Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Fractionalized Kohn-Sham Scheme for Strongly Correlated Electrons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that density functional theory can be extended to strongly correlated electrons by using a noninteracting auxiliary system of fractionalized particles—holons and spinons—instead of electrons, and demonstrates the idea on…

desk verdict A fresh and promising fractionalized-KS construction with honest 1D tests, but the benchmark agreement is partly tuned and the exactness claim is asserted; send to review and push for out-of-sample tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01061 v2 pith:H7AQVGRE submitted 2024-12-02 physics.comp-ph

Bo Zhao , Jingyu Zhao , Zheng Zhu , Jian Wu , Zheng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph PACS 71.15.Mb71.27.+a
keywords densityfunctionaltheoryKohn-Shamschemefractionalizedquasiparticlesspin-chargeseparationt-JmodelstronglycorrelatedelectronslocalapproximationDMRGbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a new Kohn-Sham scheme, called KS*, in which the auxiliary noninteracting system is composed of fractionalized particles—spinless holons carrying charge and neutral spin-1/2 spinons—rather than ordinary electrons. The rationale is that strong correlations, such as those in doped Mott insulators, obscure the electron reference but leave weakly interacting quasiparticles. Using the one-dimensional t-J model as a test bed, the paper shows that a simple local density approximation built from homogeneous-chain data reproduces DMRG ground-state energies and densities for inhomogeneous chains, at a far lower computational cost. If correct, this opens a path for density functional calculations in the strong-correlation regime where conventional Kohn-Sham schemes are known to fail.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fractionalized auxiliary Hamiltonian $\hat H_{KS*}$ (Eq. 7), in which the electron is replaced by the slave-particle decomposition $c_{i\sigma}=h^\dagger_i f_{i\sigma}$: spinless hard-core boson holons carry the charge and neutral spin-1/2 fermionic spinons carry the spin. The paper's innovation is to make the holon hopping $t^h_i$ and spinon hopping $t^f_i$ density-dependent, with LDA forms derived from the homogeneous-chain correlations, and to augment the usual interaction exchange-correlation potential $V^I_{xc}$ with a kinetic-generated potential $V^T_{xc}$ that comes from differentiating the density-dependent kinetic operator. Standard Kohn-Sham logic is then applied: solve the auxiliary system self-consistently, enforce the single-occupancy constraint with $\lambda_i$, and obtain the interacting ground-state energy as $T_{KS*}+E_{xc*}+E_{ext}$. The matching to DMRG for one- and multi-hole inhomogeneous chains is the evidence that this auxiliary representation captures the physics.

What would settle it

Solve the KS* equations for an inhomogeneous t-J chain outside the tested family—for instance a 100-site chain with a steep double-well potential, a random disordered potential, or a large periodic superlattice—and compare the predicted density and total energy with DMRG calculations on the same chain. If the deviations grow beyond DMRG accuracy as the inhomogeneity strengthens, the transferability of the homogeneous-chain LDA parameters is the point of failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Kohn-Sham-like density functional scheme can be based on a fractionalized auxiliary system of holons and spinons and that, with a local density approximation, it delivers ground-state energies and densities for the inhomogeneous 1D t-J model that agree with DMRG. The auxiliary Hamiltonian (Eq. 7) uses density-dependent holon and spinon hoppings $t^h_i$ and $t^f_i$, an exchange-correlation potential $V_{xc}$, and local chemical potentials $\lambda_i$ that enforce the no-double-occupancy constraint as one fractionalized particle per site. The paper determines the holon and spinon correlation functions by LDA forms $\langle h^\dagger_i h_{i+1}\rangle \approx A(1-n_i)$ and $\langle f^\dagger_{i\sigma} f_{i+1\sigma}\rangle \approx 1/\pi + B(1-n_i)^2$ with $A=0.45$, $B=-0.05$, and takes the homogeneous-chain XC energy per electron as a linear fit $\epsilon_{xc*} = -0.21 n + 0.12$. The reported results include accurate one-hole energies across chain lengths, impurity strengths, and periodic potentials, multi-hole density profiles for two, three, and nine holes, and a runtime advantage: DMRG takes over an hour on a 24-core node for a 50-site chain while the KS* iteration finishes within a minute on a laptop.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes that a noninteracting auxiliary system of holons and spinons with density-dependent hoppings and a local exchange-correlation potential exists and reproduces the exact density of the interacting t-J chain, and that the LDA parameters fitted on homogeneous chains transfer to arbitrary inhomogeneous potentials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For 1D t-J chains, KS* with simple LDA matches DMRG ground-state energies and densities while reducing the computational cost from over an hour on a 24-core node to under a minute on a laptop.
  • The XC energy contributes substantially to the total energy in KS*, which demonstrates that slave-particle mean-field treatments miss an essential piece that a density functional can supply.
  • The success motivates carrying the fractionalized auxiliary-system idea into higher dimensions, where an emergent gauge field must be incorporated, for example by combining KS* with composite-fermion DFT techniques.
  • In the presence of competing phases, the paper proposes a family of KS* equations, each reproducing the ground-state energy of a specific phase, with the lowest-energy solution selecting the stable phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the KS* construction transfers to other models, it would imply that the failure of conventional DFT for Mott systems is not the density functional idea itself but the choice of noninteracting electron reference; any weakly interacting fractionalized reference with a good LDA could work.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply KS* to Hubbard ladders or the two-dimensional t-J model at moderate sizes, where DMRG is still reliable enough to provide a benchmark and the emergent gauge field becomes necessary.
  • The density-dependent hoppings generate an extra XC contribution via functional differentiation; the same term should appear in any DFT formalism whose kinetic energy operator depends on density, offering a diagnostic for such schemes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'fractionalized Kohn-Sham' (KS*) scheme for strongly correlated electrons, using the one-dimensional t-J model as a test bed. The auxiliary system is a noninteracting mixture of holons and spinons with density-dependent hoppings t^h_i(n), t^f_i(n) and an exchange-correlation potential V_xc,i(n). LDA forms are constructed from homogeneous-chain data using two parameters A and B, and a linear fit for epsilon_xc*(n). Self-consistent solutions are then compared against DMRG for one-hole ground-state energies as functions of chain length, impurity strength, and potential period, and for one-, two-, three-, and nine-hole density distributions. The authors report that the KS* iterations reproduce DMRG energies and densities at much lower computational cost.

Significance. The central idea is original and potentially consequential: if a fractionalized auxiliary system can play the role that the noninteracting electron system plays in standard Kohn-Sham theory, it would open a new route to DFT for strongly correlated materials. The multihole calculations without refitting A, B, or the XC fit are genuine evidence of predictive power, and the decomposition of the total energy into T_KS*, E_xc*, and E_ext usefully shows that the XC contribution is essential. The numerical comparisons with DMRG are plausible and cover several physically relevant inhomogeneous setups. However, the parameter selection is partly circular with respect to the benchmarks, the formal existence of the KS* density functions is asserted rather than proved, and no quantitative error estimates are provided. These issues are load-bearing for the claim of DMRG-level accuracy and for the 'formally exact' characterization of the scheme.

major comments (3)
  1. [After Eq. (11), 'The values of A and B are determined...' and Figs. 3-4] The LDA parameters A=0.45 and B=-0.05 are selected by testing on inhomogeneous chains before the benchmarks are presented, and the linear XC functional epsilon_xc*=-0.21 n + 0.12 is fitted to t_KS* computed with those same parameters. Because epsilon_xc* is defined as epsilon_GS - t_KS*, the choice of A and B also fixes the XC functional, so Figures 3 and 4 do not provide an independent test of the transferability of the LDA functionals. The two-, three-, and nine-hole cases use the same J/t=0.3 and the same three potential families, so they do not break this circularity. I request an explicit out-of-sample validation: for example, hold out one potential family or a different J/t during parameter selection and report the errors on the held-out cases; and state how many and which inhomogeneous chains were used in the tuning.
  2. [Eq. (7) and the KS* statement; Eq. (12)] The formal claim that 'function forms ... in principle exist' such that Eq. (7) reproduces the exact ground-state density is asserted without proof. The constrained-search references [21,22] apply to the original electron Hamiltonian, not to the fractionalized auxiliary system in Eq. (7). The variational argument in Eq. (12) is a stationarity condition for a fixed auxiliary Hamiltonian; it does not establish that every density of the interacting t-J chain is representable by Eq. (7) with local density functions t^h_i(n), t^f_i(n), and V_xc,i(n), nor does it show that the corresponding energy functional has a variational minimum that equals the exact ground-state energy. The authors should either provide a proof or clearly restate this existence as an assumption that the numerical results are intended to test rather than derive.
  3. [Figs. 3-4 and the statement 'accuracy comparable to DMRG'] The central numerical claim is not supported by any quantitative error metric. The manuscript reports curves and density distributions but never gives the maximum or mean absolute deviation of E_GS or n_i from DMRG, nor the DMRG bond dimensions or truncation errors at each benchmark point. I request explicit numerical errors for every benchmark case, together with DMRG convergence parameters, so that 'comparable to DMRG' can be assessed quantitatively rather than visually.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, after Eq. (2)] There is a typo in 'the general concept the of KS * scheme'; it should read 'the general concept of the KS* scheme'.
  2. [Section on A and B determination] The text says 'as defined by the deference between epsilon_GS and t_KS*'; 'deference' should be 'difference'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption and panel (c)] Figure 1(c) would be much easier to read with a legend and axis labels identifying t_h, t_f, V_xc^T, and V_xc^I; the current caption does not explain the symbols used for each quantity.
  4. [Section on self-consistent iteration] The sentence 'the KS* formalism is able to well trace the DMRG GS energy' is ungrammatical; consider 'the KS* formalism reproduces the DMRG ground-state energy well'.
  5. [Supplemental Material reference] The Supplemental Material is referenced for implementation details and additional benchmarks, but it is not included in the arXiv submission; the implementation in Sec. IV and the additional comparisons in Sec. V are therefore not verifiable from the preprint alone.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Benchmark agreement is partly a fit: A, B, and the linear ε*xc are selected on inhomogeneous chains and then benchmarked on the same class of systems.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text after Eq. (11) and Fig. 1 caption]
    "Different choices of A and B lead to different kinetic energies of the KS∗ auxiliary system (tKS∗), and, in turn, different XC energies (εxc∗, as defined by the deference between εGS and tKS∗). In this sense, A and B tune the partition of the GS energy into the kinetic and potential parts, which is nonunique. ... Testing calculations on inhomogeneous chains show that A = 0.45 and B = −0.05 generally perform well. ... In all the calculations below we will take the linear approximation of ϵxc∗ with fixed fitting parameters (see the caption of Fig. 1) without further fine-tuning."

    The homogeneous-chain data do not determine A and B: the paper notes that all A/B choices reproduce the exact homogeneous GS energy by construction, because εxc∗ is defined as εGS − tKS∗ and tKS∗ itself depends on A and B. The free parameters A = 0.45 and B = −0.05 are then selected by 'testing calculations on inhomogeneous chains', and the linear functional εxc∗ = −0.21n + 0.12 is fitted to the resulting tKS∗-dependent curve. The headline benchmarks (Figs. 3 and 4) are exactly inhomogeneous OBC, single-site-impurity, and periodic-potential chains of the same type used for that selection. Therefore the reported DMRG-level agreement is not an independent test of the KS* LDA; it is partly enforced by construction through the tuned A, B, and the εxc∗ fit.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is not circular: the KS* auxiliary Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) is a genuine reformulation; the homogeneous-chain DMRG inputs in Fig. 1 are independent external data; Eq. (10) follows from a mean-field slave-particle treatment; and Eqs. (11)-(14) provide explicit LDA forms. The two-, three-, and nine-hole results in Fig. 4 use fixed parameters and are out-of-sample evidence of transferability, which is real predictive content. However, the central one-hole benchmarks are weakened by the parameter-selection route: A and B are free constants in the LDA correlation functions, they are chosen by 'testing calculations on inhomogeneous chains', and εxc∗ is defined from tKS∗, which itself depends on A and B. Thus the linear εxc∗ = −0.21n + 0.12 is not an independent homogeneous-chain functional; it is a fit derived from the A/B choice. Figures 3(a)-(i) therefore partly reduce to this fit rather than demonstrating that the KS* construction alone is responsible for the DMRG-level accuracy. The later multihole tests and the computational-cost comparison provide independent support, preventing a higher circularity score. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard DFT existence arguments, the 1D spin-charge separation picture, and an unproved assumption that a noninteracting holon/spinon auxiliary system with density-dependent hoppings can represent the exact ground state. Two LDA parameters and a linear XC fit are tuned or benchmarked, so part of the reported agreement is fitted. No wholly new physical entity is introduced; holons and spinons are borrowed from known fractionalization physics.

free parameters (3)
  • LDA parameter A = 0.45
    Controls holon hopping via <h†_{i+1} h_i> ≈ A(1-n_i) in Eq. (11). Chosen because testing on inhomogeneous chains 'shows that A = 0.45 and B = -0.05 generally perform well'.
  • LDA parameter B = -0.05
    Controls spinon hopping via <f†_{i+1σ} f_iσ> ≈ 1/π + B(1-n_i)^2 in Eq. (11). Tuned together with A on benchmark chains.
  • Linear fit coefficients for epsilon_xc* = -0.21 n + 0.12
    The XC energy per electron used in V^I_xc is a linear fit to homogeneous-chain DMRG data, with fixed coefficients used in all calculations. This is a fitted input rather than a parameter-free derivation.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math A universal density functional exists for the lattice t-J model via the Levy-Lieb two-step minimization procedure.
    Invoked in the main text to justify a density functional for the lattice model. This is a standard result, but its extension to the constrained t-J model is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Spin-charge separation holds in the 1D t-J chain, and the slave-particle representation c_iσ = h†_i f_iσ maps the Hamiltonian to Eq. (8).
    Luttinger liquid behavior is cited as the physical basis. The transformation is standard, but its use as the exact foundation for the KS* auxiliary system in inhomogeneous chains is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Exact KS* density functions t^h_i(n), t^f_i(n), and V_xc,i(n) exist for the fractionalized auxiliary system.
    Stated in the KS* box as 'in principle exist' with no proof. This is the central unproven assumption that the scheme can be formally exact.
  • domain assumption LDA transferability: homogeneous-chain holon/spinon averages and epsilon_xc* apply locally to inhomogeneous densities.
    Standard LDA logic invoked to construct Eq. (11) and V^I_xc. The transferability is plausible but only tested on a limited set of benchmark potentials.
invented entities (2)
  • Holon auxiliary particles (hard-core bosons h_i)
    purpose: Carry the charge degree of freedom in the KS* auxiliary Hamiltonian, Eq. (7).
    Holons are borrowed from known spin-charge separation physics, not newly invented here, but the paper provides no new falsifiable handle for the auxiliary holon system beyond the benchmark comparisons.
  • Spinon auxiliary particles (fermions f_iσ)
    purpose: Carry the spin degree of freedom in the KS* auxiliary Hamiltonian, Eq. (7).
    Spinons are standard in slave-particle treatments. The paper does not provide independent experimental evidence for the auxiliary spinon system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractionalized Kohn-Sham Scheme for Strongly Correlated Electrons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7AQVGRE

@misc{pith2026241201061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractionalized Kohn-Sham Scheme for Strongly Correlated Electrons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7AQVGRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01061}
}
abstract

We propose to expand the territory of density functional theory to strongly correlated electrons by reformulating the Kohn-Sham scheme in the representation of fractionalized particles. We call it the ``KS* scheme.'' Using inhomogeneous $t$-$J$ chains as a test bed, we show that the KS* scheme with simple local density approximation is able to achieve accurate ground-state energy and density distribution comparable to the density matrix renormalization group method, while the computational complexity is much lower.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Homogeneous density dependence of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the self-consistent itera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The two-, three- and nine-hole GS density dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous electron gas, Phy. Rev. B136, B864 (1964)

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    R. O. Jones, Density functional theory: Its origins, rise to prominence, and future, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 897 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Self-consistent equations in- cluding exchange and correlation effects, Phys. Rev.140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  4. [4]

    W.Kohn,Nobellecture: Electronicstructureofmatter— wave functions and density functionals, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1253 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Gori-Giorgi, M

    P. Gori-Giorgi, M. Seidl, and G. Vignale, Density- functional theory for strongly interacting electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 166402 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Malet and P

    F. Malet and P. Gori-Giorgi, Strong correlation in Kohn- Sham density functional theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 246402 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Kummel and L

    S. Kummel and L. Kronik, Orbital-dependent density functionals: Theory and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 3 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    J. P. Perdew and K. Schmidt, Jacob’s ladder of density functional approximations for the exchange-correlation energy, AIP Conf. Proc.577, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    J. Sun, A. Ruzsinszky, and J. P. Perdew, Strongly con- strained and appropriately normed semilocal density functional, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 036402 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Kirkpatrick, B

    J. Kirkpatrick, B. McMorrow, D. H. P. Turban, A. L. Gaunt, J. S. Spencer, A. G. D. G. Matthews, A. Obika, L.Thiry, M.Fortunato, D.Pfau, L.R. Castellanos, S.Pe- tersen, A. W. R. Nelson, P. Kohli, P. Mori-Sánchez, D. Hassabis, and A. J. Cohen, Pushing the frontiers of density fu...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Kotliar, S

    G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Electronic struc- ture calculations with dynamical mean-field theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 865 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    J.M.Tomczak, P.Liu, A.Toschi, G.Kresse,andK.Held, Merging GW with DMFT and non-local correlations be- yond, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.226, 2565 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    B. Kang, P. Semon, C. Melnick, G. Kotliar, and S. Choi, ComDMFT v.2.0: Fully self-consistent ab initio GW+EDMFT for the electronic structure of correlated quantum materials, arXiv:2310.04613

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Onida, L

    G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Electronic exci- tations: Density-functional versus many-body Green’s- function approaches, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 601 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phases of Matter (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, England, 2023)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phases of Matter (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, England, 2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Voit, A brief introduction to Luttinger liquids, AIP Conf

    J. Voit, A brief introduction to Luttinger liquids, AIP Conf. Proc. 544, 309 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a Mott in- sulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Capelle and V

    K. Capelle and V. L. Campo Jr, Density functionals and model Hamiltonians: Pillars of many-particle physics, Phy. Rep.528, 91 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    E. H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu, Absence of Mott transition in an exact solution of the short-range, one-band model in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 1445 (1968)

    1968

  12. [20]

    Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Lévy, Universal variational functionals of electron densities, first-order density matrices, and natural spin- orbitals and solution of the v-representability problem, Proc

    M. Lévy, Universal variational functionals of electron densities, first-order density matrices, and natural spin- orbitals and solution of the v-representability problem, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.76, 6062 (1979)

    1979

  14. [22]

    E. H. Lieb, Density functionals for Coulomb systems, Int. J. Quantum Chem.24, 243 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    J. T. Chayes, L. Chayes, and M. B. Ruskai, Density functional approach to quantum lattice systems, J. Stat. Phys. 38, 497 (1985)

    1985

  16. [24]

    Penz and R

    M. Penz and R. van Leeuwen, Geometrical perspective on spin–lattice density-functional theory, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 150901 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    J. Mao, H. Tang, W. Duan, and Z. Liu, Testing density functional theory in a quantum Ising chain, Phys. Rev. B 104, 155145 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    L. Xu, J. Mao, X. Gao, and Z. Liu, Extensibility of Hohenberg–Kohn theorem to general quantum systems, Adv. Quantum Technol.5, 2200041 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, Ground state of the electron gas by a stochastic method, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 566 (1980)

    1980

  20. [28]

    S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  21. [29]

    U.Schollwöck,Thedensity-matrixrenormalizationgroup in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. (Amster- dam) 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    A.Moreno, A.Muramatsu,andS.R.Manmana,Ground- state phase diagram of the one-dimensionalt − J model, Phys. Rev. B83, 205113 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Zhu, Q.-R

    Z. Zhu, Q.-R. Wang, D. Sheng, and Z.-Y. Weng, Exact signstructureofthe t−J chainandthesingleholeground 7 state, Nucl. Phys. B903, 51 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    J. R. Coulthard, S. R. Clark, and D. Jaksch, Ground- state phase diagram of the one-dimensionalt − J model withpairhoppingterms,Phys.Rev.B 98,035116(2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    J.-Y. Zhao, S. A. Chen, H.-K. Zhang, and Z.-Y. Weng, Two-hole ground state: Dichotomy in pairing symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 011062 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/ sup- plemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.136505 for imple- mentation details, additional computational results and benchmark tests

    doi

  27. [35]

    X. Y. Deng, L. Wang, X. Dai, and Z. Fang, Local den- sity approximation combined with Gutzwiller method for correlated electron systems: Formalism and applications, Phys. Rev. B79, 075114 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Z. Ye, Y. Fang, H. Zhang, F. Zhang, S. Wu, W.-C. Lu, Y.-X. Yao, C.-Z. Wang, and K.-M. Ho, The Gutzwiller conjugate gradient minimization method for correlated electron systems, J. Phys. C34, 243001 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Luttinger liquid theory of one- dimensional quantum fluids. I. Properties of the Lut- tinger model and their extension to the general 1D in- teracting spinless Fermi gas, J. Phys. C14, 2585 (1981)

    1981

  30. [38]

    Z. Y. Weng, D. N. Sheng, and C. S. Ting, Spin-charge separation in the t − J model: Magnetic and transport anomalies, Phys. Rev. B52, 637 (1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    Z. Y. Weng, D. N. Sheng, Y.-C. Chen, and C. S. Ting, Phase string effect in thet − J model: General theory, Phys. Rev. B55, 3894 (1997)

    1997

  32. [40]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor software library for tensor network calculations, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Code- base release 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Zhao and Z.-Y

    J.-Y. Zhao and Z.-Y. Weng, Mottness, phase string, and high-Tc superconductivity, Chin. Phys. B 31, 087104 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    J. Zhao, M. Thakurathi, M. Jain, D. Sen, and J. K. Jain, Density-functional theory of the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 196802 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Hu and J

    Y. Hu and J. K. Jain, Kohn-Sham theory of the frac- tional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 176802 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Y. Hu, G. Murthy, S. Rao, and J. K. Jain, Kohn-Sham density functional theory of Abelian anyons, Phys. Rev. B 103, 035124 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.