+1 vote
asked by (130 points) 1 flag
edited by


I am playing around the Hubbard ladder model using the code formula of the extHubbard model. The Hubbard ladder model is the most simple one with intra-chain nearest neighbour hopping t , inter-chain hopping t1 and one site interaction U. The code snipet of the model is the following:

auto sites = Hubbard(N);
  *Create the Hamiltonian using AutoMPO
auto ampo = AutoMPO(sites);
for(int i = 1; i <= N; ++i) 
    ampo += U,"Nupdn",i;
/* intra-chain hopping t */
for(int b = 1; b < N-1; ++b)  
    ampo += -t,"Cdagup",b,"Cup",b+2;
    ampo += -t,"Cdagup",b+2,"Cup",b;
    ampo += -t,"Cdagdn",b,"Cdn",b+2;
    ampo += -t,"Cdagdn",b+2,"Cdn",b;
/* inter-chain hopping t1 */
for(int b = 1; b < N; ++b)
    if( (b & 0x1) )
       ampo += -t1,"Cdagup",b,"Cup",b+1;
       ampo += -t1,"Cdagup",b+1,"Cup",b;
       ampo += -t1,"Cdagdn",b,"Cdn",b+1;
       ampo += -t1,"Cdagdn",b+1,"Cdn",b;

auto H = IQMPO(ampo);

And I use the Neel state as the initial wavefunction mps.

The result does converge but with truncation error 10^(-6). Comparing with the 10^(-12) error in the result of extHubbard, this is not good. I have tried to improve the result by increasing sweeps.maxm() to 1000 and the trunc error stays at 10^(-6) until the 20th sweeps.

Any suggestions ? Thanks a lot for your help!

Best wishes

Deping Zhang

1 Answer

0 votes
answered by (70.1k points)

Hi Deping,
I tried it out for myself and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what you're observing for this system. You didn't mention what U you are using, but for small to moderate U and this high of a filling I think you can encounter systems with very high entanglement.

I tried the parameters t=1.0, t1=0.5, and U=3.0 and found similar results to yours for maxm=1000. But then I increased the maxm up to 2000 and managed to reduce the truncation error below 3E-8.

It's far from a perfect comparison but a very quick literature search revealed a paper from May 2000 by Rommer, White, and Scalapino studying t-J ladders. They kept up to 2400 states and still the best truncation error they observed was only 1E-7.

If you try cranking U up much higher, say 10 times t, then you should find you can get much smaller errors for bond dimensions in the few hundreds (because the entanglement is a lot lower).

The exthubbard results may have been unintentionally misleading; perhaps the combination of being 1d, being only at quarter filling, and having strong interactions both U and V1 conspire to lower the entanglement.

Let me know if you find some literature on this system suggesting the entanglement should be lower -


commented by (130 points)
Thank you very much, miles.
Welcome to ITensor Support Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.

Formatting Tips:
  • To format code, indent by four spaces
  • To format inline LaTeX, surround it by @@ on both sides
  • To format LaTeX on its own line, surround it by $$ above and below
  • For LaTeX, it may be necessary to backslash-escape underscore characters to obtain proper formatting. So for example writing \sum\_i to represent a sum over i.
If you cannot register due to firewall issues (e.g. you cannot see the capcha box) please email Miles Stoudenmire to ask for an account.

To report ITensor bugs, please use the issue tracker.