Quantum critical scaling of fidelity susceptibility

Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

Volumn 81, Issue 6, 2010, Pages

  Albuquerque, A Fabricio ^a,b   Alet, Fabien ^a,b   Sire, Clément ^a,b   Capponi, Sylvain ^a,b  

^a Lab de Physique Théorique   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954822825     PISSN: 10980121     EISSN: 1550235X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.064418     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. P. Zanardi and N. Paunković, Phys. Rev. E 74, 031123 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.031123 (Pubitemid 44494310)
2. L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008). 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517 (Pubitemid 351697445)
3. S. Gu, arXiv:0811.3127 (unpublished).
4. P. Zanardi, P. Giorda, and M. Cozzini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 100603 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.100603 (Pubitemid 47388587)
5. W.-L. You, Y.-W. Li, and S.-J. Gu, Phys. Rev. E 76, 022101 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.022101 (Pubitemid 47253915)
6. L. Campos Venuti and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 095701 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.095701 (Pubitemid 47357773)
7. S. Chen, L. Wang, Y. Hao, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032111 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.032111 (Pubitemid 351457178)
8. D. Schwandt, F. Alet, and S. Capponi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 170501 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.170501
9. E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 16, 407 (1961). 10.1016/0003-4916(61)90115-4
10. S. Katsura, Phys. Rev. 127, 1508 (1962). 10.1103/PhysRev.127.1508
11. P. Pfeuty, Ann. Phys. 57, 79 (1970). 10.1016/0003-4916(70)90270-8
12. L. Campos Venuti, M. Cozzini, P. Buonsante, F. Massel, N. Bray-Ali, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. B 78, 115410 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.115410
13. P. Zanardi, L. Campos Venuti, and P. Giorda, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062318 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.062318
14. A. Uhlmann, Rep. Math. Phys. 9, 273 (1976). 10.1016/0034-4877(76)90060-4
15. M. A. Continentino, Quantum Scaling in Many-Body Systems (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).
16. R. Barankov, arXiv:0910.0255 (unpublished).
17. C. De Grandi, V. Gritsev, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B 81, 012303 (2010). 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.012303
18. C. De Grandi, V. Gritsev, and A. Polkovnikov, arXiv:0910.0876 (unpublished).
19. A. W. Sandvik and J. Kurkijärvi, Phys. Rev. B 43, 5950 (1991). 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.5950
20. A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 59, R14157 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevB.59.R14157
21. O. F. Syljuåsen and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E 66, 046701 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.046701 (Pubitemid 40606337)
22. In practice, the maximum expansion order n is obviously finite. However, it is adjusted during the simulations so to ensure that the method is exact, in the stochastic sense. See Ref.
23. F. Alet, S. Wessel, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036706 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.036706 (Pubitemid 40629742)
24. A. W. Sandvik, J. Phys. A 25, 3667 (1992). 10.1088/0305-4470/25/13/017
25. S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
26. H.-X. He, C. J. Hamer, and J. Oitmaa, J. Phys. A 23, 1775 (1990). 10.1088/0305-4470/23/10/018
27. J. Oitmaa, C. J. Hamer, and Z. Weihong, J. Phys. A 24, 2863 (1991). 10.1088/0305-4470/24/12/024
28. M. S. L. du Croo de Jongh and J. M. J. van Leeuwen, Phys. Rev. B 57, 8494 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevB.57.8494
29. R. Rieger and N. Kawashima, Eur. Phys. J. B 9, 233 (1999). 10.1007/s100510050761
30. C. J. Hamer, J. Phys. A 33, 6683 (2000). 10.1088/0305-4470/33/38/303
31. H. W. J. Blöte and Y. Deng, Phys. Rev. E 66, 066110 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.066110 (Pubitemid 40606050)
32. W.-C. Yu, H.-M. Kwok, J. Cao, and S.-J. Gu, Phys. Rev. E 80, 021108 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021108
33. Simulations in the widely adopted convention for the TIM with the field in the x direction are particularly efficient using the specific algorithm presented in A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E 68, 056701 (2003). However, computation of the parity quantum number P = Π i = 1 N σ i x | α (τ = 0) is then highly nontrivial as the σ x are now off-diagonal operators. 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.056701
34. A. F. Albuquerque, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 310, 1187 (2007). 10.1016/j.jmmm.2006.10.304
35. The processes labeled as "switch-and-reverse" and "switch-and-continue" in Ref. are always allowed in the convention for the TIM adopted here [Eq.]. See Ref. for details.
36. In general, different bipartition choices do not lead to the same results for the generalizations to finite temperatures χ F (g, β) or d s 2 (g, β). Indeed, while the "quantum" parts in Eqs. are identical (up to a factor of g 2) whether we consider H 0 or g H 1 as the "driving term," this is not the case for the "classical" contribution [Eq.], indicating that there is no simple relationship between χ F H 0 (β) and χ F g H 1 (β) at finite β. However, at low enough temperature, the classical contribution becomes negligible and we recover χ F H 0 (β → ∞) = g 2 χ F g H 1 (β → ∞), as shown in Fig.f3.
37. H. W. J. Blöte, E. Luijten, and J. R. Heringa, J. Phys. A 28, 6289 (1995). 10.1088/0305-4470/28/22/007
38. P. Zanardi, M. G. A. Paris, and L. Campos Venuti, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042105 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042105
39. H.-G. Evertz, Adv. Phys. 52, 1 (2003). 10.1080/0001873021000049195
40. S.-J. Gu and H.-Q. Lin, EPL. 87, 10003 (2009). 10.1209/0295-5075/87/10003
41. S.-J. Gu, Phys. Rev. E 79, 061125 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevE.79.061125