Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Determination of ground states of one-dimensional quantum systems using the cluster iTEBD method

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cluster iTEBD claims that grouping n sites per tensor systematically lowers ground-state energy and magnetization error at fixed bond dimension.

desk verdict A sensible cluster-iTEBD extension with a clean Heisenberg benchmark, but the accuracy claim needs a tau->0 convergence study and a resource-matched comparison before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21405 v1 pith:6BGYC4UF submitted 2025-08-29 cond-mat.str-el

Tao Yang , Rui Wang , Z. Y. Xie , Baigeng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords clusteriTEBDmatrixproductstatesimaginary-timeevolutionentanglemententropyHeisenbergchainXXZDtwistedtriangularprismmagneticplateau
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces a second control knob—cluster size n—into the standard infinite time-evolving block decimation (iTEBD) algorithm for quantum ground states. Instead of representing a spin chain with one tensor per site, it groups n consecutive sites into a single tensor, so the same bond dimension carries more entanglement. The central claim is that for a fixed bond dimension χ, increasing n systematically improves the accuracy of the energy and magnetization, while keeping the computational cost at the same order in χ. If true, the method gives a practical path to higher precision in strongly correlated one-dimensional systems, especially where simply raising χ is impractical, and it also absorbs interactions beyond nearest-neighbor range into a nearest-neighbor form.

What carries the argument

The key object is the cluster size n: the number of neighboring physical sites grouped into one local tensor of the matrix product state, giving that tensor a local physical dimension d^n. The imaginary-time evolution operator is split into intra-cluster terms and inter-cluster terms; inter-cluster bonds are evolved by QR-splitting the two edge tensors, applying the bond operator, and SVD-truncating the updated bond vector using the entanglement spectrum. This construction is what lets n act as a second accuracy dial: same bond dimension, more captured entanglement, and interactions of range up to n treated as nearest-neighbor between clusters.

What would settle it

Recompute the Heisenberg-chain ground state at n=8, χ=100 with a sequence of smaller time steps (e.g., τ = 3×10^-4, 10^-4, 3×10^-5, 10^-5) and extrapolate to τ→0. If the relative energy error and magnetization do not remain near 5×10^-7 and 0.02, or if the systematic improvement with n at fixed χ disappears once the step is converged, the claimed cluster-size gain is partly or wholly an artifact of the time step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the cluster size n is a genuine, independent accuracy parameter for imaginary-time matrix-product-state simulations, not merely a reparameterization. At equal bond dimension, the clustered MPS produced by the cluster iTEBD algorithm captures more entanglement entropy than the n=1 iTEBD MPS, and this extra entanglement is what yields lower ground-state energy and smaller spurious magnetization in the gapless spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain: n=8 with χ=100 reaches a relative energy error of about 5×10^-7 and magnetization below 0.02. The same device sharpens the second-derivative peak that locates a third-order Gaussian phase transition in the spin-1 XXZD chain

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the time-slicing step is small enough that the splitting error is negligible at the reported accuracies; the paper states the step is below 10^-3 but reports no convergence study as the step shrinks or extrapolation to zero step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed bond dimension, increasing cluster size n lowers both ground-state energy error and staggered magnetization in the gapless Heisenberg chain (n=8, χ=100: about 5×10^-7 energy error and magnetization below 0.02).
  • At equal χ, the cluster MPS carries more entanglement entropy than the original iTEBD MPS, so cluster size is a genuine independent accuracy control, not just a reparameterization.
  • In the XXZD chain, larger n turns a broad, indistinct second-derivative feature into a peak locating the third-order Gaussian Haldane-to-large-D transition near D≈0.964.
  • In the twisted triangular prism, the method confirms the 1/3-plateau UUD state and shows that the apparent 1/9 plateau vanishes as χ grows, identifying it as a finite-χ metastable artifact.
  • Computational cost remains O(χ^2 d^{2n}) + O(χ^3 d^{n+1}) + O(χ^3 d^6)—the same O(χ^3) order as iTEBD in the large-χ limit—and interactions of range ≤ n reduce to nearest-neighbor cluster form.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because n and χ control different approximations (entanglement capacity versus truncation error), comparing results across n at fixed χ—and vice versa—could serve as a general finite-entanglement diagnostic, the way the paper uses it to expose the 1/9 plateau as metastable.
  • A natural two-variable extrapolation, first χ→∞ at fixed n and then n→∞, may yield accurate estimates even where the paper only extrapolates in χ; the paper notes this direction but does not carry out the full two-variable scheme.
  • If the entropy advantage carries over to two-dimensional tensor networks, grouping several physical sites into simplex-like tensors would give the same complementary accuracy dial where raising bond dimension is costly; the paper draws the analogy but does not test it in 2D.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cluster extension of iTEBD in which n physical sites are grouped into a single MPS tensor. The imaginary-time evolution operator is decomposed into intra-cluster terms (treated exactly) and inter-cluster nearest-neighbor terms, and the MPS is updated with SVD truncation. The authors benchmark the method on the spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain, the spin-1 XXZD chain, and a spin-1/2 twisted triangular prism. Their central numerical claim is that for fixed bond dimension χ, increasing the cluster size n systematically improves the ground-state energy and magnetization, and that the cluster MPS captures more entanglement than the standard iTEBD MPS at the same χ. They also report estimation of a third-order Gaussian transition in the XXZD chain and identification of a 1/3 magnetization plateau, together with a metastable 1/9 plateau in the prism model.

Significance. If the central claim is upheld, cluster size is a genuinely useful additional control parameter for iTEBD-type calculations, particularly for gapless systems and models with longer-range interactions. The paper benefits from clean external benchmarks: the Heisenberg energy is compared with the exact Bethe-ansatz value, the XXZD transition is compared with established Dc estimates, and the 1/9 plateau is explicitly shown to vanish with increasing χ, which is a good falsifiable consistency check. The method is not fitted to data; n and χ are honest control parameters. However, the headline comparison is made at fixed χ rather than fixed computational cost or fixed truncation error, and the Trotter-step dependence is not controlled. These issues must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III C, Fig. 11] The claim that the 1/9 plateau is a finite-χ artifact rests on the linear fit of the plateau width w versus 1/χ. The fitting range, the number of points, and the error of the extrapolated intercept w→0 are not reported. Since this is the only direct evidence that the apparent plateau is metastable, please provide the fit parameters and uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] 'Roughly the same computational complexity' is misleading without a prefactor. The scaling O(χ²d^{2n}) + O(χ³d^{n+1}) + O(χ³d⁶) grows exponentially in n; please state explicitly that the asymptotic large-χ equivalence holds only for fixed finite n.
  2. [Sec. III A] The statement 'The smallest Trotter step τ used is less than 10^-3' is too vague. Please report the actual τ values and, if different τ values are used for different n or χ, state them in the figure captions or text.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The Trotter-Suzuki decomposition is written as a first-order product formula. Please state whether a symmetrized second-order decomposition is used, and discuss the order of the Trotter error.
  4. [Fig. 10(c)] The text says the spins denoted black and red are parallel while green is anti-parallel, but the figure labels are not defined in the caption. Please clarify the color coding.
  5. [References] A number of references have formatting or bibliographic errors, e.g., Ref. [12] appears as 'Phys. Rev. X 118, 137202' rather than the correct journal/volume, and Ref. [33] has a typo in the volume/page. Please check all references against the published versions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cluster iTEBD claims are benchmarked against external exact results and not derived from their own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that increasing cluster size n at fixed bond dimension χ improves the accuracy of the ground-state energy, magnetization, and captured entanglement. This claim is tested against genuinely external benchmarks: the exact Bethe-ansatz ground-state energy of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain (E_exact = 1/4 - ln 2), previously established critical values for the XXZD chain (Dc ≈ 0.9687), and the known 1/3 magnetization plateau in the twisted triangular prism. No physical parameter is fitted to the target quantity and then renamed as a prediction; n and χ are control parameters of the ansatz, and the reported improvements are direct numerical comparisons, not self-referential outputs. The only self-citations (e.g., Refs. [21,22] connecting the clustered ansatz to projected entangled simplex states) are contextual and are not load-bearing: the improved accuracy is demonstrated independently in Figs. 3-4 and 6-10 rather than assumed from those citations. The concerning possibility that larger n reduces Trotter error because Eq. (4) treats intra-cluster interactions exactly is a genuine systematic-error question, but it is not a circularity: it does not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction. A τ→0 convergence study would strengthen the paper, but its absence does not indicate that the derivation reduces to its assumptions.

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

The central claim rests on standard Trotter-Suzuki factorization, imaginary-time evolution convergence, and numerical linear algebra (QR/SVD). No free physical parameters are fitted; n and χ are control hyperparameters. The external benchmarks (Bethe ansatz energy, literature Dc, known plateau phases) are used as references rather than as fitted inputs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Trotter-Suzuki decomposition with finite τ gives accurate ground state energies without τ-extrapolation
    Sec. II A/B: the imaginary-time evolution operator is decomposed into local gates with a finite Trotter step. The paper provides no convergence study in τ, so the reported accuracies depend on τ being sufficiently small, which is asserted but not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Imaginary-time evolution converges to the ground state for the models studied
    Sec. II A: repeated application of e^{-τ H} is assumed to drive the initial state to the ground state. This is standard for gapped systems and used here also for the gapless Heisenberg chain, without discussion of convergence conditions.
  • standard math The QR/SVD truncation scheme in Eqs. (6)-(7) implements the inter-cluster evolution faithfully
    Sec. II B: QR decompositions separate edge sites from cluster tensors, and SVD truncates the bond. Optimality of SVD is standard, but the specific use of the internal λ_b as the updated bond vector follows the iTEBD convention, which is an established but not rigorously justified approximation.
  • domain assumption Reference values from prior literature (Dc ≈ 0.9687, 1/3 plateau, exact Heisenberg energy) are correct
    Sec. III B/C: the paper validates its method against these external results rather than deriving them independently. If any reference value were systematically wrong, the claimed "verification" would be undermined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Determination of ground states of one-dimensional quantum systems using the cluster iTEBD method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BGYC4UF

@misc{pith2026250821405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Determination of ground states of one-dimensional quantum systems using the cluster iTEBD method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BGYC4UF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21405}
}
read the original abstract

Within the framework of imaginary-time evolution for matrix product states, we introduce a cluster version of the infinite time-evolving block decimation algorithm for simulating quantum many-body systems, addressing the computational accuracy challenges in strongly correlated physics. By redefining the wave-function ansatz to incorporate multiple physical degrees of freedom, we enhance the representation of entanglement, thereby improving the accuracy of the ground states. Utilizing the Trotter-Suzuki decomposition and optimized truncation schemes, our method maintains roughly the same computational complexity while capturing more quantum correlations. We apply this approach to three nontrivial cases: the gapless spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain, the spin-1 anisotropic XXZD chain with a higher-order Gaussian-type phase transition, and a spin-1/2 twisted triangular prism hosting a magnetic plateau phase. Improved accuracy in physical quantities, such as magnetization, ground-state energy, and entanglement entropy, has been demonstrated. This method provides a scalable framework for studying complex quantum systems with high precision, making it suitable for situations where a pure increase in bond dimension alone cannot guarantee satisfactory results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of one iteration of the original iTEBD algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Sketch of the cluster version of the iTEBD algorithm, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Performance of the cluster iTEBD method for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cartoon illustration of phase diagram of the spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The behavior of (a) ground state energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Sketch of a spin-1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The behavior of the (a) derivative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The metastable 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992); S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quan- tum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345 (1993)

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    S. R. White, and A. E. Feiguin, Real-Time Evolution Using the Density Matrix Renormalization Group, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 076401 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Vidal, Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly En- tangled Quantum Computations, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient Classical Simulation of Slightly En- tangled Quantum Computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003); G. Vidal, Efficient Simulation of One- Dimensional Quantum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004); A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollwock, and G. Vidal, Time-dependent density- matrix renormalization-group using adaptiv...

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Vidal, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension, Phys

    G. Vidal, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007); R. Orus, and G. Vidal, In- finite time-evolving block decimation algorithm beyond unitary evolution, Phys. Rev. B 78, 155117 (2008)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Studying Two- Dimensional Systems with the Density Matrix Renormal- ization Group, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 3, 111 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    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). 9

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    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; J. I. Cirac, D. P. Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix prod- uct states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Orus, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Phys

    R. Orus, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Phys. 349, 117 (2014); R. Orus, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 538 (2019)

    work page 2014

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    J. W. Mei, J. Y. Chen, H. He, and X. G. Wen, Gapped spin liquid with Z2 topological order for the kagome Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235107 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Y. H. Chen, K. Hsu, W. L. Tu, H. Y. Lee, and Ying- Jer Kao, Variational tensor network operator, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 043153 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Rui Wang, Z. Y. Xie, Baigeng Wang, Tigran Sedrakyan, Emergent topological orders and phase transitions in lat- tice Chern-Simons theory of quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. B 106, L121117 (2022); Rui Wang, Tao Yang, Z. Y. Xie, Baigeng Wang, X. C. Xie, Susceptibility indica- tor for ...

    2022

  4. [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 the S = 1/2 Kagome Antiferromagnet- Phys. Rev. X 118, 137202 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    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. Commun. 11, 1639 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Corboz, T

    P. Corboz, T. M. Rice, and M. Troyer, Competing States in the t-J Model: Uniform d-Wave State ver- sus Stripe State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 046402 (2014); P. Corboz, Improved energy extrapolation with infi- nite projected entangled-pair states applied to the two- dimensional Hu...

    2014

  7. [15]

    Z. T. Xu, Z. C. Gu, and S. Yang, Competing orders in the honeycomb lattice t-J model, Phys. Rev. B 108, 035144 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    H. F. Trotter, On the Product of Semi-Groups of Oper- ators, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 10, N4, 545 (1959)

    1959

  9. [17]

    D. P. Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Schollwock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Phys

    U. Schollwock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Phys. 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    J. Pearl, Reverend bayes on inference engines: a dis- tributed hierarchical approach, in Proceedings of the Na- tional Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI, Menlo Park, CA, 1982), pp. 133–136

    1982

  12. [20]

    Z. Y. Xie, H. C. Jiang, Q. N. Chen, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Phys. Second Renormalization of Tensor-Network States, Rev. Lett. 103, 160601 (2009); H. H. Zhao, Z. Y. Xie, Q. N. Chen, Z. C. Wei, J. W. Cai, and T. Xiang, Renormalization of tensor-network states, Phys. Rev. B 81,...

    2009

  13. [21]

    and the so-called regularized time evolution scheme [26], in the sense that in these work, multiple degrees of freedom are also grouped together in either wave func- tion ansatz or time evolution operator. It is also worth mentioning that, in fact, it has little to do with pre...

  14. [22]

    Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, J. F. Yu, X. Kong, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Tensor Renormalization of Quantum Many-Body Systems Using Projected Entangled Simplex States, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011025 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Qian Li, Hong Li, Jize Zhao, Hong-Gang Luo, and Z. Y. Xie, Magnetization of the spin- 1 2 Heisenberg antifer- romagnet on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 105, 184418 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Mattis, Theory of Magnetism, I: Statics and Dynam- ics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988)

    D. Mattis, Theory of Magnetism, I: Statics and Dynam- ics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988)

    1988

  17. [25]

    N. D. Mermin, and H. Wagner, Absence of Ferro- magnetism or Antiferromagnetism in One- or Two- Dimensional Isotropic Heisenberg Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  18. [26]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Nonlinear Field Theory of Large-Spin Heisenberg Antiferromagnets: Semiclassically Quantized Solitons of the One-Dimensional Easy-Axis N´ eel State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1153 (1983); F. D. M. Haldane, Con- tinuum dynamics of the 1-D Heisenberg antiferromag- ne...

    1983

  19. [27]

    Li-Xiang Cen, Regularized scheme of time evolution ten- sor network algorithms, arXiv:2208.03436

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Z. Y. Xie, H. J. Liao, R. Z. Huang, H. D. Xie, J. Chen, Z. Y. Liu, and T. Xiang, Optimized contraction scheme for tensor-network states, Phys. Rev. B. 96, 045128 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Y. C. Tzeng, and M. F. Yang, Scaling properties of fi- delity in the spin-1 anisotropic model, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012311 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    S. Hu, B. Normand, X. Q. Wang, and L. Yu, Accurate determination of the Gaussian transition in spin-1 chains with single-ion anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B 84, 220402(R) (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Y. C. Tzeng, H. Onishi, T. Okubo, and Ying-Jer Kao, Quantum phase transitions driven by rhombic-type single-ion anisotropy in the Haldane chain, Phys. Rev. B 96, 060404(R) (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    H. Y. Wu, Yu-Chin Tzeng, Z. Y. Xie, K. Ji, and J. F. Yu, Exploring quantum phase transitions by the cross derivative of the ground state energy, New J. Phys. 25, 043006 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    W. C. Chung, J. de Hond, J. Xiang, E. C. Colon, and W. Ketterle, Tunable Single-Ion Anisotropy in Spin-1 Mod- els Realized with Ultracold Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 163203 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    D. M. Pajerowski, A. P. Podlesnyak, J. Herbrych, and J. Manson, High-pressure inelastic neutron scat- tering study of the anisotropic S = 1 spin chain [Ni(HF2)(3−Clpyradine)4]BF4, Phys. Rev. B 105, 134420 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    J. B. Fouet, A. Lauchli, S. Pilgram, R. M. Noack, and F. Mila, Frustrated three-leg spin tubes: From spin 1/2 with chirality to spin 3 /2, Phys. Rev. B 73, 014409 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Yonaga, and N

    K. Yonaga, and N. Shibata, Ground State Phase Diagram of Twisted Three-Leg Spin Tube in Magnetic Field, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84, 094706 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Schnack, H

    J. Schnack, H. Nojiri, P. Kogerler, G. J. T. Cooper, and L. Cronin, Magnetic characterization of the frustrated three-leg ladder compound [(CuCl 2tachH)3Cl]Cl2, Phys. Rev. B 70, 174420 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    Wang, and F

    L. Wang, and F. Verstraete, Cluster update for tensor network states, arXiv:1110.4362

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.