Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Ground-state phase diagram and route to supersolidity in a two-component extended Bose-Hubbard model

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using tensor-network ground-state simulations, this paper establishes that the experimentally realized two-component extended Bose–Hubbard model has no supersolid ground state, and shows that increasing the hopping of one component to…

desk verdict Solid iPEPS phase diagram with a testable supersolid route, but the no-supersolid claim for the experimental regime needs a convergence check before you trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08738 v1 pith:64WKNIHE submitted 2026-08-09 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-el

Xuexin Qiu , Ning Bian , Yang Liu , Saisai He , Z. Y. Xie , Hong-Gang Luo , Jize Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el
keywords extendedBose-Hubbardmodeltwo-componentbosonsdipolarexcitonssupersolidorbital-selectivephasestensornetworkinfiniteprojectedentangled-pairstatesground-statephasediagram
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 asks whether the two-component extended Bose–Hubbard model realized with dipolar excitons can host a supersolid ground state, and answers it with a numerical phase diagram in the plane of the two chemical potentials. For the parameter values extracted from the experiment ($t_1=1$, $t_2=7$, $U_1=1000$, $U_2=500$, $U_3=200$, $V_1=35$, $V_2=250$, $V_{12}=V_{21}=20$), the ground state is dominated by checkerboard, Mott-insulating, and vacuum phases, with only tiny superfluid regions and no coexistence of density order with phase coherence. The authors attribute this absence to interaction-dominated energy scales that suppress superfluidity. They then show that raising one hopping parameter to $t_2=35$ moves the system into a nearby regime where an orbital-selective checkerboard supersolid phase appears and survives bond-dimension and unit-cell checks. If correct, the paper pins down the zero-temperature structure of the dipolar-exciton platform and gives experiments a concrete target parameter for supersolidity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-component extended Bose–Hubbard Hamiltonian with dominant on-site terms $U_1 n_{i1}^2 + U_2 n_{i2}^2 + U_3 n_{i1} n_{i2}$ and nearest-neighbor density-density interactions $V_1$, $V_2$, $V_{12}$, $V_{21}$ between the two orbitals, together with the hard-core constraint that each site holds at most one boson per component. The method that carries the argument is the infinite projected entangled-pair state (iPEPS) tensor network on a square lattice, optimized by simple-update imaginary-time evolution with 2×2 (and, for checks, 4×4) unit cells. Phase classification is done through three order parameters: average density $\rho_\alpha$, checkerboard density modulation $\Delta_\alpha$, and condensate amplitude $\psi_\alpha$. A supersolid is identified specifically as a state with both $\psi_\alpha > 0$ and $\Delta_\alpha > 0$ in the same component, and the paper's key discriminations—absence of supersolidity in the experimental regime and its presence after tuning—are made by computing these quantities as functions of $\mu_1$ at fixed $\mu_2$.

What would settle it

Run the same iPEPS calculation at $D=6$ or $D=8$ along the narrow superfluid corridor near $\mu_1=140$–$145$ at $\mu_2=50$ and extrapolate $1/D$ to the thermodynamic limit; if the density-modulation order parameter $\Delta_1$ stays strictly zero wherever $\psi_1>0$, the no-supersolid claim survives, whereas a finite $\Delta_1$ in the converged limit would overturn it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the experimental regime of this two-component extended Bose–Hubbard model has no supersolid ground state, while a modest increase of the second component's hopping to $t_2 = 35$ stabilizes an orbital-selective supersolid. In the experimental regime, the tensor-network phase diagram contains only VM-CB, CB-VM, CB-CB, MI-VM, VM-SF, and SF-VM sectors; the two superfluid sectors occupy a tiny fraction of the $(\mu_1, \mu_2)$ plane, and in them the density-modulation order parameter $\Delta_\alpha$ vanishes while the condensate order parameter $\psi_\alpha$ is finite, so there is no window in which both orders coexist. The proposed reason is the large on-site and nearest-neighbor interaction scales relative to hopping, which localize the bosons and restrict superfluidity. With $t_2$ increased from 7 to 35, the former CB-VM region is replaced by a CB-SS phase in which component 1 keeps checkerboard order while component 2 simultaneously has $\psi_2 > 0$ and $\Delta_2 > 0$; a $1/D$ extrapolation gives $\psi_2 = 0.260(6)$, $\rho_2 = 0.1396(16)$, $\Delta_2 = 0.0714(20)$, and 2×2 and 4×4 unit cells give nearly identical energies. The authors conclude that the hopping asymmetry is the control knob for supersolidity in this platform.

Load-bearing premise

The negative result for the experimental regime is computed at bond dimension $D=4$ with no $1/D$ extrapolation, so the conclusion that no supersolid exists there assumes that $D=4$ already captures the narrow superfluid pockets faithfully.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The experimentally realized parameter set should be treated as strongly localized at zero temperature, so observations of superfluidity or supersolidity in that exact regime would require physics beyond the model as parameterized.
  • Raising the hopping $t_2$ to 35 while keeping the other parameters fixed is a concrete route: the CB-SS phase should appear around $\mu_1 \approx 75$ at $\mu_2 = 80$ and persist over a finite region of the chemical-potential plane.
  • Phase transitions in both regimes are first order, signaled by discontinuities in the order parameters, so tuning through the phase boundaries will encounter hysteresis or phase coexistence rather than continuous critical behavior.
  • Orbital-selective order is generic in this model: one component can sit in a checkerboard or Mott state while the other is superfluid, vacuum, or supersolid, so phase diagrams must be labeled per component.
  • The absence of supersolidity in the experimental regime is not a failure of the model but a statement about energy scales: interaction-dominated parameters suppress the required coexistence of density order and phase coherence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the $D=4$ result for the experimental regime is not fully converged, the small superfluid pockets could widen at larger bond dimension, so a $1/D$ study of the negative result—not just of the tuned supersolid—is the natural next check.
  • Beyond the paper, the success of the $t_2=35$ route suggests that other parameter paths, such as reducing the nearest-neighbor repulsion $V_2$ or the intercomponent repulsion $U_3$ while keeping $t_2$ moderate, may stabilize supersolidity at even lower hopping ratios; the paper does not explore these.
  • Beyond the paper, at finite temperature the orbital-selective supersolid should melt through a sequence of transitions—phase coherence lost before density order, or vice versa—so experiments searching for it will need to specify temperature relative to the first-order boundaries mapped here.
  • Beyond the paper, the same two-orbital hard-core structure appears in other artificial-lattice platforms such as Rydberg-dressed or dipolar atomic gases, so the orbital-selective checkerboard-supersolid mechanism may transfer to those settings if the hopping asymmetry can be engineered.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ground-state phase diagram of a two-component extended Bose-Hubbard model with dipolar excitons, using infinite projected entangled-pair states (iPEPS) with a 2x2 unit cell and simple-update optimization. For the experimentally relevant parameters (Eq. 6), the authors report checkerboard, Mott-insulating, superfluid, and vacuum phases with orbital-selective character, and they find no supersolid phase, attributing this to the strongly interaction-dominated energy scales. For a tuned parameter set with enhanced hopping of one component (t2=35), they identify an orbital-selective checkerboard supersolid (CB-SS) phase. The CB-SS phase is supported by a finite-bond-dimension (1/D) extrapolation at one representative point (Fig. 6) and by 2x2 versus 4x4 unit-cell energy comparisons (Fig. 7). The negative no-supersolid statement for the experimental regime, however, is based entirely on D=4 iPEPS data without convergence extrapolation.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a controlled many-body calculation of the ground-state phase structure of a recently realized dipolar-exciton platform, clarifying the absence of supersolidity in the current experimental regime and proposing a concrete route toward realizing supersolidity by enhancing the hopping asymmetry. The computational evidence for the positive CB-SS claim is genuinely strengthened by the 1/D scaling analysis and the enlarged-unit-cell energy check, which is a commendable feature. The negative result for the experimental parameter set is practically important but rests on less secure numerical footing, which limits the confidence in the central practical message.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Figs. 2 and 3] The no-supersolid conclusion for the experimental parameter regime is based solely on D=4 simple-update iPEPS calculations with no bond-dimension scaling or 1/D extrapolation at that parameter set. The claim is a statement of absence over a region of the (mu_1, mu_2) plane; at small bond dimension, iPEPS can artificially narrow compressible windows, shift phase boundaries, or suppress order parameters near the superfluid pockets. The convergence check in Fig. 6 is performed only at a single point in the tuned CB-SS phase, which is a positive existence claim and does not control the negative result. The abstract and Sec. IV state that supersolidity is absent in the experimental regime, but the numerical evidence as presented does not rule out a D=4 artifact in the narrow SF regions. The authors should add D=5 and D=6 data (with a 1/D extrapolation if feasible) for representative cuts in the experimental regime, especially at the SF pockets and their boundaries, or explicitly qualify the negative statement as preliminary.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (4)-(6)] The reduction to hard-core bosons (n_{i alpha}=0,1) is asserted without a numerical test. While U1=1000 and U2=500 are large, the intercomponent repulsion U3=200 and the nearest-neighbor terms V2=250 are not extremely small compared to the hoppings t1=1 and t2=7; the hard-core truncation could in principle modify the width and location of the narrow superfluid pockets that are central to the no-supersolid conclusion. The authors should provide a concrete check, for example by allowing double occupancy for one species at a representative point in the SF pocket or by citing a previous comparison, to support the statement that the truncation is 'safe in practice'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The statement that discontinuities in the order parameters indicate that 'the phase transitions are all first order' is not fully established; at finite bond dimension, a discontinuous change can also result from metastability or slow convergence near a continuous transition. Please clarify the criterion used.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 4 caption] The error bars for the transition points are quoted as ±2 if not plotted, but the procedure for locating the transitions and estimating the errors is not described in Sec. II. A brief description of the scan and refinement method would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. II, CTMRG paragraph] The environment dimension chi is stated to be chosen at least D^2 and 'sufficient for converged expectation values', but no convergence test in chi is shown or described. A short sentence with a representative check would strengthen the numerics section.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract uses the careful phrasing 'we find no evidence for a supersolid phase', but Sec. IV states 'we find no supersolid ground state'. These have different logical strengths; the conclusion should match the level of numerical certainty, particularly given the bond-dimension limitations discussed above.
  5. [Sec. II, Eq. (10)] The definition of the condensate order parameter sums the absolute values of <b_{i alpha}> over the unit cell. Please state explicitly that a uniform phase is imposed or that the absolute value is taken after gauge fixing, so that a staggered phase pattern is not misinterpreted as incoherence.
  6. [Sec. III.B, first paragraph] The sentence 'Guided by the conclusion of the one-dimensional counterpart [37]' is vague; please specify which conclusion (e.g., that enhanced hopping stabilizes a supersolid or supercounterfluid) motivates the choice t2=35.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the phase diagram is a computational output from externally supplied parameters, and the overlapping-author citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The Hamiltonian parameters in Eq. (6) are quoted from Ref. [23], an external work, and no parameter is fitted to the target phase diagram. The phase classifications are computed outputs of the iPEPS optimization: the order parameters psi_alpha, Delta_alpha, and rho_alpha are evaluated from the optimized tensors, and the absence or presence of supersolidity is read off from the simultaneous behavior of psi and Delta. The negative result for the experimental regime is presented literally as 'no evidence', i.e., a report of the runs performed, and the attribution to interaction-dominated energy scales is a qualitative interpretation of the large U values, not an input assumption. The t2=35 route is motivated by a self-cited one-dimensional study [37] that shares authors with the present paper, but the CB-SS phase is not imported from [37]; it is obtained by repeating the iPEPS calculation at the new parameters and is then supported by bond-dimension scaling (Fig. 6) and 2x2/4x4 unit-cell checks (Fig. 7). That self-citation is therefore advisory rather than load-bearing in the derivation. The lack of a 1/D extrapolation for the experimental-regime negative claim is a numerical-convergence or correctness concern, not a circularity, because no prediction is defined in terms of the data it purports to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted constants beyond the manually chosen t2=35. It relies on the experimental Hamiltonian from Ref. [23] and on standard tensor-network assumptions. The main unquantified burden is the fidelity of the simplified hard-core Hamiltonian and the convergence of D=4 for the negative no-SS result.

free parameters (1)
  • Enhanced hopping t2 = 35
    Chosen by hand, guided by the authors' prior 1D work (Ref. [37]), to explore the supersolid route. Not fitted to data; a single ad hoc value, not a systematic scan.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The simplified Hamiltonian of Eqs. (4)-(5), keeping only the dominant interaction channels from Ref. [23], faithfully represents the dipolar-exciton platform.
    Invoked in Sec. II. The neglected terms (e.g., non-dominant interaction channels, terms absorbed into chemical potentials) are assumed not to alter the phase diagram. No quantitative estimate of their effect is given.
  • domain assumption Both components can be treated as hard-core bosons (n_iα = 0,1) because U1 and U2 are large.
    Sec. II states 'it is safe in practice to treat both components as hard-core bosons'. This neglects higher occupancies, which could matter at phase boundaries or for the superfluid density.
  • domain assumption iPEPS with simple-update optimization and bond dimension D=4 yields converged order parameters for the experimental parameter regime.
    The phase diagram in Fig. 2 and order parameters in Fig. 3 are obtained with D=4 only. No 1/D extrapolation is shown for the experimental regime, so the absence of supersolidity is contingent on D=4 being sufficient.
  • domain assumption A 2x2 unit cell is sufficient to capture the checkerboard, Mott, and superfluid orders; larger unit cells do not change the phase assignments.
    States in Sec. II and checks in Fig. 7 at representative points for 4x4 unit cells. Not exhaustive over the entire phase diagram.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ground-state phase diagram and route to supersolidity in a two-component extended Bose-Hubbard model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64WKNIHE

@misc{pith2026260808738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ground-state phase diagram and route to supersolidity in a two-component extended Bose-Hubbard model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64WKNIHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08738}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the ground-state phase diagram of a two-component extended Bose-Hubbard model recently realized with dipolar excitons, using the projected entangled-pair states. For the experimentally relevant parameter regime, checkerboard, Mott-insulating, superfluid, and vacuum phases are identified. These phases exhibit orbital-selective character, wherein the two components occupy different quantum states, but we find no evidence for a supersolid phase. The absence of supersolidity is attributed to the strongly interaction-dominated microscopic energy scales, which severely restrict the superfluid regime. Guided by the supersolid mechanism, we further explore a nearby parameter regime with enhanced hopping of one component and identify an orbital-selective supersolid phase. Further finite bond-dimension and unit-cell analyses establish the robustness of this phase. Our results clarify the zero-temperature phase structure of the dipolar-exciton platform and provide a possible route toward realizing supersolidity in this setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08738 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the iPEPS ansatz used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ground-state phase diagram for the parameter set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Order parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Order parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Ground-state energies obtained with 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Altman, W

    E. Altman, W. Hofstetter, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phase diagram of two-component bosons on an optical lattice, New Journal of Physics5, 113 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [37]

    H´ ebert, G

    F. H´ ebert, G. G. Batrouni, R. T. Scalettar, G. Schmid, M. Troyer, and A. Dorneich, Quantum phase transitions in the two-dimensional hardcore boson model, Phys. Rev. B65, 014513 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [1]

    Because the onsite intercomponent repulsionU 3 pe- nalizes simultaneous occupation of the two components, component 2 is expelled and component 1 takes over the checkerboard order, leading to the CB-VM phase. Upon further increasingµ 1, the chemical-potential gain of com- ponent 1 eventually overcomes the nearest-neighbor re- pulsion and drives the system...

    work page

  4. [2]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. B40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  5. [3]

    D. S. Rokhsar and B. G. Kotliar, Gutzwiller projection for bosons, Phys. Rev. B44, 10328 (1991)

    1991

  6. [4]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Cold bosonic atoms in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3108 (1998)

    1998

  7. [5]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  8. [6]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting sin- gle atoms in a hubbard-regime optical lattice, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

    2009

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    W. S. Bakr, A. Peng, M. E. Tai, R. Ma, J. Simon, J. I. Gillen, S. F¨ olling, L. Pollet, and M. Greiner, Probing the superfluid–to–mott insulator transi- tion at the single-atom level, Science329, 547 (2010), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1192368

    2010 doi

  2. [8]

    Weitenberg, M

    C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single- spin addressing in an atomic mott insulator, Nature471, 319 (2011)

    2011

  3. [9]

    G. G. Batrouni and R. T. Scalettar, Phase separation in supersolids, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1599 (2000)

    2000

  4. [10]

    G´ oral, L

    K. G´ oral, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein, Quantum phases of dipolar bosons in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 170406 (2002)

    2002

  5. [11]

    Giovanazzi, A

    S. Giovanazzi, A. G¨ orlitz, and T. Pfau, Tuning the dipo- lar interaction in quantum gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 130401 (2002)

    2002

  6. [12]

    Sengupta, L

    P. Sengupta, L. P. Pryadko, F. Alet, M. Troyer, and G. Schmid, Supersolids versus phase separation in two- dimensional lattice bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 207202 (2005)

    2005

  7. [13]

    Gan, Y.-C

    J.-Y. Gan, Y.-C. Wen, and Y. Yu, Supersolidity and phase diagram of soft-core bosons on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B75, 094501 (2007)

    2007

  8. [14]

    Baier, M

    S. Baier, M. J. Mark, D. Petter, K. Aikawa, L. Chomaz, Z. Cai, M. Baranov, P. Zoller, and F. Ferlaino, Extended bose-hubbard models with ultracold magnetic atoms, Science352, 201 (2016), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aac9812

    2016 doi

  9. [15]

    Weckesser, K

    P. Weckesser, K. Srakaew, T. Blatz, D. Wei, D. Adler, S. Agrawal, A. Bohrdt, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Realization of a rydberg-dressed ex- tended bose-hubbard model, Science390, 849 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adq7082

    2025 doi

  10. [16]

    Boninsegni and N

    M. Boninsegni and N. V. Prokof’ev, Colloquium: Super- solids: What and where are they?, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 759 (2012)

    2012

  11. [17]

    L´ eonard, A

    J. L´ eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Supersolid formation in a quantum gas break- ing a continuous translational symmetry, Nature543, 87 (2017)

    2017

  12. [18]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Modugno, Observation of a dipolar quantum gas with metastable supersolid properties, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130405 (2019)

    2019

  13. [19]

    B¨ ottcher, J.-N

    F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Transient supersolid properties in an array of dipolar quantum droplets, Phys. Rev. X9, 011051 (2019)

    2019

  14. [20]

    Chomaz, D

    L. Chomaz, D. Petter, P. Ilzh¨ ofer, G. Natale, A. Traut- mann, C. Politi, G. Durastante, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patscheider, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Long-lived and transient supersolid behaviors in dipolar quantum gases, Phys. Rev. X9, 021012 (2019)

    2019

  15. [21]

    M. A. Norcia, C. Politi, L. Klaus, E. Poli, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and F. Ferlaino, Two-dimensional supersolidity in a dipolar quantum gas, Nature596, 357 (2021)

    2021

  16. [22]

    A. B. Kuklov and B. V. Svistunov, Counterflow superflu- idity of two-species ultracold atoms in a commensurate optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 100401 (2003)

    2003

  17. [24]

    Lagoin, U

    C. Lagoin, U. Bhattacharya, T. Grass, R. W. Chhajlany, T. Salamon, K. Baldwin, L. Pfeiffer, M. Lewenstein, M. Holzmann, and F. Dubin, Extended bose–hubbard model with dipolar excitons, Nature609, 485 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    V. I. Anisimov, I. A. Nekrasov, D. E. Kondakov, T. M. Rice, and M. Sigrist, Orbital-selective mott-insulator transition in ca2 - xsrxruo4, The European Physical Jour- nal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems25, 191 (2002)

    2002

  19. [26]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for Quantum-Many Body Systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv e-prints , cond-mat/0407066 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2004 arXiv

  20. [27]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Jordan, R

    J. Jordan, R. Or´ us, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lat- tice systems in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008)

    2008

  22. [29]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  23. [30]

    H. C. Jiang, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Accurate de- termination of tensor network state of quantum lattice 7 models in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 090603 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollw¨ ock, and G. Vidal, Time-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effective hilbert spaces, Journal of Statis- tical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P04005 (2004)

    2004

  25. [32]

    Vidal, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension, Phys

    G. Vidal, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007)

    2007

  26. [33]

    Nishino and K

    T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, Corner transfer ma- trix renormalization group method, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan65, 891 (1996), https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.65.891

    1996 doi

  27. [34]

    Or´ us and G

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

    2009

  28. [35]

    M. T. Fishman, L. Vanderstraeten, V. Zauner-Stauber, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Faster methods for con- tracting infinite two-dimensional tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B98, 235148 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Corboz, T

    P. Corboz, T. M. Rice, and M. Troyer, Competing states in thet-jmodel: Uniformd-wave state versus stripe state, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 046402 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    S. He, Y. Liu, B. Xi, H.-G. Luo, Q. Luo, and J. Zhao, Emergent supercounterfluid and quantum phase dia- gram of two-component interacting bosons in a one- dimensional optical lattice, Phys. Rev. B111, 235110 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.