CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 206Quantum many-body systemsQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitecturePhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism

Gradient methods for variational optimization of projected entangled-pair states

Open access
Vanderstraeten, Laurens, Haegeman, Jutho, Corboz, Philippe, Verstraete, Frank·2016·Physical Review B
DOI 10.1103/physrevb.94.155123
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The authors present a new method for variationally optimizing projected entangled-pair states (PEPS) in the thermodynamic limit based on the global energy functional and novel tensor contraction strategies. It is successfully benchmarked using Ising and Heisenberg Hamiltonians. The method is completely independent from previous PEPS implementations and improves on the variational energies and order parameters as compared to other state-of-the-art PEPS simulations. The algorithm presented here should prove valuable in simulating ground-state properties of strongly correlated quantum spin systems, can be used with other variational ansatzes, and can be applied to tensor network states in general.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevb.94.155123

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tangent-space methods can be formulated on systems with periodic boundary conditions, but suffer from higher computational cost.

    “Tangent-space methods can also be formulated on systems with periodic boundary conditions [73], but, just like all MPS methods, suffer from a higher computational cost.”

    From Tangent-space methods for uniform matrix product states (2019) · cites this paper as [73]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Studying two-dimensional systems with the density matrix renormalization group, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 3, 111 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  2. S. Yan, D. A. Huse, and S. R. White, Spin-liquid ground state of the S = 1/2 kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet, Science 332, 1173 (2011). · DOI
  3. S. Sorella, Wave function optimization in the variational Monte Carlo method, Phys. Rev. B 71, 241103 (2005). · DOI
  4. Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, S. Sorella, and D. Poilblanc, Gapless spin-liquid phase in the kagome spin-1/2 Heisenberg antifer- romagnet, Phys. Rev. B 87, 060405 (2013). · DOI
  5. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  6. J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  7. N. Schuch, J. I. Cirac, and D. Pérez-García, PEPS as ground states: Degeneracy and topology, Ann. Phys. 325, 2153 (2010). · DOI
  8. T. B. Wahl, H.-H. Tu, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Projected Entangled-Pair States Can Describe Chiral Topological States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 236805 (2013). · DOI
  9. M. B. S ¸ahinoglu, D. Williamson, N. Bultinck, M. Mariën, J. Haegeman, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Characterizing topo- logical order with matrix product operators, arXiv:1409.2150. · arXiv
  10. O. Buerschaper, Twisted injectivity in projected entangled pair states and the classification of quantum phases, Ann. Phys. 351, 447 (2014). · DOI
  11. N. Bultinck, M. Mariën, D. J. Williamson, M. B. S ¸ahinoglu, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Anyons and matrix product operator algebras, arXiv:1511.08090. · arXiv
  12. J. I. Cirac, D. Poilblanc, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, En- tanglement spectrum and boundary theories with projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245134 (2011). · DOI
  13. N. Schuch, D. Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, and D. Pérez-García, Topo- logical Order in the Projected Entangled-Pair States Formalism: Transfer Operator and Boundary Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090501 (2013). · DOI
  14. S. Yang, L. Lehman, D. Poilblanc, K. Van Acoleyen, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and N. Schuch, Edge Theories in Projected Entangled Pair State Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 036402 (2014). · DOI
  15. J. Jordan, R. Orús, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in Two Spatial Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  16. H. C. Jiang, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Accurate Determination of Tensor Network State of Quantum Lattice Models in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 090603 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  17. H. N. Phien, J. A. Bengua, H. D. Tuan, P. Corboz, and R. Orús, Infinite projected entangled pair states algorithm improved: Fast full update and gauge fixing, Phys. Rev. B 92, 035142 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  18. P. Corboz, M. Lajkó, A. M. Läuchli, K. Penc, and F. Mila, Spin-Orbital Quantum Liquid on the Honeycomb Lattice, Phys. Rev. X 2, 041013 (2012). · DOI
  19. H. H. Zhao, Cenke Xu, Q. N. Chen, Z. C. Wei, M. P. Qin, G. M. Zhang, and T. Xiang, Plaquette order and deconfined quantum critical point in the spin-1 bilinear-biquadratic Heisenberg 155123-12 model on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 85, 134416 (2012). · DOI
  20. Z.-C. Gu, H.-C. Jiang, D. N. Sheng, H. Yao, L. Balents, and X.-G. Wen, Time-reversal symmetry breaking superconducting ground state in the doped Mott insulator on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 88, 155112 (2013). · DOI
  21. P. Corboz and F. Mila, Tensor network study of the Shastry- Sutherland model in zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115144 (2013). · DOI
  22. J. Osorio Iregui, P. Corboz, and M. Troyer, Probing the stability of the spin-liquid phases in the Kitaev-Heisenberg model using tensor network algorithms, Phys. Rev. B 90, 195102 (2014). · DOI
  23. P. Corboz and F. Mila, Crystals of Bound States in the Magnetization Plateaus of the Shastry-Sutherland Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 147203 (2014). · DOI
  24. T. Picot and D. Poilblanc, Nematic and supernematic phases in kagome quantum antiferromagnets under the influence of a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 91, 064415 (2015). · DOI
  25. T. Picot, M. Ziegler, R. Orús, and D. Poilblanc, Spin-S kagome quantum antiferromagnets in a field with tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 93, 060407 (2016). · DOI
  26. P. Nataf, M. Lajkó, P. Corboz, A. M. Läuchli, K. Penc, and F. Mila, Plaquette order in the SU(6) Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 93, 201113(R) (2016). · DOI
  27. P. Corboz, Improved energy extrapolation with infinite projected entangled-pair states applied to the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045116 (2016). · DOI
  28. P. Corboz, R. Orús, B. Bauer, and G. Vidal, Simulation of strongly correlated fermions in two spatial dimensions with fermionic projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 81, 165104 (2010). · DOI
  29. P. Corboz, J. Jordan, and G. Vidal, Simulation of fermionic lattice models in two dimensions with projected entangled-pair states: Next-nearest neighbor Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. B 82, 245119 (2010). · DOI
  30. P. Corboz, T. M. Rice, and M. Troyer, Competing States in the t -J Model: Uniform d-Wave State versus Stripe State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 046402 (2014). · DOI
  31. M. Lubasch, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Bañuls, Algorithms for finite projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 90, 064425 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  32. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  33. G. Vidal, Classical Simulation of Infinite-Size Quantum Lattice Systems in One Spatial Dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007). · DOI
  34. J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Pizorn, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-Dependent Variational Principle for Quantum Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070601 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  35. J. Haegeman, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Post-matrix product state methods: To tangent space and beyond, Phys. Rev. B 88, 075133 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  36. J. Haegeman, M. Mariën, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Geometry of matrix product states: Metric, parallel transport, and curvature, J. Math. Phys. 55, 021902 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  37. J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimization with matrix product states, arXiv:1408.5056. · arXiv
  38. A. Milsted, J. Haegeman, and T. J. Osborne, Matrix product states and variational methods applied to critical quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D 88, 085030 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  39. L. Vanderstraeten, M. Mariën, F. Verstraete, and J. Haegeman, Excitations and the tangent space of projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 92, 201111 (2015). · DOI
  40. R. J. Baxter, Dimers on a rectangular lattice, J. Math. Phys. 9, 650 (1968). · DOI · Paper page
  41. R. Orús and G. Vidal, Infinite time-evolving block decimation algorithm beyond unitary evolution, Phys. Rev. B 78, 155117 (2008). · DOI
  42. R. J. Baxter, Corner transfer matrices, Physica A 106, 18 (1981). · DOI
  43. T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, Corner transfer matrix renormal- ization group method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 891 (1996). · DOI
  44. T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, Corner transfer matrix algorithm for classical renormalization group, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 66, 3040 (1997). · DOI
  45. R. Orús, Exploring corner transfer matrices and corner tensors for the classical simulation of quantum lattice systems, Phys. Rev. B 85, 205117 (2012). · DOI
  46. J. F. Bonnans, J. C. Gilbert, C. Lemaréchal, and C. A. Sagastizábal, Numerical Optimization (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006).
  47. J. Nocedal and S. Wright, Numerical Optimization (Springer, New York, 2006).
  48. W. W. Hager and H. Zhang, A survey of nonlinear conjugate gradient methods, Pacific Journal of Optimization 2, 35 (2006).
  49. R. Fletcher and C. Reeves, Function minimization by conjugate gradients, Comput. J. 7, 149 (1964). · DOI
  50. S. Sorella, Generalized Lanczos algorithm for variational quan- tum Monte Carlo, Phys. Rev. B 64, 024512 (2001). · DOI
  51. H. W. J. Blöte and Y. Deng, Cluster Monte Carlo simulation of the transverse Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 66, 066110 (2002). · DOI
  52. E. Manousakis, The spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its application to the cuprous oxides, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 1 (1991). · DOI
  53. B. Bauer, G. Vidal, and M. Troyer, Assessing the accuracy of projected entangled-pair states on infinite lattices, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2009) P09006. · DOI
  54. A. W. Sandvik and C. J. Hamer, Ground-state parameters, finite-size scaling, and low-temperature properties of the two- dimensional S = 1/2 XY model, Phys. Rev. B 60, 6588 (1999). · DOI
  55. A. W. Sandvik, Finite-size scaling of the ground-state parame- ters of the two-dimensional Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 56, 11678 (1997). · DOI
  56. A. W. Sandvik, A. Avella, and F. Mancini, Computational Studies of Quantum Spin Systems, AIP Conf. Proc. 1297, 135 (2010). · DOI
  57. W. Zheng, J. Oitmaa, and C. J. Hamer, Series studies of the spin- 1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet at T = 0: Magnon dispersion and structure factors, Phys. Rev. B 71, 184440 (2005). · DOI
  58. A. Lüscher and A. M. Läuchli, Exact diagonalization study of the antiferromagnetic spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on the square lattice in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 79, 195102 (2009). 155123-13 · DOI
  59. P. Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035133 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  60. B. Bauer, P. Corboz, R. Orús, and M. Troyer, Implementing global Abelian symmetries in projected entangled-pair state algorithms, Phys. Rev. B 83, 125106 (2011). · DOI
  61. D. Poilblanc, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Field-induced super- fluids and Bose liquids in projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 88, 144414 (2013). · DOI
  62. V. Murg, Frank Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Variational study of hard-core bosons in a two-dimensional optical lattice using projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. A 75, 033605 (2007). · DOI
  63. V. Murg, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Exploring frustrated spin systems using projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 79, 195119 (2009). · DOI
  64. Iztok Pižorn and Frank Verstraete, Fermionic implementation of projected entangled pair states algorithm, Phys. Rev. B 81, 245110 (2010). · DOI
  65. Ling Wang, Iztok Pižorn, and Frank Verstraete, Monte Carlo simulation with tensor network states, Phys. Rev. B 83, 134421 (2011). · DOI
  66. Shenghan Jiang and Ying Ran, Symmetric tensor networks and practical simulation algorithms to sharply identify classes of quantum phases distinguishable by short-range physics, Phys. Rev. B 92, 104414 (2015). · DOI
  67. P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre, Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds (Princeton University Press, 2008).
  68. J. Haegeman, B. Pirvu, D. J. Weir, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Variational matrix product ansatz for dispersion relations, Phys. Rev. B 85, 100408 (2012). · DOI
  69. L. Vanderstraeten, F. Verstraete, and J. Haegeman, Scattering particles in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 92, 125136 (2015). 155123-14 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vanderstraeten, L., Haegeman, J., Corboz, P., & Verstraete, F.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Institute for Theoretical Physics Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review B
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2016-10-14
Volume
94
Issue
15
ISSN
  • 2469-9950 (ISSN-L)
  • 2469-9969
DOI
10.1103/physrevb.94.155123
OpenAlex
W2469532638
Cited by
206
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16
FWCI
8.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical review. B./Physical review. B (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Physics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Keywords
projected entangled pair states, variational optimization, gradient-based optimization, tensor contraction, thermodynamic limit, Ising model, Heisenberg model, ground-state properties, tensor network states

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review