4.2 Article

Three-dimensional isometric tensor networks

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW RESEARCH
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023236

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB1143, 247310070]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tensor network states are considered good representations of quantum many-body wave functions, but their utility in higher dimensions is limited by the difficulty of contracting the network. A method for time evolution of three-dimensional isometric tensor networks is introduced here, simplifying contraction through a special canonical form and allowing for accurate representation of ground states in the transverse field Ising model.
Tensor network states are expected to be good representations of a large class of interesting quantum many-body wave functions. In higher dimensions, their utility is however severely limited by the difficulty of contracting the tensor network, an operation needed to calculate quantum expectation values. Here we introduce a method for the time evolution of three-dimensional isometric tensor networks which respects the isometric structure and therefore renders contraction simple through a special canonical form. Our method involves a tetrahedral site splitting which allows one to move the orthogonality center of an embedded tree tensor network in a simple cubic lattice to any position. Using imaginary time evolution to find an isometric tensor network representation of the ground state of the three-dimensional transverse field Ising model across the entire phase diagram, we perform a systematic benchmark study of this method in comparison with exact Lanczos and quantum Monte Carlo results. We show that the obtained energy matches the exact ground-state result accurately deep in the ferromagnetic and polarized phases, while the regime close to the critical point requires larger bond dimensions. This behavior is in close analogy with the two-dimensional case, which we also discuss for comparison.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据