Cited by 451Quantum many-body systemsPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismTheoretical and Computational Physics

Studying Two-Dimensional Systems with the Density Matrix Renormalization Group

Open access
Stoudenmire, E.M., White, Steven R.·2012·Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics

Abstract

The density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) is one of the most powerful numerical methods for studying two-dimensional quantum lattice systems, despite a perception that it is only suitable for one dimension. Reviewing past applications of DMRG in 2D demonstrates its success in treating a wide variety of problems, although it remains underutilized in this context. We present techniques for performing cutting-edge 2D DMRG studies including methods for ensuring convergence, extrapolating finite-size data, and extracting gaps and excited states. Finally, we consider a selection of recently developed 2D tensor network methods and compare the performance of one of these to 2D DMRG.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125018

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • In one-dimensional systems, DMRG, MERA and TTN techniques scale favorably and can in principle treat very large systems.

    “In the case of 1D systems, DMRG, MERA and TTN techniques scale favorably and can, in principle, treat very large systems [77-79].”

    From Can one trust quantum simulators? (2012) · cites this paper as [78]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stoudenmire, E. M., & White, S. R.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics
Published
2012-03-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
111-128
ISSN
  • 1947-5454 (ISSN-L)
  • 1947-5462
OpenAlex
W2010492822
Cited by
451
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Physics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Condensed Matter Physics › Theoretical and Computational Physics
Keywords
density matrix renormalization group, tensor networks, finite-size extrapolation, excited states, convergence acceleration, quantum many-body systems

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