurate and polynomial in cost, achieve

desk verdict A real open-source NORG solver with genuinely new implementation ideas, but the paper's accuracy claim rests on an unvalidated truncation and needs a benchmark before the package can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13993 v1 pith:YCIGNAP2 submitted 2026-07-15 cond-mat.str-el physics.comp-ph

Jia-Ming Wang , Yi-Heng Tian , Yin Chen , Ru Zheng , Rong-Qiang He , Zhong-Yi Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph
keywords quantumimpuritysolverdynamicalmean-fieldtheorynaturalorbitalsrenormalizationgroupAndersonmodelHilbertspacetruncationLanczosalgorithmGreen'sfunctionmulti-orbitalstronglycorrelatedsystems
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 claims that the natural orbitals renormalization group (NORG), implemented in the open-source solver iNORG, can solve zero-temperature multi-orbital Anderson impurity models at polynomial cost while retaining high accuracy. The core idea is to rotate the non-interacting bath into the eigenbasis of the single-particle density matrix, where most orbitals are nearly full or nearly empty, and then freeze those inactive orbitals while allowing limited hole/electron excitations in the rest. The paper reports overall complexity scaling roughly as O(N_bath^3), a major improvement over the exponential cost of exact diagonalization. If correct, iNORG provides a DMFT impurity solver that avoids the sign problem and analytic continuation of quantum Monte Carlo while handling more orbitals than conventional numerical renormalization group. The paper documents the NOOC constraint hierarchy, Lanczos-based Green's functions, and two worked examples.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the iterative natural-orbital rotation: diagonalize the ground-state single-particle density matrix, transform the bath orbitals into natural orbitals, and classify each orbital as active or frozen according to its occupation number. The natural-orbital occupancy constraints (NOOC), with the particle-hole excitation state (PHES) rule as the most refined variant, define the truncated Hilbert space by allowing only a limited number of holes or electrons in nearly full or nearly empty orbital groups. The reduced Hamiltonian is solved by the Lanczos algorithm, and the NORG-Table data structure caches non-zero Hamiltonian entries so that only numerical coefficients need u

What would settle it

Run iNORG on a small multi-orbital Anderson impurity model (for example, one or two impurity orbitals with a handful of bath sites) for which a full exact-diagonalization solution in the original basis is feasible, and compare ground-state energy and Green's functions. If the NORG results fail to approach the exact-diagonalization results as the NOOC constraints are relaxed, or if the PHES truncation changes the answer by more than the claimed accuracy in a regime where configuration #6 carries significant weight, the central accuracy claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that natural orbitals provide a compact single-particle basis for the Anderson impurity model: most natural orbitals have occupations near 0 or 1, so freezing them loses little. iNORG iteratively solves the reduced Hamiltonian by Lanczos, computes the single-particle density matrix, rotates the bath into its natural-orbital basis, and uses nested occupancy constraints (NOOC, with the PHES rule as the refined variant) to define an active subspace. The paper's solution is that this self-consistent loop converges to a high-accuracy ground state and Green's functions at polynomial cost, roughly O(N_bath^3), for zero-temperature multi-orbital density-density impurity problems

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that configurations discarded by the natural-orbital occupancy constraints—orbitals frozen when occupations sit near 0 or 1, and high-excitation sectors such as configuration #6 of Table 1—contribute negligibly to the ground state and to the computed Green's functions, an assumption stated without rigorous error bounds or convergence extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DMFT calculations can use baths of tens to hundreds of sites per orbital with polynomial rather than exponential growth in cost.
  • Zero-temperature real-frequency spectral functions can be produced directly by the Lanczos continued-fraction and Krylov-projection methods, without analytic continuation.
  • Users can tune accuracy against cost by choosing among direct-product, joint, and PHES constraint rules.
  • As an open-source package, the solver can be embedded in DFT+DMFT workflows and reproduced by other groups.
  • The stated O(N_bath^3) complexity implies that the dominant scaling bottleneck is bath size, not the number of impurity orbitals, for the supported density-density models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A systematic extrapolation as NOOC constraints are loosened could turn the truncation into a controlled approximation; the paper does not demonstrate such a convergence study, but the constraint hierarchy makes it possible.
  • If natural-orbital compression works for density-density models, the same strategy may extend to cluster DMFT and finite temperature, where quantum Monte Carlo sign problems currently limit reach.
  • The PHES rule's explicit exclusion of configuration #6 suggests a practical diagnostic: monitoring the total weight of excluded configurations across self-consistency could give users an error estimate for the truncation.
  • Because only the bath block is transformed, the local interaction remains sparse, which is what supports the polynomial scaling; extending the method to off-diagonal hybridizations may require a generalized bath-fitting scheme to preserve this property.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes iNORG, an open-source C++ implementation of the natural orbitals renormalization group (NORG) method for zero-temperature quantum impurity solvers in DMFT. The paper reviews the NORG workflow: iterative optimization of the bath representation in a natural-orbital basis, Hilbert-space compression via natural-orbital occupancy constraints (NOOC), Lanczos ground-state solution, continued-fraction evaluation of diagonal Green's functions, a Krylov-subspace method for matrix-valued Green's functions, and a Levenberg-Marquardt routine for fitting the hybridization function. Two example input files are provided, one for a one-shot three-orbital DMFT impurity calculation and one for a self-consistent two-orbital Bethe-lattice DMFT calculation. The main claims are that iNORG provides high accuracy with reduced computational cost and a polynomial scaling of about O(N_bath^3).

Significance. If the accuracy and scaling claims are supported, iNORG would be a valuable open-source zero-temperature impurity solver for multi-orbital density-density DMFT calculations, complementing existing ED, CT-QMC, and NRG solvers. The open-source release, modular C++ design, and the availability of input examples are concrete strengths. However, the manuscript as submitted does not itself demonstrate that the solver produces accurate Green's functions or energies for the target models: the only quantitative benchmark (Fig. 3) measures the hybridization-function fitting error, not the solver error, and the examples in Section 5 give no output or comparison. The central accuracy claim therefore rests on the unquantified faith of the NOOC truncation and on earlier NORG publications, which is a load-bearing gap for a software paper claiming 'high accuracy'.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Fig. 3, Section 3.2.2] The manuscript contains no solver-level accuracy benchmark. Fig. 3 and the text of Section 3.2.2 quantify only the error of the hybridization-function discretization (the fit of Γ_imp to Γ_loc); they do not report the accuracy of the computed Green's functions, self-energies, or ground-state energies. The two examples in Section 5 list parameter files and run commands but present no output or comparison with a reference. This is a load-bearing omission because the abstract and Program Summary claim 'high accuracy' for the solver. I request at least one benchmark for a small impurity model where full ED is possible, and ideally a comparison with CT-QMC or published results for a standard DMFT test case, reporting the error in a physical observable rather than only the fitting residual.
  2. [Section 3.3.3, Table 1] The PHES constraint is justified by the assertion that configuration #6 (h* 2 1 i) 'contributes little to the ground state', but no discarded-weight estimate, convergence extrapolation, or comparison with an untruncated calculation is provided. Similarly, Section 2.2.1 states that freezing nearly empty/full orbitals introduces an error of approximately n_k or 1-n_k, but this is not demonstrated for the target impurity models. Since the claimed accuracy depends directly on this truncation being faithful, the paper needs a quantitative check, e.g., a plot of ground-state energy or a Green's function versus the NOOC excitation limit, or a comparison with full ED for a small system that demonstrates the discarded weight is negligible.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 3.6] The convergence criteria used in the NORG self-consistent loop — the energy change between consecutive iterations (step G) and the occupation-norm difference d(n_last,n_new) (step I) — are self-consistency checks, not error bounds relative to the exact ground state of the untruncated impurity model. A fixed point of the truncated NORG equations may differ from the exact solution. The manuscript should either provide an error bound or demonstrate, for a representative case, that the converged NORG result approaches the exact ED result as the NOOC constraints are relaxed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Program Summary / Section 2.2.2] The Program Summary states '~O(N_bath^3)' overall scaling, while Section 2.2.2 says 'typically O(N_bath^3) or O(N_bath^4)' and also mentions O(N^4) for full-orbital transformation. Please harmonize these statements and define precisely whether N_bath includes the impurity orbitals and whether the quoted scaling is for one NORG sweep or the full self-consistent DMFT cycle.
  2. [Section 3.2.1, Eq. (14)] In Eq. (14), the symbol V is used both for the impurity-bath coupling matrix and inside V(ε_bath−z_n)^{-1}V^†. Please define the dimensions of V, ε_bath, and the products, and explain how the second and third sum-rule terms are normalized relative to the first term (the weights w_n).
  3. [Section 5.1] The example parameter file contains a truncated list 'fit_points [0,1,2,...,3780]'. For reproducibility, either provide the complete list in the supplementary material or describe the rule that generates the points, since the discrete Lehmann representation parameters alone do not fully specify the selection as printed.
  4. [Section 3.7, Eqs. (26)-(27)] The continued-fraction expressions for G< and G> are written with the tridiagonal coefficients α and β, but the notation is easy to misread because the earlier derivation in Eqs. (22)-(24) uses E_0 in different places. A brief definition of the sign convention (z+H−E_0 vs. z−H+E_0) immediately before Eqs. (26)-(27) would improve clarity.
  5. [Section 4.4] Checkpoint/restart functionality is mentioned but not documented. If it is implemented, please give the relevant input parameters and file formats; otherwise remove the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the solver derives ground state and Green's functions from the AIM Hamiltonian via Lanczos/NRG; NOOC is a variational truncation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain maps a specified Anderson impurity model (Eqs. 1-2, 15-17) to a ground state and Green's function through a Lanczos/NRG self-consistency loop. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the hybridization fit (Sec. 3.2) matches Gamma_imp to the external Gamma_loc, but the reported impurity Green's functions are computed from the resulting Hamiltonian, not taken from the fit. The NOOC truncation (Sec. 3.3) is presented as a variational constraint with tunable looseness; excluding configuration #6 of Table 1 is an accuracy assumption without an error bound, but it is not a reduction of the output to the input. The self-citations to Refs. [14,15,20-23] support provenance of the NORG method and prior applications, but the present implementation details are self-contained; the absence of independent solver-level benchmarks is a validation gap, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central approximation is the faithfulness of the SPDM-based active-space truncation; the other listed quantities are user-tunable controls. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • NOOC excitation limits and group sizes (restrain array) = Example 1: [0,-2,-3,-4,0,4,3,2]; Example 2: [0,-2,-3,-4,0,4,3,2] with distribute [1,0,1,2,1,2,1,0]
    Hand-selected per model; these define which Hilbert-space configurations are included or excluded and therefore set the accuracy-cost tradeoff of the central method.
  • NOOC weight thresholds weight_nooc and weight_freze = 1e-05 (weight_nooc), 1e-07 (weight_freze) in Example 1
    Thresholds for freezing natural orbitals; no generic selection rule or sensitivity analysis is given, yet they control the truncation error.
  • Bath-site counts fit_nbaths and fit-point sets = 11 per sector (Example 1), 7 per sector (Example 2)
    Discretization resolution of the continuous hybridization function; Figure 3 shows error decreases with nb, but the optimal count is user-chosen.
  • Levenberg-Marquardt initial bath energies/amplitudes and damping/stopping tolerances = Not reported
    The hybridization fit result depends on initialization and termination criteria; the paper mentions physical priors but gives no practical values, so these are effectively hand-tuned.
  • Lanczos convergence tolerance and Krylov dimension = Not specified in the examples
    Controls ground-state accuracy and continued-fraction truncation; no convergence study is shown in the manuscript.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The single-particle density matrix of the approximate ground state defines an optimal basis in which the AIM wave function converges with few Slater determinants.
    Invoked in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2; cited to same-group Ref. [14], not independently proven here. If false, the whole compression strategy fails.
  • ad hoc to paper Freezing inactive natural orbitals and applying NOOC excitation limits discards only negligible configurations.
    Section 3.3, especially the PHES rule, asserts that low-weight configurations like #6 in Table 1 'contribute little' and can be excluded; no error bound or benchmark demonstrates this for the target models.
  • domain assumption A finite bath discretized by Levenberg-Marquardt fitting with the sum-rule and normalization terms of Eq. (14) faithfully represents the continuous hybridization in DMFT.
    Section 3.2; based on Ref. [33] sum rules, but adequacy for strong-correlation spectra is assumed rather than shown.
  • standard math Zero-temperature Lanczos and continued-fraction algorithms produce converged ground states and Green's functions for the sparse effective Hamiltonian.
    Sections 3.6-3.7; standard linear-algebra facts, though numerical error and loss of orthogonality are discussed only qualitatively.
  • standard math Particle-number conservation and the adopted Fock encoding are sufficient to represent all relevant many-body states.
    Sections 2.3 and 3.4; an exact standard encoding, not a load-bearing scientific assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\texttt{iNORG}$: An open-source quantum impurity solver package based on the natural orbitals renormalization group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCIGNAP2

@misc{pith2026260713993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\textttiNORG$: An open-source quantum impurity solver package based on the natural orbitals renormalization group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCIGNAP2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13993}
}
abstract

In the context of dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) calculations for strongly correlated electron systems, quantum impurity solvers play a central computational role in treating correlated lattice models and realistic materials. Consequently, developing efficient and robust quantum impurity solvers remains a key challenge. In this paper, we present an open-source quantum impurity solver package based on the natural orbitals renormalization group (NORG) method, dubbed $\texttt{iNORG}$. This software delivers high accuracy with reduced computational cost by optimizing the bath representation using natural orbitals and incorporating advanced features such as efficient Hilbert space selection and efficient algorithms for computing Green's functions. We first introduce the basic principle of the NORG method and then discuss the implementation details. The software framework, major features, and installation procedure for $\texttt{iNORG}$ are explained as well. Finally, several simple examples are presented to demonstrate the usage of $\texttt{iNORG}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the natural orbitals renormalization group (NORG) method as implemented in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Organizational structure of the iNORG program. The first row shows the module abbreviations, and the second row indicates the corre￾sponding module functions. The functions of these modules are summarized below. Owing to space constraints, the following subsections present only the essential technical details required to reproduce the program, omitting repetitive descriptions of similar implementation steps. • Prepr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impurity Model Fitting Performance Example: Displays the imaginary part of the wide-band (WB) hybridization function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the direct-product constraint rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the joint constraint rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the PHES constraint rule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Correlated lattice fermions ind=∞dimensions.Phys

    Walter Metzner and Dieter V ollhardt. Correlated lattice fermions ind=∞dimensions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 62:324– 327, Jan 1989

    1989

  2. [2]

    Rozenberg

    Antoine Georges, Gabriel Kotliar, Werner Krauth, and Marcelo J. Rozenberg. Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions.Rev. Mod. Phys., 68:13–125, Jan 1996

    1996

  3. [3]

    P. W. Anderson. Localized magnetic states in metals.Phys. Rev., 124:41–53, 1961

    1961

  4. [4]

    J. Kondo. Resistance minimum in dilute magnetic alloys.Prog. Theor. Phys., 32(1):37–49, 1964

    1964

  5. [5]

    Cambridge University Press, 1997

    Alexander Cyril Hewson.The Kondo problem to heavy fermions. Cambridge University Press, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    Impurity quantum phase transitions.Philos

    Matthias V ojta. Impurity quantum phase transitions.Philos. Mag., 86(13-14):1807–1846, 2006

    2006

  7. [7]

    Thomas Maier, Mark Jarrell, Thomas Pruschke, and Matthias H. Hettler. Quantum cluster theories.Rev. Mod. Phys., 77:1027–1080, 2005

    2005

  8. [8]

    Multiorbital kondo physics of co in cu hosts.Phys

    Brigitte Surer, Matthias Troyer, Philipp Werner, Tim O Wehling, Andreas M Läuchli, Aljoscha Wilhelm, and Alexander I Lichtenstein. Multiorbital kondo physics of co in cu hosts.Phys. Rev. B, 85(8):085114, 2012

    2012

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Noack and Salvatore R

    Reinhard M. Noack and Salvatore R. Manmana. Diagonalization-and numerical renormalization-group-based methods for interacting quantum systems.AIP Conf. Proc., 789(1):93–163, 09 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    Lin, J.E

    H.Q. Lin, J.E. Gubernatis, Harvey Gould, and Jan Tobochnik. Exact diagonalization methods for quantum systems.Comput. Phys., 7(4):400–407, 07 1993. 25

    1993

  3. [11]

    Continuous-time monte carlo methods for quantum impurity models.Rev

    Emanuel Gull, Andrew J Millis, Alexander I Lichtenstein, Alexey N Rubtsov, Matthias Troyer, and Philipp Werner. Continuous-time monte carlo methods for quantum impurity models.Rev. Mod. Phys., 83(2):349–404, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Kenneth G. Wilson. The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the kondo problem.Rev. Mod. Phys., 47:773–840, Oct 1975

    1975

  5. [13]

    Hierarchical liouville-space approach for accurate and universal characterization of quantum impurity systems.Phys

    ZhenHua Li, NingHua Tong, Xiao Zheng, Dong Hou, JianHua Wei, Jie Hu, and YiJing Yan. Hierarchical liouville-space approach for accurate and universal characterization of quantum impurity systems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 109(26):266403, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Quantum renormalization groups based on natural orbitals.Phys

    Rong-Qiang He and Zhong-Yi Lu. Quantum renormalization groups based on natural orbitals.Phys. Rev. B, 89:085108, Feb 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Ab initio dynamical mean field theory with natural orbitals renormalization group impurity solver.npj Computational Materials, 11:86, 2025

    Jia-Ming Wang, Jing-Xuan Wang, Rong-Qiang He, Li Huang, and Zhong-Yi Lu. Ab initio dynamical mean field theory with natural orbitals renormalization group impurity solver.npj Computational Materials, 11:86, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Quantum theory of many-particle systems

    Per-Olov Löwdin. Quantum theory of many-particle systems. i. physical interpretations by means of density matrices, natural spin-orbitals, and convergence problems in the method of configurational interaction.Phys. Rev., 97(6):1474, 1955

    1955

  9. [17]

    A natural orbital based energy calculation for helium hydride and lithium hydride.J

    Charles F Bender and Ernest R Davidson. A natural orbital based energy calculation for helium hydride and lithium hydride.J. Phys. Chem., 70(8):2675–2685, 1966

    1966

  10. [18]

    Electron correlations in narrow energy bands.Proc

    John Hubbard. Electron correlations in narrow energy bands.Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 276(1365):238–257, 1963

    1963

  11. [19]

    Exact diagonalization of the anderson model on the bethe lattice.Phys

    Michel Caffarel and Werner Krauth. Exact diagonalization of the anderson model on the bethe lattice.Phys. Rev. Lett., 72(10):1545–1548, 1994

    1994

  12. [20]

    Low-energy interband kondo bound states in orbital-selective mott phases.Phys

    Jia-Ming Wang, Yin Chen, Yi-Heng Tian, Rong-Qiang He, and Zhong-Yi Lu. Low-energy interband kondo bound states in orbital-selective mott phases.Phys. Rev. B, 111:155107, Apr 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    DFT+DMFT study of correlated elec- tronic structure in the monolayer-trilayer phase of La3Ni2O7.Phys

    Zhenfeng Ouyang, Jia-Ming Wang, Rong-Qiang He, and Zhong-Yi Lu. DFT+DMFT study of correlated elec- tronic structure in the monolayer-trilayer phase of La3Ni2O7.Phys. Rev. B, 111(12):125111, Mar 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Non-Fermi liquid and antiferro- magnetic correlations with hole doping in the bilayer two-orbital Hubbard model of La 3Ni2O7 at zero tempera- ture.Phys

    Yin Chen, Yi-Heng Tian, Jia-Ming Wang, Rong-Qiang He, and Zhong-Yi Lu. Non-Fermi liquid and antiferro- magnetic correlations with hole doping in the bilayer two-orbital Hubbard model of La 3Ni2O7 at zero tempera- ture.Phys. Rev. B, 110(23):235119, Dec 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Correlation effects and concomi- tant two-orbitals±-wave superconductivity in La 3Ni2O7 under high pressure.Phys

    Yi-Heng Tian, Yin Chen, Jia-Ming Wang, Rong-Qiang He, and Zhong-Yi Lu. Correlation effects and concomi- tant two-orbitals±-wave superconductivity in La 3Ni2O7 under high pressure.Phys. Rev. B, 109(16):165154, Apr 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Natural orbitals in the quantum theory of two-electron systems.Phys

    Per-Olov Löwdin and Harrison Shull. Natural orbitals in the quantum theory of two-electron systems.Phys. Rev., 101:1730–1739, Mar 1956

    1956

  17. [25]

    The kernel polynomial method

    Alexander Weiße, Gerhard Wellein, Andreas Alvermann, and Holger Fehske. The kernel polynomial method. Rev. Mod. Phys., 78:275–306, Mar 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Jakli ˇc and P

    J. Jakli ˇc and P. Prelovšek. Lanczos method for the calculation of finite-temperature quantities in correlated systems.Phys. Rev. B, 49:5065–5068, Feb 1994

    1994

  19. [27]

    Thick-restart lanczos method for electronic struc- ture calculations.J

    Kesheng Wu, Andrew Canning, HD Simon, and L-W Wang. Thick-restart lanczos method for electronic struc- ture calculations.J. Comput. Phys., 154(1):156–173, 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    Generalized eigenvalue problems: Lanczos algorithm with a recursive partitioning method.Comput

    S Sundar and BK Bhagavan. Generalized eigenvalue problems: Lanczos algorithm with a recursive partitioning method.Comput. Math. Appl., 39(7-8):211–224, 2000. 26

    2000

  21. [29]

    Thick-restart lanczos method for large symmetric eigenvalue problems.SIAM J

    Kesheng Wu and Horst Simon. Thick-restart lanczos method for large symmetric eigenvalue problems.SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 22(2):602–616, 2000

    2000

  22. [30]

    Computing smallest singular triplets with implicitly restarted lanczos bidiagonalization.Appl

    Effrosyni Kokiopoulou, Constantine Bekas, and Efstratios Gallopoulos. Computing smallest singular triplets with implicitly restarted lanczos bidiagonalization.Appl. Numer. Math., 49(1):39–61, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    iNORG: An open- source quantum impurity solver package based on the natural orbitals renormalization group, 2025

    Jia-Ming Wang, Yi-Heng Tian, Yin Chen, Ru Zheng, Rong-Qiang He, and Zhong-Yi Lu. iNORG: An open- source quantum impurity solver package based on the natural orbitals renormalization group, 2025. GitHub repository

    2025

  24. [32]

    Efficient and robust Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm based on damping parameters for parameter inversion in underground metal target detection.Computers&Geosciences, 176:105354, 2023

    Xiaofen Wang, Peng Wang, Xiaotong Zhang, Yadong Wan, Wen Liu, and Haodong Shi. Efficient and robust Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm based on damping parameters for parameter inversion in underground metal target detection.Computers&Geosciences, 176:105354, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sum rules and bath parametrization for quantum cluster theories.Phys

    Erik Koch, Giorgio Sangiovanni, and Olle Gunnarsson. Sum rules and bath parametrization for quantum cluster theories.Phys. Rev. B, 78:115102, Sep 2008

    2008

  26. [34]

    OneMKL Developer Reference: Sparse Storage Formats, 2024

    Intel Corporation. OneMKL Developer Reference: Sparse Storage Formats, 2024. Accessed: 2025-02-18

    2024

  27. [35]

    JHU Press, 2013

    Gene H Golub and Charles F Van Loan.Matrix computations. JHU Press, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    E. R. Gagliano and C. A. Balseiro. Dynamical properties of quantum many-body systems at zero temperature. Phys. Rev. Lett., 59:2999–3002, Dec 1987

    1987

  29. [37]

    Electronic structure based on the local atomic environment for tight-binding bands

    R Haydock, V Heine, and MJ Kelly. Electronic structure based on the local atomic environment for tight-binding bands. ii.J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys., 8(16):2591, 1975

    1975

  30. [38]

    Kühner and Steven R

    Till D. Kühner and Steven R. White. Dynamical correlation functions using the density matrix renormalization group.Phys. Rev. B, 60:335–343, Jul 1999

    1999

  31. [39]

    Spectral functions for single- and multi-impurity models using density matrix renormalization group.Phys

    Robert Peters. Spectral functions for single- and multi-impurity models using density matrix renormalization group.Phys. Rev. B, 84:075139, Aug 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    P. E. Dargel, A. Wöllert, A. Honecker, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwöck, and T. Pruschke. Lanczos algorithm with matrix product states for dynamical correlation functions.Phys. Rev. B, 85:205119, May 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Discrete lehmann representation of imaginary time green’s func- tions.Phys

    Jason Kaye, Kun Chen, and Olivier Parcollet. Discrete lehmann representation of imaginary time green’s func- tions.Phys. Rev. B, 105:235115, Jun 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Jason Kaye, Kun Chen, and Hugo U.R. Strand. libdlr: Efficient imaginary time calculations using the discrete lehmann representation.Computer Physics Communications, 280:108458, 2022. 27

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.