Zigzag antiferromagnets in the SU(3) Hubbard model on the square lattice

Philippe Corboz; Stijn V. Kleijweg

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 121 references

Zigzag antiferromagnets in the SU(3) Hubbard model on the square lattice

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 the zero-temperature phase diagram of the square-lattice SU(3) Hubbard model at one particle per site, in which the ground state passes from a 3-sublattice diagonal stripe antiferromagnet at strong coupling to a…

desk verdict Solid iPEPS confirmation of known zigzag phases in SU(3) Hubbard, with a useful energy decomposition; treat the quoted transition U's as indicative, not final. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14703 v1 pith:ULXHBJNW submitted 2025-06-17 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.quant-gas

Stijn V. Kleijweg , Philippe Corboz This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.quant-gas

keywords SU(3)HubbardmodelsquarelatticeiPEPSzigzagantiferromagnet3-sublatticeorderMottinsulatorultracoldfermionsphasediagram

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 aims to pin down the zero-temperature ground states of the SU(3) Hubbard model on the square lattice at exactly one particle per site. Using infinite projected entangled-pair states, it finds three ordered Mott-insulating phases: a 3-sublattice diagonal-stripe antiferromagnet at strong coupling, and two zigzag antiferromagnets of segment length 3 and 2 at intermediate coupling, with transitions around $U/t=7.5$ and $U/t=7.1$. The zigzag states matter because they are a nontrivial color-ordering pattern for three-flavor fermions that cold-atom quantum simulators could in principle observe, and because the paper identifies the microscopic source of their stability: energy gains on bonds at the zigzag corners, mainly from non-Heisenberg kinetic processes. If the phase diagram is right, the model gives a concrete target for experiments and a benchmark for other numerical methods.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family of zigzag states—stripes of color order that turn by 90 degrees every $l$ sites along the diagonal—together with the 3-sublattice stripe as the $l\to\infty$ limit. The computational machinery is infinite projected entangled-pair states (iPEPS), a variational tensor-network ansatz for two-dimensional ground states in the thermodynamic limit, with a $U(1)^3$ flavor-conservation symmetry, simple-update optimization up to $D=24$, and automatic-differentiation cross-checks at smaller $D$. The argument is carried by energy comparisons between these candidate states and by a decomposition of the total energy into superexchange, other kinetic, and on-site contributions, which localizes the stabilizing gain on corner bonds.

What would settle it

An independent calculation—say, an unbiased auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo simulation or an iPEPS run at bond dimension beyond 24—that finds the 4-zigzag state lowest in energy anywhere in $U/t\in[6,8]$, or finds no interval in which the 3-zigzag is the lowest state, would refute the claimed phase diagram.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the square-lattice SU(3) Hubbard model at $n=1$ hosts two intermediate-coupling zigzag antiferromagnets, the 2-zigzag and 3-zigzag states, in addition to the known strong-coupling 3-sublattice diagonal stripe. All three states belong to one family: the 3-sublattice state is an infinite zigzag, and the finite zigzags are stripes that turn by 90 degrees every $l$ sites. Energy-versus-$1/D$ comparisons up to bond dimension $D=24$ place the first transition (3-sublattice to 3-zigzag) around $U/t=7.5$ and the second (3-zigzag to 2-zigzag) around $U/t=7.1$; the 4-zigzag competes closely but never wins. The color order parameter and the horizontal-vertical bond-energy anisotropy both jump at the transitions, and the stabilization of the zigzag states is traced to low-energy bonds at the zigzag corners, where both superexchange and other kinetic processes gain energy despite increased double occupancy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ordering of the competing states' energies, computed at finite numerical accuracy (a bond dimension of 24) with gaps as small as about 0.001–0.006 $t$ per site, stays the same when the accuracy is increased without limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, cold-atom experiments with three-flavor fermions in a square optical lattice should see color correlations switch from diagonal stripes to 3-zigzag to 2-zigzag order as the interaction strength is lowered toward the metal.
The discontinuous jumps in color order and energy anisotropy imply both transitions are first-order-like, so site-resolved measurements should show sharp switching rather than continuous growth of order.
The vanishing of the squared color order parameter near $U/t=6.5(4)$ places the loss of magnetism in the same interaction range as the previously estimated metal-insulator transition, making the ordered phases occupy a finite window above it.
The paper's energy hierarchy explains why only $l=2$ and $l=3$ appear: the ordering of zigzag energies reverses between large and small $U/t$, so the 4-zigzag, although competitive, is never the lowest.

Reading between the lines

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

The corner-bond mechanism suggests a geometric rule: shortening the straight runs of a stripe lowers energy at weaker coupling by adding low-energy corner bonds, which predicts that even longer zigzags ($l=5,6$) could appear in a narrow window at higher numerical accuracy—something the paper does not claim.
If the zigzag family is not special to three flavors, SU(N) Hubbard models at filling $1/N$ may show analogous stripe-turn orders, with the stable segment lengths controlled by $N$; this is an extrapolation beyond the paper's scope.
The mismatch between finite-order $m$ and vanishing $m^2$ extrapolations near $U/t=6.5$ leaves open a weakly first-order magnetic-to-metal transition; a direct calculation of the single-particle gap would decide between that and a continuous crossover.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, this is a careful tensor-network study of the SU(3) Hubbard model at 1/3 filling. The main thing to know: the qualitative phase diagram is credible and matches prior CP-AFQMC and Hartree-Fock work (Feng et al. 2023), but the precise phase boundaries at U/t≈7.5 and 7.1 rest on simple-update iPEPS energy differences of ~10^-3 t at bond dimension D=24, with no extrapolation of those energy differences to D→∞. That makes the boundaries real but soft.

What's new: the independent iPEPS confirmation itself, plus an energy decomposition (Figs. 6–7) showing the zigzag states stabilize via non-Heisenberg kinetic processes, especially on bonds at the zigzag corners. That is a transparent, useful addition. The color order parameter and energy anisotropy discontinuities are also cleanly presented.

Strengths: the authors use two independent optimization schemes (simple update up to D=24, variational AD up to D=6,8), compare four competing states, and check color-imbalanced states. They are honest about D-dependence and cite the prior QMC/HF work squarely. There is no circularity: it's a direct simulation of Eq. (1).

Soft spots: (1) The energy differences that decide the phase diagram are 0.001–0.006 t per site, comparable to the simple-update truncation error at finite D. The authors don't extrapolate ΔE to D→∞; they only quote 0.7–2% shifts in the transition values between D=21 and D=24. That is not the same as a controlled error bar. (2) The AD cross-check at D=6,8 is at a scale where simple-update errors can exceed the physical gaps, so it confirms trends but not the ordering at the transition. (3) The transition values disagree with both CP-AFQMC (8.3, 7.7) and HF (5.65, 4.75), so independent pinning is weak. (4) No code or data is provided, limiting reproducibility. These are not fatal; the qualitative sequence 3-SL → 3-ZZ → 2-ZZ is consistent across methods, but a careful referee should ask for a convergence statement on the energy differences.

Who it's for: tensor-network practitioners and cold-atom SU(N) people. It deserves a serious referee: it's a well-executed numerical study with a new analytical angle. I'd accept it for review with requests for quantified uncertainty on the boundaries.

Recommendation: send to peer review; conditional on a proper D-extrapolation or a clear statement of the systematic error.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the SU(3) Hubbard model on the square lattice at unit filling using infinite projected entangled-pair states (iPEPS), optimized with simple update (SU) at bond dimensions up to D=24 and with automatic differentiation (AD) at D=6,8. The central claim is a zero-temperature phase diagram containing three ordered Mott phases: the 3-sublattice diagonal-stripe phase at large U/t, and 3-zigzag and 2-zigzag antiferromagnetic phases at intermediate U/t, with transitions around U/t=7.5 and 7.1. The paper also reports discontinuous color order parameter and energy anisotropy across the transitions, and analyzes kinetic and on-site energy contributions to identify low-energy bonds at the zigzag corners that stabilize the zigzag states.

Significance. If the phase diagram is correct, it provides independent tensor-network evidence for the zigzag states previously found in Hartree-Fock and CP-AFQMC calculations, and it connects the strong-coupling SU(3) Heisenberg 3-sublattice order to intermediate-coupling states in a way that may be testable in ultracold-atom experiments. The manuscript has clear strengths: it uses a direct Hamiltonian with no fitted parameters, benchmarks the large-U limit against the known Heisenberg result, cross-checks SU results with variational AD at D=6,8, and gives a transparent decomposition of the energy balance. The main weakness is that the phase boundaries rest on extremely small energy differences at finite bond dimension, without a controlled extrapolation of relative energies to infinite D. The qualitative phase sequence is plausible and consistent with prior work, but the quantitative transition locations are not yet established at the same level of rigor as the qualitative ordering.

major comments (2)

[§IV.B, Figs. 3–4] The central phase diagram is determined by simple-update iPEPS energy differences of order 0.001–0.006 t per site at D=24, with the transition points located by linear interpolation in U/t. These energy differences are not extrapolated to infinite D, and the variational AD cross-check reaches only D=6 and D=8; at those bond dimensions the fixed-D truncation error of the simple update is expected to be comparable to or larger than the physical splittings that decide the ordering. The reported 0.7–2% shift of the transition values between D=21 and D=24 does not bound the systematic simple-update bias relative to full-update or variational optimization. Since the existence and width of the 3-ZZ and 2-ZZ windows are exactly what these small differences determine, the paper should provide a quantitative D→∞ extrapolation of the relative energies (or an independent full-update/AD comparison at larger D) and an uncertainty estimate for the transition locations. The qualitative agreement with Hartree-Fock and CP-AFQMC, whose transition values differ by several t, does not by itself pin these boundaries.
[§III (CTMRG)] The environment bond dimension is controlled only by the statement that χ is “sufficiently large” so that the contraction error is small compared to the symbol sizes in the plots. This is not a quantitative convergence statement. Because the energy differences in Fig. 4 are as small as 10^-3 t per site, the manuscript should report the χ-dependence of the total energies or energy differences at the largest D and demonstrate that the environment truncation error is below this scale; otherwise the numerical uncertainty of the phase boundaries is not established.

minor comments (5)

[Figs. 3–4] The statement “the data on the x-axis shows the phase diagram” is confusing: the x-axis is U/t, while the phase diagram is the identity of the lowest-energy state as a function of U/t.
[Fig. 4] The U/t sampling grid underlying the linear interpolation is not specified; please give the grid spacing and state how the quoted transition values (7.1 and 7.5) are obtained from the interpolation.
[Fig. 5] The caption does not define σ or explain how the shaded error band is computed from the linear extrapolations of m and m^2; please define the quantity and the fitting procedure.
[Fig. 6] The bars are offset from zero by the values printed above them, but this is easy to miss; please state explicitly in the caption that the bars are truncated and that the printed values are the offsets.
[§IV.B] The check for competing color-imbalanced states is described without specifying the bond dimensions or U/t values at which it was performed; please add this information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagram is a direct iPEPS energy comparison for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with no fitted input later re-derived as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the ground-state phase diagram of the SU(3) Hubbard model on the square lattice at n=1, determined by comparing iPEPS energies of the 2-ZZ, 3-ZZ, 4-ZZ, and 3-SL states computed directly from the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). No parameter is fitted to an external target and then renamed as a prediction; the energy differences in Figs. 3 and 4 are post-processing of the same variational calculation, and the phase boundaries are read off from those computed energies. The benchmarks cited (SU(3) Heisenberg results, Hartree-Fock, CP-AFQMC, determinant QMC) are external to this calculation, and the paper does not use a self-citation chain to justify the existence of the zigzag states. The self-citations in the methods section are to standard iPEPS algorithmic developments and are not load-bearing for the physical conclusion. The finite-bond-dimension convergence concern, namely that the D=24 simple-update energy differences are small and not extrapolated to D at infinity, is a correctness or accuracy risk, not circularity: the calculation could in principle fail to converge to the true ordering, but the conclusion is not equivalent to the input by construction. The energy-contribution analysis in Figs. 6 and 7 is also a diagnostic decomposition of the same computed energies, not an independent prediction derived from its own output. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: the claimed phases and transitions are numerical outputs of a well-defined many-body Hamiltonian, with no self-definitional, fitted-input, or citation-imported uniqueness step.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; t and U are the model's own parameters. No new entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the standard Hamiltonian, the iPEPS variational ansatz, and the numerical convergence assumptions listed above.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The square-lattice SU(3) Hubbard Hamiltonian at n=1 (Eq. 1) is the correct model description for the cold-atom systems discussed.
The paper's predictions are about this Hamiltonian, which is standard for alkaline-earth atom optical lattices.
domain assumption iPEPS with the imposed U(1)^3 symmetry and a chosen rectangular unit cell spans the relevant ground-state symmetry sectors.
They test unit cells for 2-ZZ, 3-ZZ, 4-ZZ, 3-SL and color-imbalanced states, but cannot exhaustively rule out other unit cells or incommensurate states.
ad hoc to paper Simple-update energies at D=24 are accurate enough to resolve inter-state energy differences down to about 0.001 t.
The phase boundaries rely on these finite-D energies without an infinite-D extrapolation; this is the main numerical assumption.
domain assumption The CTMRG environment bond dimension chi is chosen large enough that contraction errors are negligible compared to the plotted energy differences.
Stated in Methods as sufficiently large but not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zigzag antiferromagnets in the SU(3) Hubbard model on the square lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULXHBJNW

@misc{pith2026250614703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zigzag antiferromagnets in the SU(3) Hubbard model on the square lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULXHBJNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14703}
}

read the original abstract

SU(N) Hubbard models exhibit a rich variety of phases, which may be realized through quantum simulation with ultracold atomic gases in optical lattices. In this work we study the Mott insulating phases of the SU(3) Hubbard model at 1/3-filling using infinite projected entangled-pair states, optimized with both imaginary time evolution and variational optimization. In the limit of strong interactions we reproduce the antiferromagnetic 3-sublattice ordered state previously identified in the SU(3) Heisenberg model. At intermediate interaction strength we find antiferromagnetic states exhibiting zigzag patterns of different lengths, in agreement with previous Hartree-Fock and constrained-path auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo calculations. We study the color order parameter and energy anisotropy, which are discontinuous across the phase transitions. Finally, we analyze the different energy contributions in two competing phases, identifying low-energy bonds at the corners of the zigzag that help stabilize the zigzag states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14703 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Simple-update results for the energy per site against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The energy per site against the inverse bond dimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The energy difference between the competing states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The energy contributions for the 3-zigzag and 3- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The energy differences between the 3-zigzag and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

[1]

Hubbard, Electron Correlations in Narrow Energy Bands, Proc

J. Hubbard, Electron Correlations in Narrow Energy Bands, Proc. R. Soc. A276, 238 (1963)

1963
[2]

D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The Hubbard Model, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 239 (2022)

2022
[3]

M. Qin, T. Sch¨ afer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The Hubbard Model: A Computational Per- spective, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 275 (2022)

2022
[4]

Wu, J.-p

C. Wu, J.-p. Hu, and S.-c. Zhang, Exact SO(5) Symme- try in the Spin-3/2 Fermionic System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 186402 (2003)

2003
[5]

Honerkamp and W

C. Honerkamp and W. Hofstetter, Ultracold Fermions and the SU(N) Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 170403 (2004). 7

2004
[6]

´A. Rapp, W. Hofstetter, and G. Zar´ and, Trionic phase of ultracold fermions in an optical lattice: A variational study, Phys. Rev. B77, 144520 (2008)

2008
[7]

M. A. Cazalilla, A. F. Ho, and M. Ueda, Ultracold gases of ytterbium: ferromagnetism and Mott states in an SU(6) Fermi system, New J. Phys.11, 103033 (2009)

2009
[8]

A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Two-orbital SU(N) magnetism with ultra- cold alkaline-earth atoms, Nat. Phys.6, 289 (2010)

2010

Show all 121 references

[9]

M. A. Cazalilla and A. M. Rey, Ultracold Fermi gases with emergent SU(N) symmetry, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 124401 (2014)

2014
[10]

Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla and S

E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla and S. Choudhury, Many-body physics of ultracold alkaline-earth atoms with SU(N)- symmetric interactions, J. Phys. Condens. Matter37, 083003 (2024)

2024
[11]

Exploiting the hyperfine states of alkali atoms [4–6] of- fers an alternative route to the realization of SU(N) systems (or SO(5) [4])
[12]

S. Taie, R. Yamazaki, S. Sugawa, and Y. Takahashi, An SU(6) Mott insulator of an atomic Fermi gas realized by large-spin Pomeranchuk cooling, Nat. Phys.8, 825 (2012)

2012
[13]

Scazza, C

F. Scazza, C. Hofrichter, M. H¨ ofer, P. C. De Groot, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Observation of two-orbital spin- exchange interactions with ultracold SU(N)-symmetric fermions, Nat. Phys.10, 779 (2014)

2014
[14]

Zhang, M

X. Zhang, M. Bishof, S. L. Bromley, C. V. Kraus, M. S. Safronova, P. Zoller, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Spectro- scopic observation of SU(N)-symmetric interactions in Sr orbital magnetism, Science345, 1467 (2014)

2014
[15]

Hofrichter, L

C. Hofrichter, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fernandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Direct Probing of the Mott Crossover in the SU(N) Fermi-Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. X6, 021030 (2016)

2016
[16]

Ozawa, S

H. Ozawa, S. Taie, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Anti- ferromagnetic Spin Correlation of SU(N) Fermi Gas in an Optical Superlattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 225303 (2018)

2018
[17]

S. Taie, E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, N. Nishizawa, Y. Takasu, Y. Kuno, H.-T. Wei, R. T. Scalettar, K. R. A. Hazzard, and Y. Takahashi, Observation of an- tiferromagnetic correlations in an ultracold SU(N) Hub- bard model, Nat. Phys.18, 1356 (2022)

2022
[18]

D. Tusi, L. Franchi, L. F. Livi, K. Baumann, D. Bene- dicto Orenes, L. Del Re, R. E. Barfknecht, T.-W. Zhou, M. Inguscio, G. Cappellini, M. Capone, J. Catani, and L. Fallani, Flavour-selective localization in interacting lattice fermions, Nat. Phys.18, 1201 (2022)

2022
[19]

Pasqualetti, O

G. Pasqualetti, O. Bettermann, N. Darkwah Oppong, E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, S. Dasgupta, R. Scalettar, K. Hazzard, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Equation of State and Thermometry of the 2D SU(N) Fermi-Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 083401 (2024)

2024
[20]

W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice, Na- ture462, 74 (2009)

2009
[21]

J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic Mott insulator, Nature467, 68 (2010)

2010
[22]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Quantum sim- ulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nat. Phys.8, 267 (2012)

2012
[23]

L. W. Cheuk, M. A. Nichols, M. Okan, T. Gers- dorf, V. V. Ramasesh, W. S. Bakr, T. Lompe, and M. W. Zwierlein, Quantum-Gas Microscope for Fermionic Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 193001 (2015)

2015
[24]

G. J. A. Edge, R. Anderson, D. Jervis, D. C. McKay, R. Day, S. Trotzky, and J. H. Thywissen, Imaging and addressing of individual fermionic atoms in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A92, 063406 (2015)

2015
[25]

Haller, J

E. Haller, J. Hudson, A. Kelly, D. A. Cotta, B. Peaude- cerf, G. D. Bruce, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom imaging of fermions in a quantum-gas microscope, Nat. Phys.11, 738 (2015)

2015
[26]

Omran, M

A. Omran, M. Boll, T. A. Hilker, K. Kleinlein, G. Sa- lomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Microscopic Observa- tion of Pauli Blocking in Degenerate Fermionic Lattice Gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 263001 (2015)

2015
[27]

M. F. Parsons, F. Huber, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, W. Setiawan, K. Wooley-Brown, S. Blatt, and M. Greiner, Site-Resolved Imaging of Fermionic 6Li in an Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 213002 (2015)

2015
[28]

M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Site-resolved measurement of the spin-correlation function in the Fermi-Hubbard model, Science353, 1253 (2016)

2016
[29]

Gross and I

C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017)

2017
[30]

Mazurenko, C

A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kan´ asz-Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, A cold-atom Fermi–Hubbard antiferromagnet, Nature545, 462 (2017)

2017
[31]

Hartke, B

T. Hartke, B. Oreg, N. Jia, and M. Zwierlein, Doublon- Hole Correlations and Fluctuation Thermometry in a Fermi-Hubbard Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 113601 (2020)

2020
[32]

G. Ji, M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, C. S. Chiu, J. C. Br¨ uggenj¨ urgen, D. Greif, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, E. Dem- ler, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Coupling a Mobile Hole to an Antiferromagnetic Spin Background: Transient Dynamics of a Magnetic Polaron, Phys. Rev. X11, 021022 (2021)

2021
[33]

Koepsell, D

J. Koepsell, D. Bourgund, P. Sompet, S. Hirthe, A. Bohrdt, Y. Wang, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, G. Salomon, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Microscopic evolution of doped Mott insulators from polaronic metal to Fermi liquid, Science374, 82 (2021)

2021
[34]

Gross and W

C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection, Nat. Phys.17, 1316 (2021)

2021
[35]

Miranda, R

M. Miranda, R. Inoue, Y. Okuyama, A. Nakamoto, and M. Kozuma, Site-resolved imaging of ytterbium atoms in a two-dimensional optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A91, 063414 (2015)

2015
[36]

Yamamoto, J

R. Yamamoto, J. Kobayashi, T. Kuno, K. Kato, and Y. Takahashi, An ytterbium quantum gas microscope with narrow-line laser cooling, New J. Phys.18, 023016 (2016)

2016
[37]

Miranda, R

M. Miranda, R. Inoue, N. Tambo, and M. Kozuma, Site- resolved imaging of a bosonic Mott insulator using yt- terbium atoms, Phys. Rev. A96, 043626 (2017)

2017
[38]

Okuno, Y

D. Okuno, Y. Amano, K. Enomoto, N. Takei, and Y. Takahashi, Schemes for nondestructive quantum gas 8 microscopy of single atoms in an optical lattice, New J. Phys.22, 013041 (2020)

2020
[39]

Sch¨ afer, T

F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Tools for quantum simulation with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 411 (2020)

2020
[40]

S. Buob, J. H¨ oschele, V. Makhalov, A. Rubio-Abadal, and L. Tarruell, A Strontium Quantum-Gas Microscope, PRX Quantum5, 020316 (2024)

2024
[41]

Mongkolkiattichai, L

J. Mongkolkiattichai, L. Liu, S. Dasgupta, K. R. A. Hazzard, and P. Schauss, Quantum gas microscopy of three-flavor Hubbard systems, arXiv:2503.05687

arXiv
[42]

Affleck and J

I. Affleck and J. B. Marston, Large-n limit of the Heisenberg-Hubbard model: Implications for high-T c superconductors, Phys. Rev. B37, 3774 (1988)

1988
[43]

J. B. Marston and I. Affleck, Large-nlimit of the Hubbard-Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B39, 11538 (1989)

1989
[44]

Read and S

N. Read and S. Sachdev, Valence-bond and spin-Peierls ground states of low-dimensional quantum antiferro- magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 1694 (1989)

1989
[45]

Read and S

N. Read and S. Sachdev, Spin-Peierls, valence-bond solid, and N´ eel ground states of low-dimensional quan- tum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B42, 4568 (1990)

1990
[46]

Harada, N

K. Harada, N. Kawashima, and M. Troyer, N´ eel and Spin-Peierls Ground States of Two-Dimensional SU(N) Quantum Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 117203 (2003)

2003
[47]

F. F. Assaad, Phase diagram of the half-filled two- dimensional SU(N) Hubbard-Heisenberg model: A quantum Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. B71, 075103 (2005)

2005
[48]

Hermele, V

M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, Mott Insulators of Ultracold Fermionic Alkaline Earth Atoms: Under- constrained Magnetism and Chiral Spin Liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 135301 (2009)

2009
[49]

T. A. T´ oth, A. M. L¨ auchli, F. Mila, and K. Penc, Three- Sublattice Ordering of the SU(3) Heisenberg Model of Three-Flavor Fermions on the Square and Cubic Lat- tices, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 265301 (2010)

2010
[50]

Corboz, A

P. Corboz, A. M. L¨ auchli, K. Penc, M. Troyer, and F. Mila, Simultaneous Dimerization and SU(4) Symme- try Breaking of 4-Color Fermions on the Square Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 215301 (2011)

2011
[51]

Hermele and V

M. Hermele and V. Gurarie, Topological liquids and va- lence cluster states in two-dimensional SU(N) magnets, Phys. Rev. B84, 174441 (2011)

2011
[52]

Bauer, P

B. Bauer, P. Corboz, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Messio, K. Penc, M. Troyer, and F. Mila, Three-sublattice order in the SU(3) Heisenberg model on the square and triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B85, 125116 (2012)

2012
[53]

Corboz, M

P. Corboz, M. Lajk´ o, A. M. L¨ auchli, K. Penc, and F. Mila, Spin-Orbital Quantum Liquid on the Honey- comb Lattice, Phys. Rev. X2, 041013 (2012)

2012
[54]

Corboz, K

P. Corboz, K. Penc, F. Mila, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Simplex solids in SU(N) Heisenberg models on the kagome and checkerboard lattices, Phys. Rev. B86, 041106 (2012)

2012
[55]

Corboz, M

P. Corboz, M. Lajk´ o, K. Penc, F. Mila, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Competing states in the SU(3) Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice: Plaquette valence- bond crystal versus dimerized color-ordered state, Phys. Rev. B87, 195113 (2013)

2013
[56]

Nataf and F

P. Nataf and F. Mila, Exact Diagonalization of Heisen- berg SU(N) Models, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 127204 (2014)

2014
[57]

G. Chen, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, and M. Her- mele, Synthetic-gauge-field stabilization of the chiral- spin-liquid phase, Phys. Rev. A93, 061601 (2016)

2016
[58]

Dufour and F

J. Dufour and F. Mila, Stabilization of the chiral phase of the SU(6m) Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lat- tice withmparticles per site formlarger than 1, Phys. Rev. A94, 033617 (2016)

2016
[59]

Nataf, M

P. Nataf, M. Lajk´ o, P. Corboz, A. M. L¨ auchli, K. Penc, and F. Mila, Plaquette order in the SU(6) Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B93, 201113 (2016)

2016
[60]

Nataf, M

P. Nataf, M. Lajk´ o, A. Wietek, K. Penc, F. Mila, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Chiral Spin Liquids in Triangular-Lattice SU(N) Fermionic Mott Insulators with Artificial Gauge Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 167202 (2016)

2016
[61]

W. Nie, D. Zhang, and W. Zhang, Ferromagnetic ground state of the SU(3) Hubbard model on the Lieb lattice, Phys. Rev. A96, 053616 (2017)

2017
[62]

Hafez-Torbati and W

M. Hafez-Torbati and W. Hofstetter, Artificial SU(3) spin-orbit coupling and exotic Mott insulators, Phys. Rev. B98, 245131 (2018)

2018
[63]

Hafez-Torbati and W

M. Hafez-Torbati and W. Hofstetter, Competing charge and magnetic order in fermionic multicomponent sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B100, 035133 (2019)

2019
[64]

Hafez-Torbati, J.-H

M. Hafez-Torbati, J.-H. Zheng, B. Irsigler, and W. Hof- stetter, Interaction-driven topological phase transitions in fermionic SU(3) systems, Phys. Rev. B101, 245159 (2020)

2020
[65]

S. S. Chung and P. Corboz, SU(3) fermions on the hon- eycomb lattice at 1 3 filling, Phys. Rev. B100, 035134 (2019)

2019
[66]

R. Liu, W. Nie, and W. Zhang, Flat-band ferromag- netism of SU(N) Hubbard model on Tasaki lattices, Sci- ence Bulletin64, 1490 (2019)

2019
[67]

C. Feng, E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, K. R. A. Hazzard, R. Scalettar, S. Zhang, and E. Vitali, Metal-insulator transition and quantum magnetism in the SU(3) Fermi- Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043267 (2023)

2023
[68]

Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, C

E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, C. Feng, G. Pasqualetti, S. F¨ olling, R. T. Scalettar, E. Khatami, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Metal-insulator transition and magnetism of SU(3) fermions in the square lattice, Phys. Rev. A108, 053312 (2023)

2023
[69]

Botzung and P

T. Botzung and P. Nataf, Exact Diagonalization of SU(N) Fermi-Hubbard Models, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 153001 (2024)

2024
[70]

Botzung and P

T. Botzung and P. Nataf, Numerical observation of SU(N) Nagaoka ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. B109, 235131 (2024)

2024
[71]

G. V. Chen and C. Wu, Multiflavor Mott insulators in quantum materials and ultracold atoms, npj Quantum Mater.9, 1 (2024)

2024
[72]

Schl¨ omer, F

H. Schl¨ omer, F. Grusdt, U. Schollw¨ ock, K. R. A. Haz- zard, and A. Bohrdt, Subdimensional magnetic polarons in the one-hole doped SU(3)t-Jmodel, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125134 (2024)

2024
[73]

Zhang, Q

Z. Zhang, Q. Zheng, E. Ibarra-Garcia-Padilla, R. T. Scalettar, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Unit-density SU(3) Fermi-Hubbard Model with Spin Flavor Imbalance, arXiv:2503.17776
[74]

B¨ ohler, F

A. B¨ ohler, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Magnetic correla- tions in the SU(3) triangular-latticet-Jmodel at finite doping, arXiv:2506.01915. 9

arXiv
[75]

Corboz and F

P. Corboz and F. Mila, Crystals of Bound States in the Magnetization Plateaus of the Shastry-Sutherland Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 147203 (2014)

2014
[76]

Corboz, T

P. Corboz, T. Rice, and M. Troyer, Competing States in thet-JModel: Uniformd-Wave State versus Stripe State, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 046402 (2014)

2014
[77]

H. Liao, Z. Xie, J. Chen, Z. Liu, H. Xie, R. Huang, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Gapless Spin-Liquid Ground State in theS= 1/2 Kagome Antiferromag- net, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 137202 (2017)

2017
[78]

Niesen and P

I. Niesen and P. Corboz, Emergent Haldane phase in theS= 1 bilinear-biquadratic Heisenberg model on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B95, 180404 (2017)

2017
[79]

J.-Y. Chen, L. Vanderstraeten, S. Capponi, and D. Poil- blanc, Non-Abelian chiral spin liquid in a quantum an- tiferromagnet revealed by an iPEPS study, Phys. Rev. B98, 184409 (2018)

2018
[80]

S. S. Jahromi and R. Or´ us, Spin- 1 2 Heisenberg antifer- romagnet on the star lattice: Competing valence-bond- solid phases studied by means of tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B98, 155108 (2018)

2018
[81]

Lee and N

H.-Y. Lee and N. Kawashima, Spin-one bilinear- biquadratic model on a star lattice, Phys. Rev. B97, 205123 (2018)

2018
[82]

Niesen and P

I. Niesen and P. Corboz, Ground-state study of the spin- 1 bilinear-biquadratic Heisenberg model on the trian- gular lattice using tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B97, 245146 (2018)

2018
[83]

Yamaguchi, Y

H. Yamaguchi, Y. Sasaki, T. Okubo, M. Yoshida, T. Kida, M. Hagiwara, Y. Kono, S. Kittaka, T. Sakak- ibara, M. Takigawa, Y. Iwasaki, and Y. Hosokoshi, Field-enhanced quantum fluctuation in anS= 1 2 frus- trated square lattice, Phys. Rev. B98, 094402 (2018)

2018
[84]

Ponsioen, S

B. Ponsioen, S. S. Chung, and P. Corboz, Period 4 stripe in the extended two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B100, 195141 (2019)

2019
[85]

Gauth´ e, S

O. Gauth´ e, S. Capponi, M. Mambrini, and D. Poilblanc, Quantum spin liquid phases in the bilinear-biquadratic two-SU(4)-fermion Hamiltonian on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B101, 205144 (2020)

2020
[86]

Kshetrimayum, C

A. Kshetrimayum, C. Balz, B. Lake, and J. Eisert, Ten- sor network investigation of the double layer Kagome compound Ca 10Cr7O28, Annals of Physics421, 168292 (2020)

2020
[87]

H.-Y. Lee, R. Kaneko, L. E. Chern, T. Okubo, Y. Ya- maji, N. Kawashima, and Y. B. Kim, Magnetic field induced quantum phases in a tensor network study of Kitaev magnets, Nat. Commun.11, 1639 (2020)

2020
[88]

Czarnik, M

P. Czarnik, M. M. Rams, P. Corboz, and J. Dziar- maga, Tensor network study of them= 1 2 magnetiza- tion plateau in the Shastry-Sutherland model at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. B103, 075113 (2021)

2021
[89]

Hasik, D

J. Hasik, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Investigation of the N´ eel phase of the frustrated Heisenberg antiferromag- net by differentiable symmetric tensor networks, SciPost Physics10, 012 (2021)

2021
[90]

J. L. Jim´ enez, S. P. G. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Za- yed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Weber, S. Wessel, A. Honecker, B. Normand, C. R¨ uegg, P. Corboz, H. M. Rønnow, and F. Mila, A quantum magnetic analogue to the critical point of wa- ter, Nature5...

2021
[91]

Gauth´ e and F

O. Gauth´ e and F. Mila, Thermal Ising Transition in the Spin-1/2J 1-J2 Heisenberg Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 227202 (2022)

2022
[92]

Hasik, M

J. Hasik, M. Van Damme, D. Poilblanc, and L. Vander- straeten, Simulating Chiral Spin Liquids with Projected Entangled-Pair States, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 177201 (2022)

2022
[93]

W.-Y. Liu, J. Hasik, S.-S. Gong, D. Poilblanc, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Emergence of Gapless Quantum Spin Liquid from Deconfined Quantum Critical Point, Phys. Rev. X12, 031039 (2022)

2022
[94]

Peschke, B

M. Peschke, B. Ponsioen, and P. Corboz, Competing states in the two-dimensional frustrated Kondo-necklace model, Phys. Rev. B106, 205140 (2022)

2022
[95]

Z. Shi, S. Dissanayake, P. Corboz, W. Steinhardt, D. Graf, D. M. Silevitch, H. A. Dabkowska, T. F. Rosenbaum, F. Mila, and S. Haravifard, Discovery of quantum phases in the Shastry-Sutherland compound SrCu2(BO3)2 under extreme conditions of field and pressure, Nat. Commun.13, ...

2022
[96]

Sinha, M

A. Sinha, M. M. Rams, P. Czarnik, and J. Dziarmaga, Finite-temperature tensor network study of the Hub- bard model on an infinite square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 106, 195105 (2022)

2022
[97]

Ponsioen, S

B. Ponsioen, S. S. Chung, and P. Corboz, Supercon- ducting stripes in the hole-doped three-band Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B108, 205154 (2023)

2023
[98]

Y. Xu, S. Capponi, J.-Y. Chen, L. Vanderstraeten, J. Hasik, A. H. Nevidomskyy, M. Mambrini, K. Penc, and D. Poilblanc, Phase diagram of the chiral SU(3) an- tiferromagnet on the kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B108, 195153 (2023)

2023
[99]

Hasik and P

J. Hasik and P. Corboz, Incommensurate Order with Translationally Invariant Projected Entangled- Pair States: Spiral States and Quantum Spin Liquid on the Anisotropic Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 176502 (2024)

2024
[100]

Schmoll, J

P. Schmoll, J. Naumann, J. Eisert, and Y. Iqbal, Bathing in a sea of candidate quantum spin liquids: From the gapless ruby to the gapped maple-leaf lattice, arXiv:2407.07145

arXiv
[101]

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. B109, L241117 (2024)

2024
[102]

Verstraete and J

F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algo- rithms for Quantum-Many Body Systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066

arXiv
[103]

Jordan, R

J. Jordan, R. Or´ us, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in Two Spatial Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 250602 (2008)

2008
[104]

Corboz, S

P. Corboz, S. R. White, G. Vidal, and M. Troyer, Stripes in the two-dimensionalt-Jmodel with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B84, 041108 (2011)

2011
[105]

S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

1992
[106]

Troyer and U.-J

M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational Complexity and Fundamental Limitations to Fermionic Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

2005
[107]

Corboz and G

P. Corboz and G. Vidal, Fermionic multiscale entangle- ment renormalization ansatz, Phys. Rev. B80, 165129 (2009). 10

2009
[108]

Corboz, R

P. Corboz, R. Or´ us, 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)

2010
[109]

Barthel, C

T. Barthel, C. Pineda, and J. Eisert, Contraction of fermionic operator circuits and the simulation of strongly correlated fermions, Phys. Rev. A80, 042333 (2009)

2009
[110]

Shi, S.-H

Q.-Q. Shi, S.-H. Li, J.-H. Zhao, and H.-Q. Zhou, Graded Projected Entangled-Pair State Representations and An Algorithm for Translationally Invariant Strongly Cor- related Electronic Systems on Infinite-Size Lattices in Two Spatial Dimensions, arXiv:0907.5520

arXiv
[111]

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

2010
[112]

Mortier, L

Q. Mortier, L. Devos, L. Burgelman, B. Vanhecke, N. Bultinck, F. Verstraete, J. Haegeman, and L. Van- derstraeten, Fermionic tensor network methods, SciPost Physics18, 012 (2025)

2025
[113]

Bauer, P

B. Bauer, P. Corboz, R. Or´ us, and M. Troyer, Im- plementing global Abelian symmetries in projected entangled-pair state algorithms, Phys. Rev. B83, 125106 (2011)

2011
[114]

Singh, R

S. Singh, R. N. C. Pfeifer, and G. Vidal, Tensor network states and algorithms in the presence of a global U(1) symmetry, Phys. Rev. B83, 115125 (2011)

2011
[115]

Nishino and K

T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, Corner Transfer Matrix Renormalization Group Method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.65, 891 (1996)

1996
[116]

Or´ us and G

R. Or´ us and G. Vidal, Simulation of two-dimensional quantum systems on an infinite lattice revisited: Corner transfer matrix for tensor contraction, Phys. Rev. B80, 094403 (2009)

2009
[117]

H. C. Jiang, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Accurate De- termination of Tensor Network State of Quantum Lat- tice Models in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 090603 (2008)

2008
[118]

H. N. Phien, J. A. Bengua, H. D. Tuan, P. Corboz, and R. Or´ us, Infinite projected entangled pair states algorithm improved: Fast full update and gauge fixing, Phys. Rev. B92, 035142 (2015)

2015
[119]

Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite pro- jected entangled-pair states, Phys

P. Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite pro- jected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B94, 035133 (2016)

2016
[120]

Vanderstraeten, J

L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, P. Corboz, and F. Ver- straete, Gradient methods for variational optimization of projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B94, 155123 (2016)

2016
[121]

Liao, J.-G

H.-J. Liao, J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Differen- tiable Programming Tensor Networks, Phys. Rev. X9, 031041 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Hubbard, Electron Correlations in Narrow Energy Bands, Proc

J. Hubbard, Electron Correlations in Narrow Energy Bands, Proc. R. Soc. A276, 238 (1963)

1963

[2] [2]

D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The Hubbard Model, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 239 (2022)

2022

[3] [3]

M. Qin, T. Sch¨ afer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The Hubbard Model: A Computational Per- spective, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 275 (2022)

2022

[4] [4]

Wu, J.-p

C. Wu, J.-p. Hu, and S.-c. Zhang, Exact SO(5) Symme- try in the Spin-3/2 Fermionic System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 186402 (2003)

2003

[5] [5]

Honerkamp and W

C. Honerkamp and W. Hofstetter, Ultracold Fermions and the SU(N) Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 170403 (2004). 7

2004

[6] [6]

´A. Rapp, W. Hofstetter, and G. Zar´ and, Trionic phase of ultracold fermions in an optical lattice: A variational study, Phys. Rev. B77, 144520 (2008)

2008

[7] [7]

M. A. Cazalilla, A. F. Ho, and M. Ueda, Ultracold gases of ytterbium: ferromagnetism and Mott states in an SU(6) Fermi system, New J. Phys.11, 103033 (2009)

2009

[8] [8]

A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Two-orbital SU(N) magnetism with ultra- cold alkaline-earth atoms, Nat. Phys.6, 289 (2010)

2010