General InfiniteBlockMPO working vumps #107
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…th InfiniteBlockMPO
…initeMPS.jl into general-MPO-vumps
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello everyone,
re: #39
I made the environments for the Hamiltonian as a
InfiniteBlockMPOto work correctly when there are exponentially decaying interactions between two-body interaction terms.More explicitly, the MPO block structure has operators on the diagonal that are strictly only allowed to be proportional to the identity operator.
I tested the code with and without quantum number conservation.
Also there was a bug in the code in the right environment where it didn't work for the QN conservation version because the MPO link caught was not the correct direction.
I compared the VUMPS result of the exponentially decaying TFI model to the code of the Ghent group, i.e., MPSKit, and the ground state energy is the same (numerically up to
1.47e-13), but only when the QN conservation is on...Hence, there seem to still be a bug in the code somewhere because the tests fail when the QN conservation is turned off, but they pass when QN conservation is ON!