Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 150 references

Hyperdeterminant wavefunctions give a variational route to fractionalized states with direct access to partons and their effective field theories.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 23:22 UTC pith:T5N72T5L

load-bearing objection A real methods framework for parton-style Hdet states with VMPI EFTs and PE numerics; the Gauss-law/PE truncation caveat is real but the authors flag it, and the paper still deserves referees. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23392 v1 pith:T5N72T5L submitted 2026-07-25 cond-mat.str-el

Hyperdeterminant wavefunctions

Guan-Lin Lin , Di Xiao , Ying Ran This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords hyperdeterminant wavefunctionsfermionic partonsfractional Chern insulatorsquantum spin liquidsvariational manifold path integralprojective expansionfused Gaussian stateslocality structure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces hyperdeterminant (Hdet) wavefunctions as a variational class for strongly correlated phases that host fractionalized degrees of freedom. An Hdet state is built from a polynomial-sized fusion tensor that glues free fermionic parton Slater determinants into a physical electron or spin wavefunction, generalizing ordinary Slater determinants and earlier parton constructions. Only tensors that admit a locality structure—local fusion channels with exponentially decaying tails—are treated as physically reasonable. With that structure, the authors develop a variational-manifold path integral (VMPI) that produces microscopic effective theories of partons coupled to gauge fields, and a projective expansion (PE) that approximates static and dynamic observables order by order. Benchmarks on Laughlin and Jain states and on fractional Chern insulator models show that even zeroth-order PE recovers parton band structures and known energetics. The claim is that one framework can deliver both reliable microscopic numbers and an intuitive picture of the fractionalized degrees of freedom.

Core claim

Hyperdeterminant wavefunctions whose fusion tensors admit a locality structure form a practical variational class that generalizes fermionic parton constructions, gives direct access to fractionalized partons, and—via VMPI plus projective expansion—yields microscopic effective field theories and simulable ground- and dynamical properties for fractional Chern insulators and quantum spin liquids.

What carries the argument

The locality-structured fusion tensor (and its on-site fusion gates) that defines an Hdet state; VMPI then quantizes fluctuations of that manifold into parton–gauge effective theories, while projective expansion evaluates overlaps and correlators order by order.

Load-bearing premise

That Gaussian fluctuations around a truncated projective-expansion saddle still produce the correct low-energy gauge dynamics rather than truncation artifacts, without a controlled small parameter.

What would settle it

Compute magnetoroton or other collective-mode dispersions from VMPI+PE on a standard FCI or QSL model and compare them side-by-side with exact diagonalization or DMRG on the same Hamiltonian; systematic mismatch at long wavelength would falsify the claim that the approximate effective theory is microscopically reliable.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Parton band structures and gauge kernels become directly readable variational outputs for FCI and QSL models, not only post-processed electron spectra.
  • Laughlin/Jain-type states and multi-channel QSL wavefunctions can be optimized and compared energetically within one PE hierarchy.
  • Collective-mode dispersions (magnetorotons, photons, Goldstones) are algorithms that follow from the same VMPI action used for the ground state.
  • The larger fused-Gaussian-state class is positioned to cover non-Abelian FCI analogues and correlated superconductors with the same toolkit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If PE converges on larger lattices, it could supply the missing microscopic input for noncommutative or continuum composite-fermion field theories that currently lack controlled lattice realizations.
  • Multi-channel fusion (CPD rank > 1) offers a concrete variational knob for entanglement between parton species that older single-channel Gutzwiller projections cannot tune.
  • The same locality-plus-VMPI pattern may extend to other constrained Hilbert spaces (e.g., dimer or rotor models) wherever a fusion map into physical degrees of freedom exists.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces hyperdeterminant (Hdet) wavefunctions as a generalization of Slater determinants and fermionic-parton constructions. It proves basic structural properties (statistics, basis independence, second-quantized fusion, relation to CPD/products of determinants, and computational hardness), defines a locality structure through local fusion channels and gates, and gives explicit fusion tensors for Laughlin/Jain states. It then develops the variational-manifold path integral (VMPI), a path-integral form of TDVP with Gaussian quantization on Kähler manifolds; after reproducing TDHF/RPA and Goldstone dynamics, it applies VMPI to Hdet states to derive IGG gauge dynamics. Finally, it proposes a projective expansion (PE) for approximately evaluating Hdet states and presents benchmarks for Laughlin/Jain wavefunctions and FCI saddle points, with an outlook toward fused Gaussian states.

Significance. If the approximation steps are controlled, this would be a substantial unifying framework for parton wavefunctions, Gutzwiller-type constructions, and Grassmann tensor-network representations, with potentially useful applications to FQH/FCI states and quantum spin liquids. Particular strengths are the explicit analytic fusion tensors in Eqs. (33), (52), (53), and (60), including coefficients fixed by locality and Galilean invariance; the careful basis-independence and statistics results; the second-quantized local-gate formulation; and the explicit Ward-identity analysis connecting Hdet saddles to Maxwell/Chern-Simons dynamics. The static PE benchmarks and direct calculation of parton band structures are also valuable. The central novelty, however, is not only definitional: the promised sharp microscopic phase identification depends on the presently uncontrolled combination of Gaussian VMPI and truncated PE.

major comments (4)
  1. [§V.C.1 and §V.C.4, Eqs. (249), (252)-(254), (280)-(289), (367)] For exact Hdet states, Eq. (249) implements Gauss law and removes a0. The practical PE theory assumes only static invariance and double-sided overlap covariance, reintroduces a0, and then uses Ward identities to constrain the kernel Π. Those identities fix transversality, but not the PE values of the Chern-Simons level, χE, χB, or the photon mass/velocity; the counterterm Sct in Eq. (367) is precisely where such coefficients can shift. The authors acknowledge both the absence of a small parameter and the lack of a sharp argument that PE counterterms cannot alter topological terms. Since sharp phase identification is a central claim, the manuscript needs an order-by-order protection/quantization argument or a controlled convergence test for the Gauss-law sector and topological coefficients.
  2. [§V.A.1, Eq. (108); §V.C.1, Eqs. (255)-(260)] The VMPI measure is not yet well defined in the gauge-redundant Hdet coordinates. Pure-gauge variations of ρ leave the electronic state unchanged, so the Fubini-Study metric entering Eq. (108) is degenerate on those directions. Equation (255) inserts a Haar integral, but the manuscript does not specify the quotient/base measure, a gauge-fixing prescription, or the Jacobian associated with changing from ηs to a0,s. Please define D[ρ,a0] explicitly—e.g. through a reduced metric on the physical quotient plus a Faddeev-Popov construction—and show that the resulting Gaussian measure and determinants are gauge invariant.
  3. [§VI.A-B, especially §VI.B.3; §VI.C; Eqs. (24)-(26), (46), (57)] PE is described as a systematic local expansion, but the manuscript does not establish a convergence radius, an error bound, or the scaling of error and cost with PE order, real-space cumulant cutoff, system size, and fusion-channel number R. This is load-bearing because exact Hdet evaluation is NP-hard and R grows beyond Laughlin states. The benchmarks should report quantitative residuals—norm/energy variance, overlap error, and quantum-geometric-tensor error—as the order and cutoff are increased, and state the computational scaling. Zeroth-order FCI saddle points alone do not establish the broader practical-simulation claim.
  4. [§V.C.5-7 and §VI.C] The paper derives gauge kernels, Maxwell/Chern-Simons actions, flat-connection dynamics, and collective-mode prescriptions, but the presented benchmarks are primarily static wavefunction/energy tests and zeroth-order parton band structures. There is no end-to-end VMPI+PE calculation beyond the saddle compared with independent data. At least one nontrivial dynamical benchmark is needed—for example a Laughlin/Jain magnetoroton or a model-QSL photon/Goldstone mode—reporting the dispersion and relevant topological coefficient together with PE-order convergence against ED, QMC, or an exactly known limit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II.B.5] The permanent is #P-complete, so exact evaluation of the special tensor in this section is more precisely #P-hard. “NP-hard” is appropriate only after formulating an associated decision problem. The complexity statement should be made precise.
  2. [§III.A.1-2, Eqs. (33)-(35) and (53)-(55)] The analytic fusion tensors are central to the later constructions but are presented largely as direct-calculation results. Please include a derivation or supplementary verification, including the phase/gauge conventions entering Xkl and Xklm and the coherent-state normalization.
  3. [§III.B.1-2, Eqs. (61)-(63), (77)-(79); §IV.B, Eq. (100)] The change of viewpoint that treats overcomplete coherent states as orthonormal is useful, but the embedding of the physical band into the enlarged abstract lattice should be written explicitly. In particular, clarify the normalization/isometry and why the reconstructed parton-band Chern numbers and PSG assignments are independent of Fine-Grid, ancilla, and tail-truncation choices.
  4. [§II.B.6 and §VI.C.3, Fig. 15] The uniqueness of the fusion tensor is explicitly unresolved. The discussion of “direct access” to parton band structures should therefore distinguish gauge-fixing-dependent parton RDMs/bands from gauge-invariant physical observables, and Fig. 15 should state the chosen gauge, PE order, nmax, momentum path, and normalization.
  5. [Throughout] The notation is unusually dense: m combines coherent-state and Landau-level indices, i suppresses the parton-species label, and κ, χ, ˜χ, exact, and approx have several context-dependent meanings. A short notation table and an earlier definition of the exact/approx convention would substantially improve readability.
  6. [§VI.C] For each benchmark, please state the Hamiltonian, lattice/system size, boundary conditions, PE order, cumulant support, Monte Carlo or summation errors, and energy variance where applicable. Publicly available code or data would make the proposed algorithms considerably easier to assess and reproduce.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: Hdet/VMPI/PE are definitional constructions with derived properties; prior self-citation is infrastructure, not a tautology that forces the claims.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III A; fusion tensors Eq. (32)–(33), (52)–(53); FCI construction Sec. IV B (citing Ref. [61])]
    "Ref.[61] pointed out that it is exactly PLLL that changes the product of determinant Ψ̃(e) into a hyperdeterminant Ψ(e). ... Thanks to the fusion amplitudes analytically computed in the showcase examples Eq.(33,52,53,60), this challenge is already resolved"

    Load-bearing analytic fusion amplitudes and the FCI/LLL mapping are taken from overlapping-author prior work rather than re-derived here. This is real infrastructure dependence, not a fit-or-uniqueness loop that forces the present claims; scored as minor only.

full rationale

The paper’s central objects are introduced by definition (combinatorial Hdet of a fusion tensor; locality structure; VMPI as path-integral TDVP; PE as an ordered expansion of fused Gaussian overlaps) and then given mathematical properties (statistics and basis-independence theorems; Kähler structure after fixed fusion; gauge Ward identities from GG/IGG redundancy under statically and dynamically conserving overlaps). None of these steps fit a parameter to target data and relabel it a prediction, nor do they import an authors-only uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. Benchmarks compare PE against known Laughlin/Jain and model FCI states rather than redefining success as the ansatz. The main self-citation ([61]) supplies fusion amplitudes and the Chern-band↔LLL map used as calculational infrastructure; it does not close a loop in which the present phase label is assumed in order to derive itself. Residual mild definitional character—that an Hdet with a chosen IGG saddle yields an EFT with that IGG—is the ordinary content of a variational class plus effective theory, not circular reduction of a claimed first-principles prediction. Correctness risks about PE truncations versus exact Gauss law are separate from circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 4 invented entities

The load-bearing content is a variational definition plus approximation schemes. Mathematical hyperdeterminants and standard many-body tools are imported; physical reasonableness is pinned on an authored ‘locality-structure’ axiom; quantitative claims lean on uncontrolled Gaussian VMPI and finite-order PE. Free parameters are the usual variational ones (parton RDMs, fusion channels, PE order, band hybridizations), not a global fit to a universal constant.

free parameters (4)
  • Fusion amplitudes λ_α and channel content R of local fusion tensors
    Choose or constrain the CPD decomposition of T; fixed in type-(B) FQH/FCI showcases by analytic coherent-state fusion, variational or symmetry-fixed in type-(A) QSL generalizations.
  • Parton mean-field RDMs ρ^(p) / filled bands and LL hybridizations A_n,k
    Variational saddle parameters for Hdet; in FCI, lattice breaking Galilean invariance is encoded as LL mixing coefficients.
  • Projective expansion truncation order and real-space cumulant cutoffs = Benchmarks emphasize zeroth-order PE saddles for FCI parton bands
    Controls bias of the NP-hard Hdet estimator; zeroth order is mean-field-like, higher orders systematic only as an expansion, not a proven ε-series.
  • Integration measure factor f(λ) in VMPI beyond Gaussian order = Set to saddle value at Gaussian order
    Unfixed in general; argued irrelevant at Gaussian order about the saddle (Sec. V A).
axioms (6)
  • standard math Combinatorial hyperdeterminant of a cubic tensor defines the many-body amplitude by stacking electron-index slices (Eq. 1, 6).
    Classical multilinear algebra; used as the wavefunction definition throughout Sec. II.
  • domain assumption Only fusion tensors admitting the locality-structure (local parton orbitals / finite fusion channels with exponential tails) are physically reasonable low-energy states (Sec. III B 5).
    Encodes lattice locality and underpins both EFT emergence and PE linked-cluster claims; motivated by FQH showcases, not proved necessary and sufficient for all gapped local Hamiltonians.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian-order fluctuations in VMPI suffice to identify the correct microscopic EFT and collective-mode content for Hdet saddles (Sec. V A 1).
    Authors explicitly decline large-N/ħ justification and adopt a physics-motivated truncation; load-bearing for dispersion and CS/Maxwell extraction.
  • domain assumption Approximation schemes used for Hdet overlaps are statically and dynamically conserving (double-sided gauge invariance of overlaps) so that a0 restores gauge invariance (Sec. V C 1).
    Required for PE-based VMPI; PE is claimed to satisfy this at any order (Sec. VI).
  • domain assumption Hdet variational manifolds remain Kähler after fixed fusion, so VMPI quantization matches canonical quantization of L_TDVP (Sec. V A 2–3, V C).
    Inherited from parton Slater determinants with fixed fusion map; used to write Schrödinger-type VMPI dynamics and zero-point wavefunctions.
  • domain assumption IGG of the saddle (taken U(1)_I for two-parton demos) controls long-wavelength gauge dynamics after Higgsing GG (Wen-type assumption, Sec. V C).
    Standard in parton gauge theory; organizes Maxwell vs CS analysis.
invented entities (4)
  • Hyperdeterminant (Hdet) wavefunctions with fusion-tensor locality structure independent evidence
    purpose: Variational ansatz class encoding multi-channel parton fusion beyond products of determinants.
    Central object of the paper; reduces to known parton/Laughlin states in CPD-rank-1 limits.
  • Variational manifold path integral (VMPI) no independent evidence
    purpose: Path-integral TDVP giving microscopic EFTs, zero-point motion, and collective modes for variational manifolds (Slater and Hdet).
    Named framework in Sec. V; specializes known TDVP/TDHF ideas with Kähler and gauge-covariant structure.
  • Projective expansion (PE) independent evidence
    purpose: Order-by-order local approximation to NP-hard Hdet statics and quantum geometric tensor/dynamics.
    Primary simulation algorithm (Sec. VI); benchmarks are the external handle.
  • Fused Gaussian states (FGS) no independent evidence
    purpose: Broader variational class containing Hdet and targeting e.g. non-Abelian FCI and correlated superconductors.
    Announced in abstract and Sec. VII with limited development in the present text.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 75687 in / 4354 out tokens · 97185 ms · 2026-07-30T23:22:52.829443+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We systematically introduce hyperdeterminant wavefunctions as a variational-wavefunction-based theoretical framework for strongly correlated quantum states of matter, together with practical numerical simulation algorithms. This framework generalizes previously known fermionic parton constructions, yields reliable microscopics with intuitive physical pictures, and allows direct access to the fractionalized degrees of freedom together with associated microscopic effective field theories. We demonstrate the applications of this framework to fractional Chern insulators and quantum spin liquids. We comment that the hyperdeterminant states belong to a more general class of variational wavefunctions: the fused Gaussian states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23392 by Di Xiao, Guan-Lin Lin, Ying Ran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Illustration of selecting submatrix/subtensor to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Illustration of the tensor contraction with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The Fine-Grid on a finite torus with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Illustration of the Grassmann tensor-network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fig.4. The Hdet state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The exact Berry’s curvature of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Schematic illustration of PE corrections to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Pair-correlation function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Pure gauge quantum metric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p066_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fig.9. Again, the short-range part is well approximated, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Pair-correlation function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p069_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Building Hdet state on the 6x4 ED sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p070_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Representative ED spectra for Haldane- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p071_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Representative parton band structures: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p072_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: The overlaps between the ED ground states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p073_17.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The saddle point analysis The static Hartree–Fock one-body kernel is the deriva- tive of the energy functional, as in Eq. (156). The inter- action contribution at siteris tU,r(ρ)= U 2 (nr1−m r⋅σ).(A7) We choose the N´ eel saddle ¯nr =1, ¯mr =mη r ˆz, η r =(−1) rx+ry ,(A8) and define ∆≡ U m 2 .(A9) The self-consistent real-space kernel is then t(¯ρ)rα,r′β ...

  2. [2]

    For a general Laughlin state at filling fractionν= 1 k , analytical calculations similar to the previousk=2 case can be carried out

    Fermionic Laughlin ’sν= 1 3 state and Jain ’sν= 2 5 state Laughlin’sν= 1 3 state: pair correlation function. For a general Laughlin state at filling fractionν= 1 k , analytical calculations similar to the previousk=2 case can be carried out. For simplicity of presentation, we focus onν= 1 3 . We fix the unit so that the electron’s magnetic lengthl e =1, t...

  3. [3]

    Fermionic FCI models atν= 1 3 : zeroth-order PE saddle-point solutions and parton band structures Models:We start by introducing the two type-(B) FCI models inside the LLL in the present benchmark test:the Haldane-V 1 model and the bare-Coulomb model. The many-body electron Hamiltonian of both models can be written in the following form: ˆH=λ⋅ ˆK+ ˆU ,(61...

  4. [4]

    Following Eq

    Goldstone subspace The broken spin generators are ˆQx = 1 2 ∑ r c† rσxcr, ˆQy = 1 2 ∑ r c† rσycr.(A22) Their single-body matrices areQ x =σ x/2 andQ y =σ y/2. Following Eq. (191), introduce the infinitesimal angles θx, θy and define δρQa ≡iθ a[Qa,¯ρ], a=x, y.(A23) The onsite saddle-point RDM is ¯ρr = 1 2 (1+mη rσz).(A24) Therefore (δρQx)r =θ x mηr 2 σy,(δ...

  5. [5]

    (A32) The action has the form of Eq

    F ull kernelD, reduced kernelΠ, and long-wavelength analysis Following Eq.(218), we expand theχ-field as χ(q, ω)= 2 ∑ a=1 ϕa(q, ω)wa(q)+ 8 ∑ B=3 ηB(q, ω)wB(q). (A32) The action has the form of Eq. (219). Now separate the six-dimensionalV ⊥ into the trans- verse uniform spin sector Vη(q)=span{w 3(q), w4(q)},(A33) 77 and the charge/longitudinal sector VL(q)...

  6. [6]

    Tang, J.-W

    E. Tang, J.-W. Mei, and X.-G. Wen, High-temperature fractional quantum hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236802 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    K. Sun, Z. Gu, H. Katsura, and S. Das Sarma, Nearly flatbands with nontrivial topology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 236803 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    Neupert, L

    T. Neupert, L. Santos, C. Chamon, and C. Mudry, Frac- tional quantum hall states at zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236804 (2011)

    2011

  9. [9]

    D. N. Sheng, Z.-C. Gu, K. Sun, and L. Sheng, Fractional quantum hall effect in the absence of landau levels, Na- ture Communications2, 389 (2011). 78

    2011

  10. [10]

    Regnault and B

    N. Regnault and B. A. Bernevig, Fractional chern insu- lator, Phys. Rev. X1, 021014 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    D. Xiao, W. Zhu, Y. Ran, N. Nagaosa, and S. Okamoto, Interface engineering of quantum hall effects in digital transition metal oxide heterostructures, Nature commu- nications2, 596 (2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    E. J. Bergholtz and Z. Liu, Topological flat band models and fractional chern insulators, International Journal of Modern Physics B27, 1330017 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    S. A. Parameswaran, R. Roy, and S. L. Sondhi, Frac- tional quantum hall physics in topological flat bands, Comptes Rendus Physique14, 816 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    P. W. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?, Materials Research Bulletin8, 153 (1973)

    1973

  15. [15]

    P. A. Lee, From high temperature superconductivity to quantum spin liquid: progress in strong correla- tion physics, Reports on Progress in Physics71, 012501 (2008)

    2008

  16. [16]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Quantum spin liq- uid states, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    A. M. L¨ auchli, J. Sudan, and R. Moessner, Thes=1/2 kagome heisenberg antiferromagnet revisited, Physical Review B100, 155142 (2019), arXiv:1611.06990 [cond- mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Wietek and A

    A. Wietek and A. M. L¨ auchli, Sublattice coding al- gorithm and distributed memory parallelization for large-scale exact diagonalizations of quantum many- body systems, Physical Review E98, 033309 (2018), arXiv:1804.05028 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Prelovˇ sek and J

    P. Prelovˇ sek and J. Bonˇ ca, Ground state and finite temperature lanczos methods, inStrongly Correlated Systems: Numerical Methods, Springer Series in Solid- State Sciences, Vol. 176, edited by A. Avella and F. Mancini (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013) pp. 1– 30, arXiv:1111.5931 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

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

    1992

  22. [22]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    Verstraete, V

    F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin sys- tems, Advances in Physics57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  24. [24]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    Z.-C. Gu, M. Levin, and X.-G. Wen, Tensor- entanglement renormalization group approach to topo- logical phases, Physical Review B79, 205129 (2009), arXiv:0807.2010 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [27]

    D. M. Ceperley, Path integrals in the theory of con- densed helium, Rev. Mod. Phys.67, 279 (1995)

    1995

  27. [28]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational studies of quantum spin systems, AIP Conference Proceedings1297, 135 (2010)

    2010

  28. [29]

    F. F. Assaad and H. G. Evertz, World-line and determi- nantal quantum monte carlo methods for spins, phonons and electrons, inComputational Many-Particle Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 739, edited by H. Fehske, R. Schneider, and A. Weiße (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2008) pp. 277–356

    2008

  29. [30]

    X. Y. Xu, Y. Qi, L. Zhang, F. F. Assaad, C. Xu, and Z. Y. Meng, Monte carlo study of lattice compact quan- tum electrodynamics with fermionic matter: The parent state of quantum phases, Physical Review X9, 021022 (2019), arXiv:1807.07574 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [31]

    M. C. Gutzwiller, Effect of correlation on the ferromag- netism of transition metals, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 159 (1963)

    1963

  31. [32]

    Yokoyama and H

    H. Yokoyama and H. Shiba, Variational monte-carlo studies of hubbard model. i, Journal of the Physical So- ciety of Japan56, 1490 (1987)

    1987

  32. [33]

    Gros, Physics of projected wavefunctions, Annals of Physics189, 53 (1989)

    C. Gros, Physics of projected wavefunctions, Annals of Physics189, 53 (1989)

    1989

  33. [34]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many- body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017)

    2017

  34. [35]

    D. Pfau, J. S. Spencer, A. G. D. G. Matthews, and W. M. C. Foulkes, Ab initio solution of the many- electron schr¨ odinger equation with deep neural net- works, Physical Review Research2, 033429 (2020), arXiv:1909.02487 [physics.chem-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [36]

    Hermann, Z

    J. Hermann, Z. Sch¨ atzle, and F. No´ e, Deep-neural- network solution of the electronic schr¨ odinger equation, Nature Chemistry12, 891 (2020), arXiv:1909.08423 [physics.chem-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [37]

    D. Luo, D. D. Dai, and L. Fu, Simulating moir´ e quantum matter with neural network, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.17645 (2024), arXiv:2406.17645 [cond- mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [38]

    Y. Teng, D. D. Dai, and L. Fu, Solving the frac- tional quantum hall problem with self-attention neu- ral network, Physical Review B111, 205117 (2025), arXiv:2412.00618 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Signatures of fractional quantum anomalous hall states in twisted MoTe2, Nature622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  39. [40]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Observation of fractionally quantized anomalous hall effect, Nature 622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  40. [41]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Knueppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Thermodynamic evidence of fractional chern insulator in moir´ e MoTe2, Nature622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  41. [42]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Observation of integer and fractional quantum anomalous hall effects in twisted bilayer MoTe2, Phys. Rev. X13, 031037 (2023)

    2023

  42. [43]

    Z. Lu, T. Han, Y. Yao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. Ju, Fractional quantum anomalous hall effect in multilayer graphene, Nature626, 759 (2024)

    2024

  43. [44]

    J. M. Leinaas and J. Myrheim, On the theory of iden- tical particles, Il Nuovo Cimento B37, 1 (1977)

    1977

  44. [45]

    Wilczek, Quantum mechanics of fractional-spin par- 79 ticles, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Quantum mechanics of fractional-spin par- 79 ticles, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 957 (1982)

    1982

  45. [46]

    B. I. Halperin, Statistics of quasiparticles and the hierar- chy of fractional quantized hall states, Physical Review Letters52, 1583 (1984), erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2390 (1984)

    1984

  46. [47]

    Arovas, J

    D. Arovas, J. R. Schrieffer, and F. Wilczek, Fractional statistics and the quantum hall effect, Physical Review Letters53, 722 (1984)

    1984

  47. [48]

    J. K. Jain, Composite-fermion approach for the frac- tional quantum hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 199 (1989)

    1989

  48. [49]

    J. K. Jain,Composite Fermions(Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  49. [50]

    B. I. Halperin, P. A. Lee, and N. Read, Theory of the half-filled landau level, Phys. Rev. B47, 7312 (1993)

    1993

  50. [51]

    D. T. Son, Is the composite fermion a dirac particle?, Phys. Rev. X5, 031027 (2015)

    2015

  51. [52]

    S. D. Geraedts, M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, M. A. Metlitski, A. Vishwanath, and O. I. Motrunich, The half-filled landau level: The case for dirac composite fermions, Science352, 197 (2016)

    2016

  52. [53]

    Ippoliti, S

    M. Ippoliti, S. D. Geraedts, and R. N. Bhatt, Numerical study of anisotropy in a composite fermi liquid, Phys. Rev. B95, 201104 (2017)

    2017

  53. [54]

    Baskaran, Z

    G. Baskaran, Z. Zou, and P. W. Anderson, The resonat- ing valence bond state and high-tc superconductivity: A mean field theory, Solid State Communications63, 973 (1987)

    1987

  54. [55]

    Affleck and J

    I. Affleck and J. B. Marston, Large-n limit of the heisenberg-hubbard model: Implications for high-Tc su- perconductors, Phys. Rev. B37, 3774 (1988)

    1988

  55. [56]

    J. K. Jain, Incompressible quantum hall states, Physical Review B40, 8079 (1989)

    1989

  56. [57]

    X. G. Wen, Mean-field theory of spin-liquid states with finite energy gap and topological orders, Phys. Rev. B 44, 2664 (1991)

    1991

  57. [58]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a mott insulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductiv- ity, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  58. [59]

    Moore and N

    G. Moore and N. Read, Nonabelions in the fractional quantum hall effect, Nuclear Physics B360, 362 (1991)

    1991

  59. [60]

    Greiter, X.-G

    M. Greiter, X.-G. Wen, and F. Wilczek, Paired hall state at half filling, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 3205 (1991)

    1991

  60. [61]

    Cayley, On the theory of linear transformations, Cambridge Mathematical Journal4, 193 (1845)

    A. Cayley, On the theory of linear transformations, Cambridge Mathematical Journal4, 193 (1845)

  61. [62]

    I. M. Gelfand, M. M. Kapranov, and A. V. Zelevin- sky,Discriminants, Resultants, and Multidimensional Determinants(Birkh¨ auser, 1994)

    1994

  62. [63]

    Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B65, 165113 (2002)

    2002

  63. [64]

    Pasquier and F

    V. Pasquier and F. D. M. Haldane, A dipole interpre- tation of the nu=1/2 state, Nuclear Physics B516, 719 (1998)

    1998

  64. [65]

    Murthy and R

    G. Murthy and R. Shankar, Hamiltonian theories of the fractional quantum hall effect, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 1101 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0205326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  65. [66]

    X. Hu, D. Xiao, and Y. Ran, Hyperdeterminants and composite fermion states in fractional chern insulators, Phys. Rev. B109, 245125 (2024)

    2024

  66. [67]

    J. D. Carroll and J.-J. Chang, Analysis of individual dif- ferences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way gener- alization of eckart-young decomposition, Psychometrika 35, 283 (1970)

    1970

  67. [68]

    R. A. Harshman, Foundations of the parafac procedure: Models and conditions for an explanatory multimodal factor analysis, UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics16, 1 (1970)

    1970

  68. [69]

    T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, Tensor decompositions and applications, SIAM Review51, 455 (2009)

    2009

  69. [70]

    C. J. Hillar and L.-H. Lim, Most tensor problems are NP-hard, Journal of the ACM60, 45 (2013)

    2013

  70. [71]

    L. G. Valiant, The complexity of computing the perma- nent, Theoretical Computer Science8, 189 (1979)

    1979

  71. [72]

    Aaronson and A

    S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational com- plexity of linear optics, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , 333 (2011)

    2011

  72. [73]

    M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Spectral gap and expo- nential decay of correlations, Communications in Math- ematical Physics265, 781 (2006)

    2006

  73. [74]

    Mack, All unitary ray representations of the confor- mal group SU(2,2) with positive energy, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics55, 1 (1977)

    G. Mack, All unitary ray representations of the confor- mal group SU(2,2) with positive energy, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics55, 1 (1977)

    1977

  74. [75]

    Rychkov,EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D ¿= 3 Dimensions(Springer, 2016)

    S. Rychkov,EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D ¿= 3 Dimensions(Springer, 2016)

    2016

  75. [76]

    Blok and X

    B. Blok and X. G. Wen, Effective theories of the frac- tional quantum hall effect: Hierarchy construction, Phys. Rev. B42, 8133 (1990)

    1990

  76. [77]

    Wen and A

    X.-G. Wen and A. Zee, Classification of abelian quan- tum hall states and matrix formulation of topological fluids, Phys. Rev. B46, 2290 (1992)

    1992

  77. [78]

    Barkeshli and X.-G

    M. Barkeshli and X.-G. Wen, Non-abelian two- component fractional quantum hall states, Phys. Rev. B82, 245301 (2010)

    2010

  78. [79]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Quantized hall conductance in a two- dimensional periodic potential, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  79. [80]

    Brouder, G

    C. Brouder, G. Panati, M. Calandra, C. Mourougane, and N. Marzari, Exponential localization of wannier functions in insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 046402 (2007)

    2007

  80. [81]

    Read, Compactly supported wannier functions and algebraic k-theory, Phys

    N. Read, Compactly supported wannier functions and algebraic k-theory, Phys. Rev. B95, 115309 (2017)

    2017

Showing first 80 references.