Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Contracting a large cell of iPEPS tensors with CTMRG computes the energy variance accurately at small boundary dimension χ, enabling systematic zero-variance extrapolation that matches quantum Monte Carlo results.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 19:43 UTC pith:425GW6RK

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful method for computing energy variances with iPEPS, with solid Hermitian benchmarks; the open-system application is a suggestive demo with an uncontrolled finite-cell error that should be fixed before publication. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22669 v2 pith:425GW6RK submitted 2025-11-27 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Accurate computation of the energy variance and langlelangle mathcal{L}^dagger mathcal{L} ranglerangle using iPEPS

Emilio Cort\'es Estay , Naushad A. Kamar , Philippe Corboz This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el quant-ph
keywords iPEPSenergy varianceCTMRGzero-variance extrapolationopen quantum systemsLiouvilliandissipative Ising modelShastry-Sutherland model
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.

This paper addresses a standing problem in infinite projected entangled-pair state (iPEPS) simulations: computing the energy variance Var(E)=⟨H²⟩−⟨H⟩², which is zero only for an exact eigenstate and therefore a natural target for ground-state energy extrapolation. The authors claim that the variance can be computed accurately by enlarging the unit cell to size L×L, applying one Hamiltonian term at the center to create a modified state, and contracting the resulting overlap with the standard corner-transfer-matrix renormalization group (CTMRG) method. Because the CTMRG projectors are computed from the overlap itself, the inserted term is naturally accounted for, so the required boundary dimension χ is far smaller than in previous H-environment schemes. This makes variance-based zero-energy extrapolation practical at large bond dimension D, and the benchmarks — the Heisenberg model, free fermions with a staggered potential, and the Shastry-Sutherland model — land on exact or quantum Monte Carlo results. The same machinery computes ⟨⟨L†L⟩⟩ for open quantum systems, giving a measure of closeness of an iPEPS steady state and a tool for locating first-order dissipative phase transitions, demonstrated on the dissipative quantum Ising model.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the energy variance of an iPEPS can be obtained by evaluating the correlator between Hamiltonian terms in a large cell using standard CTMRG, rather than by building specialized H-environments. The calculation exploits the identity ⟨Ψ|HbH0|Ψ⟩/⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩ = [⟨Ψ|Hb|Ψ′⟩/⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩]·[⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩/⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩], where |Ψ′⟩=H0|Ψ⟩ has a Hamiltonian term inserted at the center. The first factor is a local expectation value in the overlap network, and the second is the central bond energy. Contracting the overlap ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩ with CTMRG, starting from the center and sweeping twice, yields accurate correlators at much smaller boundary dimension χ than previous methods; for the Heisenberg model at D=4,

What carries the argument

The key object is the large-cell overlap contraction: the iPEPS unit cell is enlarged to L×L, a Hamiltonian term H0 is applied at the center to form |Ψ′⟩ with two modified tensors and an enlarged bond between them, and CTMRG is used to contract the tensor network of the overlap ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩, sweeping from the center outward (two sweeps suffice). The CTMRG projectors are computed from the overlap network itself, so they automatically incorporate the perturbation H0, which is why the method converges at much smaller χ than the previous H-environment approach. Summing the resulting local expectation values ⟨Ψ|Hb|Ψ′⟩/⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩ over all bonds in the cell, weighted by the central expectation value, gives t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a standard CTMRG contraction of the large-cell overlap ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩, using only two sweeps, faithfully captures the long-distance correlations introduced by the single inserted Hamiltonian term, so that summing the correlators over the L×L cell converges to the true variance with controlled error — an assumption the paper supports empirically but does not prove; for the open-system extension, the premise is that L=12 is sufficient, even though the p

What would settle it

Compute the variance for the Heisenberg model at D=5 with the LC-CTMRG method at χ=40, L=40, and compare it against the value obtained at χ=600 with the previous H-environment method; if the two disagree by more than the claimed uncertainty, the central claim fails. Alternatively, check whether the connected correlator ⟨H(r)H0⟩−⟨H(r)⟩⟨H0⟩ decays to zero within numerical tolerance for r≈L/2; if it does not, the large-cell sum carries an unresolved additive error that grows with L.

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

If this is right

  • Zero-variance extrapolation becomes a practical tool for iPEPS at large bond dimensions, removing the need for uncontrolled 1/D extrapolation; the Heisenberg energy extrapolates to −0.669436(21), in agreement with quantum Monte Carlo.
  • The method works for both gapless and gapped systems, as the free-fermion benchmark reaches the exact ground-state energy for two staggered potentials.
  • A single large-cell calculation yields variance data for all smaller cell sizes, making convergence checks in L inexpensive; however, the paper notes that small χ can cause an artificial drift at large L and must be monitored.
  • For open quantum systems, computing ϵ=⟨⟨L†L⟩⟩ provides both a steady-state quality check and a way to locate first-order dissipative phase transitions by intersecting ϵ curves from the two metastable phases; the dissipative Ising transition shifts to h_x/γ≈7.2 with increasing bond dimension.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the CTMRG projectors adapt to the inserted operator, the same large-cell contraction should generalize to other non-local quantities, such as higher moments ⟨H^k⟩ or real-frequency spectral functions, at similar cost savings — an extension the paper does not pursue.
  • The paper's observation of a small-χ drift with L suggests a practical per-run error diagnostic: monitoring the large-distance limit of the connected correlator ⟨H(r)H0⟩−⟨H(r)⟩⟨H0⟩, which should vanish, would give a concrete error bar; the paper notes the drift but does not propose such a diagnostic.
  • The footnote that the disconnected part of ⟨⟨L†(r)L0⟩⟩ does not vanish for approximate steady states implies that the reported ϵ values at L=12 contain a systematic offset; a connected correlator or an L-extrapolation of ϵ could sharpen the transition estimate, and the intersection method may then shift slightly from the quoted h_x/γ≈7.2.
  • The success of variance extrapolation on the Shastry-Sutherland model indicates the method transfers to frustrated magnets, where accurate variational energies are otherwise hard to obtain.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an LC-CTMRG approach for computing the energy variance of iPEPS. The unit cell is enlarged to L×L, a Hamiltonian term H0 is applied at the center to form |Ψ′⟩=H0|Ψ⟩, the overlap ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩ is contracted with CTMRG, and all two-point Hamiltonian correlators in the cell are evaluated. The method is benchmarked on the Heisenberg model (zero-variance extrapolated energy matching QMC), on free fermions with a staggered potential (matching exact results), and on the Shastry-Sutherland model. The same contraction is used to compute ϵ=⟨⟨L†L⟩⟩ for an open system, and the dissipative Ising model is used to locate a first-order transition at h_x/γ≈7.2.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a practical and accurate tool for a notoriously difficult iPEPS observable. The Hermitian benchmarks are convincing: the variance is computed directly from the tensors and the Hamiltonian, with no fitted input, and the Heisenberg zero-variance energy agrees with QMC to about 6×10⁻⁶. The χ-convergence improvement over the H-environment method is dramatic and reproducible from Figs. 3(a) and 6. The free-fermion and Shastry-Sutherland results strengthen the case. However, the open-system part, which is also advertised in the title and abstract, is not yet controlled enough to support the transition-location claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (7), Fig. 7, footnote [80]] The open-system computation of ϵ is uncontrolled. Footnote [80] states that ⟨⟨L†(r)L0⟩⟩ does not vanish at large distances because ⟨⟨L⟩⟩≠0 for the approximate steady state. Hence the sum over an L=12 cell contains an L-dependent disconnected contribution. No subtraction of the disconnected part and no L-extrapolation are provided, so ϵ is not an intensive, converged quantity. This offset can shift the intersection in Fig. 7 and likely explains why h_x/γ≈7.2 lies outside the previously reported range ~6–7. The abstract's claim that the transition is located at ~7.2 is therefore not supported by the data as presented.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 7] The transition estimate has no uncertainty or convergence analysis. Only L=12 is used; no χ-convergence or sweep-convergence data are shown. The D-trend (6.2 for D=1, 6.5 for D=2, 7.2 for D=3,4) has not converged, and the intersection procedure using lowest-ϵ selection may systematically favor the more converged branch. Please provide error bars, a D→∞ extrapolation or at least a discussion of the D-dependence, and an explicit criterion for the intersection.
  3. [Sec. II.C, Fig. 5] The central numerical assumption is that the CTMRG contraction of the overlap after two sweeps faithfully captures the long-distance correlations introduced by H0. No a priori error bound is given, and Fig. 5 shows that small χ can produce an artificial drift with L. For the energy variance this is mitigated by the benchmarks, but the same check is entirely absent for ϵ in Sec. IV. A concrete protocol (e.g., require stability under increasing L and χ) should be stated for both applications.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.C] The statement that two sweeps are sufficient is not demonstrated. A small convergence plot in the number of sweeps would help, especially for the open-system case.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (7)] The normalization of |ρ_s⟩⟩ in the inner product should be specified. If Tr ρ_s=1 but the vector norm is not 1, the value of ϵ changes accordingly.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 4] The extrapolated free-fermion energies are plotted without error bars. Please provide uncertainties for the zero-variance extrapolated values.
  4. [Sec. III.B] The text says 'sufficiently large L and χ' but does not list the values used. A table with L, χ, and sweep counts for each D and Δ would improve reproducibility.
  5. [References] References [56,57] appear to be missing journal, volume, and page details; please update.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the variance and ϵ are computed directly from iPEPS and the Hamiltonian/Liouvillian, with external benchmarks; the open-system caveat is a convergence issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (2) rewrites the correlator as ⟨Ψ|Hb|Ψ′⟩/⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩ times the local energy ⟨H0⟩, and LC-CTMRG contracts the overlap ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩; no term in this chain is defined by or fitted to the target variance. The zero-variance extrapolations use the computed variance as the independent variable and are checked against external QMC (Heisenberg, Ref. [60]) and exact free-fermion results, so the benchmark does not reduce to a fitted input or to self-citation. Refs. [43,44,49,50] are methodological precedents or companion results sharing authors, but the central claims are not justified solely by those citations: Fig. 3 validates against QMC and Fig. 4 against exact results. The open-system transition is located by the intersection of computed ϵ curves, not by inputting the known transition; however, footnote [80] explicitly acknowledges that ⟨⟨L†(r)L0⟩⟩ does not vanish at large distances for the L=12 cell, which is a genuine finite-cell and disconnected-part contamination concern. That is a correctness/control caveat, not a circularity: the computed ϵ is still an honest, if possibly biased, evaluation rather than an equation-level restatement of the conclusion. No self-definitional step, fitted prediction masquerading as a prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities or free parameters in the algorithm itself. The free parameters listed are convergence/analysis choices (cell size, sweeps, polynomial extrapolation) that the demonstrations depend on. The main axiomatic load is the assumption that CTMRG contractions of the modified overlap are accurate and that finite-cell sums capture all relevant correlators; the open-system application additionally assumes the disconnected-part caveat can be ignored at L=12.

free parameters (3)
  • zero-variance extrapolation polynomial (degree 2) coefficients = E_s = -0.669436(21) for Heisenberg; coefficients from D=2..5 fit
    The demonstration of variance extrapolation uses a second-order polynomial in Var(E) fitted to computed energies; the extrapolated zero-variance energy depends on this fitting choice. This is a post-processing model, not a parameter of the algorithm itself.
  • cell size L = L=30 (Heisenberg χ-convergence), L=10 (free fermions), L=12 (open system)
    L is a convergence parameter chosen by monitoring connected-correlator decay; for the open system L=12 is an input choice whose systematic error is not quantified because the disconnected part does not vanish.
  • number of CTMRG sweeps = 2
    The authors state that in practice two sweeps are sufficient; this is a hand-chosen heuristic controlling accuracy, with no stated convergence criterion.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption CTMRG truncation converges to the exact contraction of the infinite tensor network as χ grows, and the environment built from the overlap ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩ faithfully encodes the inserted H0 term.
    Invoked in Sec. II.C steps 3–4 to justify computing all correlators from CTMRG environments; no error bound is provided, and Fig. 5 shows a small-χ drift counterexample.
  • domain assumption Connected correlators of Hamiltonian terms decay over the cell size, so a finite L captures the variance.
    Used in Sec. III.A and Fig. 3(b); for the gapless Heisenberg model the effective correlation length grows with D, and for the open system footnote [80] says the disconnected counterpart does not decay.
  • domain assumption The energy-versus-variance curve is smooth enough for a second-order polynomial fit to the zero-variance limit.
    Used in Fig. 3(c) and Fig. 4 left panels; this is a standard variational-QMC heuristic, not proven for iPEPS.
  • standard math For the exact steady state, ϵ=⟨⟨ρ_s|L†L|ρ_s⟩⟩ vanishes because L|ρ_s⟩⟩=0.
    Eq. (7); this is definitional and not a source of error.
  • domain assumption Lower numerical ϵ=⟨⟨L†L⟩⟩ indicates a state closer to the exact steady state, and the intersection of ϵ curves from both sides locates the first-order transition.
    Sec. IV and Fig. 7; the transition estimate moves from h_x/γ=6.2 (D=1) to 7.2 (D=4), and no uncertainty is reported.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20661 in / 14552 out tokens · 124935 ms · 2026-08-03T19:43:02.226281+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Infinite projected entangled-pair states (iPEPS) provide a powerful tensor network ansatz for two-dimensional quantum many-body systems in the thermodynamic limit. In this paper we introduce an approach to accurately compute the energy variance of an iPEPS, enabling systematic extrapolations of the ground-state energy to the exact zero-variance limit. It is based on the contraction of a large cell of tensors using the corner transfer matrix renormalization group (CTRMG) method, to evaluate the correlator between pairs of local Hamiltonian terms. We show that the accuracy of this approach is substantially higher than that of previous methods, and we demonstrate the usefulness of variance extrapolation for the Heisenberg model, for a free fermionic model, and for the Shastry-Sutherland model. Finally, we apply the approach to compute $\langle \langle \mathcal{L}^\dagger \mathcal{L} \rangle \rangle$ for an open quantum system described by the Liouvillian $\mathcal{L}$, in order to assess the quality of the steady-state solution and to locate first-order phase transitions, using the dissipative quantum Ising model as an example.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22669 by Emilio Cort\'es Estay, Naushad A. Kamar, Philippe Corboz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (e)). The first term, however, is more challenging. By exploiting translational invariance, we can reduce the double infinite sum to a single one, by placing the second term at a certain reference position, e.g. the center of the system. Hence, we need to evaluate ⟨( P b Hb)H0⟩, with H0 a Hamiltonian term at the center. In the case where the state is not rotationally symmetric, we have to sep￾arately evalu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Translationally invariant iPEPS with the unit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Convergence of the variance as a function of in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Convergence of the variance as a function of cell size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Convergence of the variance as a function of inverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Up-spin density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.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

84 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We first enlarge the unit cell to sizeL×Lby copy- ing the tensorAto all positions in the cell; see Fig. 2(a). We also initialize the CTMRG environ- ment tensors at each coordinate with the previously computed environment tensors

  2. [2]

    2(b)), representing a new state|Ψ ′⟩= H0|Ψ⟩

    We apply a Hamiltonian term to the iPEPS in the center of the unit cell, resulting in two new tensors BandCwith enlarged bond dimension between them (Fig. 2(b)), representing a new state|Ψ ′⟩= H0|Ψ⟩. The correlator between a Hamiltonian term Hb at a certain position and the one in the center, H0 can be rewritten as ⟨Ψ|HbH0|Ψ⟩ ⟨Ψ|Ψ⟩ = ⟨Ψ|Hb|Ψ′⟩ ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩ ⟨Ψ|Ψ...

  3. [3]

    QRmP2yEiV95P9TrIRz3+5rkGoVA=

    We use CTMRG to contract the tensor network representing the overlap⟨Ψ|Ψ ′⟩. For a horizontal Hamiltonian term, we start from the center and perform left moves up to the right boundary and (a) (b) <latexit sha1_base64="QRmP2yEiV95P9TrIRz3+5rkGoVA=">AAAB+HicbVDLSgNBEOz1GeMjqx69DAbBU9gViV6EoBePEcwDsiHMTjrJkNnZZWZWiDFf4sWDIl79FG/+jZNkD5pY0FBUddPdFSaCa+N5387K...

  4. [4]

    This approach comes with several advantages

    With the converged CTMRG environment tensors, we can now readily evaluate ⟨Ψ|Hb|Ψ′⟩ ⟨Ψ|Ψ′⟩ for each posi- tion of the Hamiltonian termH b, in a similar fash- ion to a standard local expectation value. This approach comes with several advantages. First, the core of the algorithm is based on the large-unit-cell CTMRG algorithm [47, 48]; i.e., existing codes...

    2020

  5. [5]

    Troyer and U.-J

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

    2005

  6. [6]

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

    1992

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for Quantum-Many Body Systems in two and higher di- mensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 (2004)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    Nishio, N

    Y. Nishio, N. Maeshima, A. Gendiar, and T. Nishino, Tensor Product Variational Formulation for Quantum Systems, Preprint (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0401115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

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

    2017

  13. [13]

    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(R) (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    J.-Y. Chen, L. Vanderstraeten, S. Capponi, and D. Poil- blanc, Non-Abelian chiral spin liquid in a quantum anti- ferromagnet revealed by an iPEPS study, Phys. Rev. B 98, 184409 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Lee and N

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

    2018

  16. [16]

    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

  17. [17]

    Niesen and P

    I. Niesen and P. Corboz, Ground-state study of the spin-1 bilinear-biquadratic Heisenberg model on the triangular 8 lattice using tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B97, 245146 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    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 frustrated square lattice, Phys. Rev. B98, 094402 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Kshetrimayum, C

    A. Kshetrimayum, C. Balz, B. Lake, and J. Eisert, Ten- sor network investigation of the double layer Kagome compound Ca 10Cr7O28, arXiv:1904.00028 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph] (2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  20. [20]

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

    2019

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

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

    2020

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    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, Nature592, 370 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    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 pres- sure, Nat. Comm.13, 2301 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    Sinha, M

    A. Sinha, M. M. Rams, P. Czarnik, and J. Dziarmaga, Finite-temperature tensor network study of the Hubbard model on an infinite square lattice, Phys. Rev. B106, 195105 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Ponsioen, S

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

    2023

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    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 [cond-mat] (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Zhang, Q

    X.-Y. Zhang, Q. Yang, P. Corboz, J. Haegeman, and Y. He, Topological and Trivial Valence-Bond Orders in Higher-Spin Kitaev Models, arXiv:2511.07415 [cond-mat] 10.48550/arXiv.2511.07415 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.07415 2025

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    Corboz, Improved energy extrapolation with infi- nite projected entangled-pair states applied to the two- dimensional Hubbard model, Phys

    P. Corboz, Improved energy extrapolation with infi- nite projected entangled-pair states applied to the two- dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B93, 045116 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    Zheng, C.-M

    B.-X. Zheng, C.-M. Chung, P. Corboz, G. Ehlers, M.-P. Qin, R. M. Noack, H. Shi, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Stripe order in the underdoped region of the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Science358, 1155 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    Corboz, P

    P. Corboz, P. Czarnik, G. Kapteijns, and L. Tagliacozzo, Finite Correlation Length Scaling with Infinite Projected Entangled-Pair States, Phys. Rev. X8, 031031 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Rader and A

    M. Rader and A. M. L¨ auchli, Finite Correlation Length Scaling in Lorentz-Invariant Gapless iPEPS Wave Func- tions, Phys. Rev. X8, 031030 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Sorella, Generalized lanczos algorithm for variational quantum monte carlo, Phys

    S. Sorella, Generalized lanczos algorithm for variational quantum monte carlo, Phys. Rev. B64, 024512 (2001)

    2001

  45. [45]

    Iqbal, F

    Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, S. Sorella, and D. Poilblanc, Gap- less spin-liquid phase in the kagome spin- 1 2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B87, 060405 (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, A. Parola, S. Goldt, and F. Becca, Transformer wave function for two dimensional frustrated magnets: Emergence of a spin-liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model, Physical Review B111, 134411 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    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

  49. [49]

    Nishino and K

    T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, Corner Transfer Matrix Renormalization Group Method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.65, 891 (1996). 9

    1996

  50. [50]

    Or´ us, A

    R. Or´ us, A. C. Doherty, and G. Vidal, First Order Phase Transition in the Anisotropic Quantum Orbital Compass Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 077203 (2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Corboz, S

    P. Corboz, S. R. White, G. Vidal, and M. Troyer, Stripes in the two-dimensional t-J model with infinite pro- jected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B84, 041108(R) (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    Corboz, T

    P. Corboz, T. M. Rice, and M. Troyer, Competing States in the t-J Model: Uniform d-Wave State versus Stripe State, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 046402 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    J. D. Arias Espinoza and P. Corboz, Spectral functions with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B110, 094314 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Corboz, Y

    P. Corboz, Y. Zhang, B. Ponsioen, and F. Mila, Quantum spin liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model revealed by high-precision infinite projected entangled-pair states, arXiv:2502.14091 [cond-mat] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.14091 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14091 2025

  55. [55]

    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

  56. [56]

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

    2015

  57. [57]

    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

  58. [58]

    Ponsioen, J

    B. Ponsioen, J. Hasik, and P. Corboz, Improved sum- mations ofn-point correlation functions of projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B108, 195111

  59. [59]

    Vanderstraeten, L

    L. Vanderstraeten, L. Burgelman, B. Ponsioen, M. Van Damme, B. Vanhecke, P. Corboz, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Variational methods for contracting projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B105, 195140 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Tu, H.-K

    W.-L. Tu, H.-K. Wu, N. Schuch, N. Kawashima, and J.-Y. Chen, Generating function for tensor network dia- grammatic summation, Phys. Rev. B103, 205155 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    W.-L. Tu, L. Vanderstraeten, N. Schuch, H.-Y. Lee, N. Kawashima, and J.-Y. Chen, Generating function for projected entangled-pair states, PRX Quantum5, 010335

  62. [62]

    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

  63. [63]

    Bauer, P

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

    2011

  64. [64]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational Studies of Quantum Spin Systems, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1297 (AIP Publishing, 2010) pp. 135–338

    2010

  65. [65]

    Sriram Shastry and B

    B. Sriram Shastry and B. Sutherland, Exact ground state of a quantum mechanical antiferromagnet, Physica B+C 108, 1069 (1981)

    1981

  66. [66]

    Miyahara and K

    S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, Theory of the orthogonal dimer Heisenberg spin model for SrCu 2(BO3)2, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter15, R327 (2003)

    2003

  67. [67]

    Koga and N

    A. Koga and N. Kawakami, Quantum phase transitions in the Shastry-Sutherland model for SrCu2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 4461 (2000)

    2000

  68. [68]

    L¨ auchli, S

    A. L¨ auchli, S. Wessel, and M. Sigrist, Phase diagram of the quadrumerized Shastry-Sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B66, 014401 (2002)

    2002

  69. [69]

    Corboz and F

    P. Corboz and F. Mila, Tensor network study of the Shastry-Sutherland model in zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B87, 115144 (2013)

    2013

  70. [70]

    J. Yang, A. W. Sandvik, and L. Wang, Quantum crit- icality and spin liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B105, L060409 (2022)

    2022

  71. [71]

    L. Wang, Y. Zhang, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum spin liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model detected by an improved level spectroscopic method, Chinese Phys. Lett.39, 077502 (2022)

    2022

  72. [72]

    Kele¸ s and E

    A. Kele¸ s and E. Zhao, Rise and fall of plaquette order in the Shastry-Sutherland magnet revealed by pseud- ofermion functional renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B105, L041115 (2022)

    2022

  73. [73]

    N. Xi, H. Chen, Z. Y. Xie, and R. Yu, Plaquette valence bond solid to antiferromagnet transition and deconfined quantum critical point of the Shastry-Sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B107, L220408 (2023)

    2023

  74. [74]

    X. Qian, R. Lv, J. Y. Lee, and M. Qin, From the Shastry- Sutherland model to thej 1-j2 Heisenberg model (2024), arXiv:2411.17452 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Liu, X.-T

    W.-Y. Liu, X.-T. Zhang, Z. Wang, S.-S. Gong, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Quantum Criticality with Emergent Symmetry in the Extended Shastry-Sutherland Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 026502 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    Maity, F

    A. Maity, F. Ferrari, J. Y. Lee, J. Potten, T. M¨ uller, R. Thomale, R. Samajdar, and Y. Iqbal, Evi- dence for aZ 2 Dirac spin liquid in the generalized Shastry-Sutherland model, arXiv:2501.00096 [cond-mat] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.00096 (2024)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.00096 2024

  77. [77]

    Kshetrimayum, H

    A. Kshetrimayum, H. Weimer, and R. Or´ us, A sim- ple tensor network algorithm for two-dimensional steady states, Nat. Comm.8, 1 (2017)

    2017

  78. [78]

    Czarnik, J

    P. Czarnik, J. Dziarmaga, and P. Corboz, Time evolution of an infinite projected entangled pair state: An efficient algorithm, Phys. Rev. B99, 035115 (2019)

    2019

  79. [79]

    Mc Keever and M

    C. Mc Keever and M. H. Szyma´ nska, Stable iPEPO Tensor-Network Algorithm for Dynamics of Two- Dimensional Open Quantum Lattice Models, Phys. Rev. X11, 021035 (2021)

    2021

  80. [80]

    T. E. Lee, H. H¨ affner, and M. C. Cross, Antiferromag- netic phase transition in a nonequilibrium lattice of Ry- dberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A84, 031402 (2011)

    2011

Showing first 80 references.