Commit 99b093b1 authored by Lorenzo Cardarelli's avatar Lorenzo Cardarelli

version: first resubmission to PRL. modified: minor grammar corrections to...

version: first resubmission to PRL. modified: minor grammar corrections to paper.tex and supmat.tex, supmat figures renamed by their order of appearance.
parent 46230bc6
......@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
(\bibinfo {year} {1983})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Levin}\ and\ \citenamefont {Wen}(2005)}]{Levin2005}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.A.}~\bibnamefont
{Levin}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {X.-G.}\ \bibnamefont
{Wen}},\ }\href@noop {} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Rev. Mod.
Phys.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {77}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {871} (\bibinfo
......@@ -524,7 +524,7 @@
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.}~\bibnamefont
{Affleck}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.}~\bibnamefont {Kennedy}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont {Lieb}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.H.}~\bibnamefont {Lieb}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {H.}~\bibnamefont {Tasaki}},\ }\href@noop {}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {59}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {799} (\bibinfo {year}
......
This diff is collapsed.
Re: LL16725
Deconfining disordered phase in two-dimensional quantum link models
by Lorenzo Cardarelli, Sebastian Greschner, and Luis Santos
Dear Lorenzo Cardarelli,
The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.
The resulting reports include a critique which we feel is serious
enough that it must be answered before we can reach a decision on the
disposition of the paper. We append pertinent comments.
You may choose to resubmit the manuscript with revisions you find
appropriate. With any resubmittal, please include a summary of changes
made and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms.
Yours sincerely,
Stojan Rebic
Associate Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: prl@aps.org
https://journals.aps.org/prl/
In celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Physical Review A, B, C,
and D, APS is offering 50% off open access article publication
charges (APCs) in all hybrid journals. Additionally, Physical Review
Research will continue to waive APCs through June 30, 2020. Details
about APC pricing can be found here:
https://journals.aps.org/authors/apcs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee A -- LL16725/Cardarelli
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This manuscript studies the ground state properties in a spin-1/2
quantum link model on a square ladder employing density matrix
renormalization group techniques. The model is remarked by quantum
phase transitions between ordered and disordered phases, while the
latter resembles Rokshar-Kivelson states. The authors evaluate various
quantities including correlation functions, fidelity susceptibility,
and bipartite entanglement entropy to depict the phases, and the
presence of phase transitions is highly convincing. The authors also
exhibit how the phases manifest themselves in edge physics and charge
excitations upon the vacuum. The model is considerably simpler than
other lattice gauge theories for experimental realization.
I think this work is important and the paper could be suitable for
publication in PRL after some improvement. I hope the authors can
expand their comments on the difference between the results in this
paper and those in their previous work (Ref. [16] in the manuscript).
In the previous work, the same model on the 2-leg ladder is studied
while in this manuscript the authors focus on the 4-leg ladder. Some
aspects of the two cases are similar, for example, the phase diagrams.
Although some comments have already made in the manuscript, it would
be helpful if the authors further clarify what properties are truly
two-dimensional in the 4-leg case. Besides, I hope the authors can
modify some confusing notations. For example, the same Hamiltonian in
Ref. [16] is more legible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Referee B -- LL16725/Cardarelli
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paper by Cardarelli et al. studies several interesting models with
gauge symmetry. They focus on the effect of the fermion hopping
induced phase diagram using DMRG simulation.
They have several interesting discoveries.
1. They found the fermion hopping can generate effective dynamical
terms similar to the four-spin interaction. The discovery is
interesting from the experiment's point of view since it could be one
of the methods to implement the ring exchange term.
2. The discovery of the low energy disordered phase is very similar to
the RK dimer liquid phase. The quantum liquid phase is a
highly-entangled quantum state which will be valuable for future
studies. The proposal could be a possible way to realize a quantum
spin liquid in synthetic quantum matter.
3. The authors also study the effective boundary Hamiltonian (2). They
found a quantum phase similar to the Haldane phase.
4. They also study the string tension in the disordered phase and
study how the string tension scales as a function of tuning parameter
Jy/Jx. In the disordered phase, the string tension drops, which mimics
the deconfined phase. In the ordered phase, the string tension
increases in a roughly linear fashion.
The results are interesting for different fields of researchers. If
the following questions can be addressed/answered by the authors
properly, I will consider the approach is solid, and the theoretical
interpretation is sound. Then, I would suggest the paper to be
published on PRL.
1. The model seems strongly related to quantum dimer models in the
frustrated magnets community. It will be nice if some information/
reference elaborates on the connection with the quantum dimer model
can be provided in the supplemental materials.
2. At the limit of small $\mu$ (in equation (1)), the system should
have a relatively small gap. At this limit, I will expect the fermion
hopping term dominates. Especially, At the limit of $\mu=0$, I would
expect the system is in a gapless phase. If the model is indeed a
gapless phase at $\mu=0$, the DMRG approach might need a high bond
dimension to capture the wave function correctly. Is it possible to
calculate current data with different bond dimensions and conclude the
disordered phase is robust as we increase the bond dimension? Or, is
it possible to have an analysis/argument of the energy gap and
established the robustness of the disordered phase?
3. In the supplement, the author mentioned the classical RK state is
obtained by Metropolis sampling of classical QLM. Is it possible to
provide further details about the setup of the numerical approach? Or
provide some related reference on the wave function. Naively, I will
expect the wave function can be solved exactly at the RK point. Why
does the comparison need to be done numerically with a classical QLM
instead of comparing it with analytic results? 3-a. If I understand it
correctly, the Monte Carlo will sample states in different sectors. In
DMRG, if the algorithm is designed to keep the symmetry, the algorithm
will minimize the energy within that sector. If the state is
initialized in a random way, that means the wave function could be the
lowest energy state withing a random sector. Will that change the
result significantly? If the sector structure in the $U(1)$ QLM is not
relevant, why is it so? If it is relevant, how it changes the current
results?
4. As the author mentioned, the effective Hamiltonian (2) indicates
the Haldane like phase. The Haldane phase is a symmetry protected
topological order. In the Hamiltonian (2), which symmetry protects the
numerical observed Haldane-like phase? It will be nice if the author
can provide explicit symmetry analysis and tell the readers which
symmetry protects the Haldane-like phase in this model.
5. In the paragraph of large mass limit, line 6. The expression of
$S^z_k(r)$ contains a parameter $v$, which is not defined. Is it a
typo, or is it defined elsewhere?
(Not related to the criteria of publishing.) One question that I think
is interesting for future study is: In the Hamiltonian (1), the
simulation is focusing on the half-filling case. It will be
interesting to know the result if we move away from the half-filling
limit.
No preview for this file type
......@@ -115,13 +115,12 @@ be helpful if the authors further clarify what properties are truly
two-dimensional in the 4-leg case.}
\begin{quote}
Analogies first: the VO and VA phase, proper of the two-leg case and
symmetric under mass sign exchange, generalize in the case of ladders with more
rungs onto the SX/SY and VA/VA' phases.
Analogies first: the VO and VA phase, proper to the two-leg case and
symmetric under mass sign exchange, generalize onto the SX/SY and VA/VA' phases for multiple-rungs ladders.
The graph of the von-Neumann entropy, Fig. 2d, is reminiscent of the order
parameter graph in the two-leg case (Fig. 2a of the previous paper).
However, in the extended case, there appears an emergent deconfined disordered
phase D, which represents one of the main findings of this work and a crucial
parameter graph in the two-leg case (Fig. 2a in the previous work, Ref. [16] in the manuscript).
However, in the extended case, an emergent deconfined disordered
phase \textit{D} appears, which represents one of the main findings of this work and a crucial
element of novelty in comparison with the previous work.
What is lost in the ladder upgrade is the SPT phase, property exclusively
belonging in the two-leg ladder case.
......@@ -135,10 +134,8 @@ For example, the same Hamiltonian in Ref. [16] is more legible.
}
\begin{quote}
For the sake of readability, the notation of the operator indices is kept in
the original compact form.
However, to facilitate the understanding of the Hamiltonian terms, we enriched
the legend in Figure 1(a).
The explicit notation adopted in the previous work would generate some extremely long indices, for instance in the ring-exchange operator.
Therefore, we opted for keeping the compact form; however, in order to facilitate the understanding of the notation, we enriched the legend in Figure 1(a).
\end{quote}
......@@ -203,7 +200,7 @@ can be provided in the supplemental materials.
\begin{quote}
For the limit of $|\mu| \gg J_x, J_y, \mu>0$, charges are pinned to the B-sublattice and the dynamics is reduced to the spins on the links. Indeed, this limit corresponds to a model of tightly packed hard-core dimers, a quantum dimer model on a square lattice.
Traditionally, as in Refs.~[32,33,40] the dimer-model Hamiltonian contains ring-exchange terms, which - on the square lattice - have been shown to introduce several phase transitions: Phases found and discussed e.g. in Ref.[40] are Neel, columnar, or a plaquette-ordered (also dubbed RVB-solid) phase. At the phase transition-point between columnar and plaquette-ordered phase, lies the so called Rokhsar-Kivelson point, discussed in the paper. Here we do not have such strong ring-exchange terms (only in terms from fourth order perturbation) and the physics for the strong-coupling dimer limit is indeed different from the phase diagram of Refs.~[32,33,40].
Traditionally, as in Refs.~[32,33,40] the dimer-model Hamiltonian contains ring-exchange terms, which - on the square lattice - have been shown to introduce several phase transitions: the phases found and discussed e.g. in Ref.[40] are the Néel, the columnar, or the plaquette-ordered (also dubbed RVB-solid) phase. At the phase-transition point between columnar and plaquette-ordered phase, lies the so called Rokhsar-Kivelson point, discussed in the paper. Here we do not have such strong ring-exchange terms (only in terms from fourth order perturbation) and the physics for the strong-coupling dimer limit is indeed different from the phase diagram of Refs.~[32,33,40].
We have added this discussion to the supplemental material.
\end{quote}
......@@ -223,7 +220,7 @@ established the robustness of the disordered phase?
}
\begin{quote}
In the supplement material, we added a graph (the current Figure S6) showing
In the supplemental material, we added a graph (the current Figure S6) showing
a clear exponential convergence of the ground-state energy as a function of the
bond dimension, for a fixed chain length.
The curves suggest that the ground-state phase diagram obtained with MPS in
......@@ -231,8 +228,8 @@ manifolds with bond-dimensions up to $\chi$=400, relatively small with regard to
the local Hilbert space dimension, is qualitatively correct.
This can be understood from the fact that the system remains gapped even at small $\mu\sim 0$ where the fermion hopping dominates.
We have added a new Fig.~S7 to the supplement material to show the properties of the excitation gap as function of $J_y/J_x$ for the various geometries and models discussed in this text.
In particular we find that the gap in the D-phase is of order $J_x/2$ for $J_x\sim J_y$ almost independent of the number of legs.
We have added a new Fig.~S7 to the supplemental material to show the properties of the excitation gap as a function of $J_y/J_x$ for the various geometries and models discussed in this text.
In particular, we find that the gap in the D-phase is of order $J_x/2$ for $J_x\sim J_y$, almost independently from the number of legs.
\end{quote}
......@@ -257,7 +254,7 @@ results?
\begin{quote}
The Metropolis sampling creates a infinite temperature (random) superposition of all classical configurations reachable by single particle-tunnelings. Actually, the sampling does not mix different symmetry sectors and we make sure that we initialize the algorithm in a state of the gauge vacuum sector compatible with DMRG-simulations and it does not leave this sector. We have extended the discussion of this procedure.
Our main problem with analytical results is that in Fig. 2c of the main text as well and Fig. S5 of the supplement material we compare properties of the RK-like state on a finite ladder and cylinder geometry.
Our main problem with analytical results is that in Fig. 2c of the main text as well and Fig. S5 of the supplemental material we compare properties of the RK-like state on a finite ladder and cylinder geometry.
Even though analytical calculations seem possible, the numerical sampling of the state seems - due the strong influence of the boundary conditions - practically the easiest way to access the reduced density
matrix. In the future work we will try to extend our numerical DMRG method to more 2D-settings on larger cylinders, and here a comparison with analytical results will be indeed an interesting objective.
......
......@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.}~\bibnamefont
{Affleck}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.}~\bibnamefont {Kennedy}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.}~\bibnamefont {Lieb}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.H.}~\bibnamefont {Lieb}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {H.}~\bibnamefont {Tasaki}},\ }\href@noop {}
{\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {59}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {799} (\bibinfo {year}
......
This diff is collapsed.
No preview for this file type
......@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ As mentioned in the main text the ground states can be understood from a $J_y\ll
%%
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{test_1d_m0.eps}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{supmat_fig1_test_1d_m0.pdf}
\caption{Ground-state energy per site $E / L$ and average entanglement entropy $S_{vN}$ of the simplified 1D model~(infinite DMRG simulation, $\chi=80$). The lighter colored curves depict the $\chi=2$ ansatz described in the main text and Eq.~\eqref{eq:lgt1dMPS}.}
\label{fig:S_1d_m0}
\end{figure}
......@@ -124,21 +124,21 @@ As mentioned in the main text the ground states can be understood from a $J_y\ll
\raisebox{3.8cm}[0cm][0cm]{(a)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.26\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{entanglement_spectrum_QLM_TwoLegs_DMRG_OBC_n1.00_k0.00_m0.00_L100_chi100.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{supmat_fig2a_entspec_2L_OBC_m0.pdf}
\end{minipage}
%
\begin{minipage}[t]{.03\linewidth}
\raisebox{3.8cm}[0cm][0cm]{(b)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.26\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{entanglement_spectrum_QLM_ThreeLegs_DMRG_OBC_n1.50_k0.00_m0.00_L100_chi200_40values_nolabel.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{supmat_fig2b_entspec_3L_OBC_m0_nolabel.pdf}
\end{minipage}
%
\begin{minipage}[t]{.03\linewidth}
\raisebox{3.8cm}[0cm][0cm]{(c)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.26\linewidth}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{entanglement_spectrum_QLM_FourLegs_DMRG_OBC_n2.00_k0.00_m0.00_L100_chi100_20values_nolabel.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=4cm]{supmat_fig2c_entspec_4L_OBC_m0_nolabel.pdf}
\end{minipage}
%
\caption{Mid-system entanglement spectrum of the QLM Eq.~(1) of the main text at $\mu=0$ for (a) two-leg ladder, $L=200$ (b) three-leg ladder, $L=100$ (c) four-leg ladder, $L=100$ (DMRG data).}
......@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ As the Haldane-phase in this toy model, the SPT-phase is protected by a $Z_2 \ti
\raisebox{3.1cm}[0cm][0cm]{(a)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.7\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{nolabel_parity_order_string_order_QLM_TwoLegs_DMRG_OBC_n1.00_k0.00_m0.00_L100_chi200_leg0_gamma_list_span20.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig3a_parity_string_order_2L_OBC_m0_leg0_nolabel.pdf}
\vspace{1pt}
\end{minipage}
......@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ As the Haldane-phase in this toy model, the SPT-phase is protected by a $Z_2 \ti
\raisebox{3.1cm}[0cm][0cm]{(b)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.7\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{nolabel_parity_order_string_order_QLM_ThreeLegs_DMRG_OBC_n1.50_k0.00_m0.00_L100_chi200_leg0_gamma_list_span20.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig3b_parity_string_order_3L_OBC_m0_leg0_nolabel.pdf}
\vspace{1pt}
\end{minipage}
%
......@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ As the Haldane-phase in this toy model, the SPT-phase is protected by a $Z_2 \ti
\raisebox{3.1cm}[0cm][0cm]{(c)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.7\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{parity_order_string_order_QLM_FourLegs_DMRG_OBC_n2.00_k0.00_m0.00_L100_chi100_leg0_gamma_list_span20.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig3c_parity_string_order_4L_OBC_m0_leg0.pdf}
\end{minipage}
%
\caption{Boundary-parity- and string-order of the QLM Eq.~(1) of the main text at $\mu=0$ for (a) two-leg ladder, $L=200$ (b) three-leg ladder, $L=100$ (c) four-leg ladder, $L=100$ (DMRG data).}
......@@ -222,12 +222,9 @@ element of novelty in comparison with the previous work.
For $\mu=0$ a symmetry protected topological phase~(SPT) emerges. This phase can be well characterized from properties of its entanglement spectrum, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:S_entanglement}~(a). The entanglement spectrum $\lambda_i$, which is the ordered sequence of Schmidt eigenvalues obtained for dividing the system into two parts along the central rung of the ladder, exhibits a twofold degeneracy in the SPT phase~\cite{Pollmann2010, Pollmann2012, Pollmann2012A}, as well as vanishing boundary parity and finite string order as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:S_stringorder}~(a).
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{pd_m_Jy_2torus_sv.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{supmat_fig4_pd_m_Jy_2torus_sv.pdf}
\caption{
Schematic phase diagram of the two-leg cylinder model. Color codes depict the von-Neumann bipartite entanglement entropy $S_{vN}$ of the central rung (infinite DMRG simulation, $\chi=80$).
\label{fig:S_pd_2torus} }
......@@ -259,7 +256,7 @@ In Fig.~\ref{fig:S_class_plt} we provide further comparisons to the classical RK
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig_class_flxplt.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig5_class_flxplt.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of charge and spin configurations obtained from DMRG results for the intermediate phase ($J_x=J_y$, $\mu=0$) (plots (a),(c), and (e)) to the RK state obtained by an equal amplitude overlap of all connected configurations (plots (b), (d), and (f)) for the four-leg cylinder (a) and (b), the four-leg ladder (c) and (d), and the three-leg ladder (e) and (f)}
\label{fig:S_class_plt}
\end{figure}
......@@ -294,7 +291,7 @@ In Tab.~\ref{tab:S_transitions} we summarize our results on the phase transition
\begin{figure}[tb]
%
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{supmat_figx_energy_QLM_FourLegs_PBC_m0_L40_logscale.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{supmat_fig6_energy_4L_PBC_m0_L40_logscale.pdf}
%
\caption{
Energy error $E_{\rm{err}} = E(\chi) - E_0$ as a function of the bond dimension $\chi$, for different values of $J_y$ in the disordered region and close to the phase transitions (four-leg cylinder, $\mu=0$, L=40, DMRG results).
......@@ -303,11 +300,9 @@ $E_0$ is an estimate of the ground-state energy for a fixed chain length obtaine
\label{fig:energy_vs_chi}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{gap_legs.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig7_gap_legs.pdf}
\caption{Excitation gap $\Delta \epsilon$ (in units of $J_x$) for the (a) 1D toy model, (b) 2-leg (c) 4-leg ladder model within the vacuum gauge-sector at $\mu=0$ for different system sized $L=12$ (crosses), $L=24$ (circle), $L=36$ (plus-symbols). The dotted lines indicate the estimated phase-transition position from Tab.~\ref{tab:S_transitions}.
(d) Excitation gap as a function of the number of legs for $J_y / J_x=1$ (center of the D-phase) and $J_y/J_x=1.8$ (Sy-phase).}
\label{fig:gap_legs}
......@@ -328,7 +323,7 @@ We depict three examples from the Sy (Fig.~\ref{fig:S_pltST_jy0.4}), D phase (Fi
\begin{figure*}[bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig_pltST_jy0.4.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig8_pltST_jy0.4.pdf}
\caption{(a) Charge and bond average configurations of two defects with distance $L_D=2$,$4$,$6$,$8$,$12$,$16$ sites. DMRG-data, $L=36$ rungs, $\mu=0.4 J_x$, $J_y / J_x = 0.4$ (b) Same as (a) but after substracting background without charges.}
\label{fig:S_pltST_jy0.4}
\end{figure*}
......@@ -336,7 +331,7 @@ We depict three examples from the Sy (Fig.~\ref{fig:S_pltST_jy0.4}), D phase (Fi
\begin{figure*}[bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig_pltST_jy1.0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig9_pltST_jy1.0.pdf}
\caption{(a) Charge and bond average configurations of two defects with distance $L_D=2$,$4$,$6$,$8$,$12$,$16$ sites. DMRG-data, $L=36$ rungs, $\mu=0.4 J_x$, $J_y / J_x = 1.0$ (b) Same as (a) but after substracting background without charges.}
\label{fig:S_pltST_jy1.0}
\end{figure*}
......@@ -345,7 +340,7 @@ We depict three examples from the Sy (Fig.~\ref{fig:S_pltST_jy0.4}), D phase (Fi
\begin{figure*}[bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{fig_pltST_jy1.8.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\linewidth]{supmat_fig10_pltST_jy1.8.pdf}
\caption{(a) Charge and bond average configurations of two defects with distance $L_D=2$,$4$,$6$,$8$,$12$,$16$ sites. DMRG-data, $L=36$ rungs, $\mu=0.4 J_x$, $J_y / J_x = 1.8$ (b) Same as (a) but after substracting background without charges.}
\label{fig:S_pltST_jy1.8}
\end{figure*}
......
This diff is collapsed.
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment