0 votes
asked by (240 points)

Hi! I am doing some simulations with conserved quantum numbers. I am interested in computing the two-operator correlation functions. I was basing on this tutorial:

http://itensor.org/docs.cgi?vers=cppv3&page=tutorials/correlations

My code for the Sxi Sxj correlation looks as follows

auto first = [...] // This is just index of the first site
auto second = [...] // This is just index of the other site

//
// Calculate the ⟨Sx_i Sx_j⟩ (nearest-neighbor spin-spin interaction).
//

// Re-gauge psi to get ready to measure at 'first' position.
psi.position(first);
// Get the site index without QNs
auto sj_first = removeQNs(sites(first));
auto sj_second = removeQNs(sites(second));
// Create a SpinOneSite from the Index
// without QNs to use in the op function
auto op_first_x = op(SpinOneSite(sj_first),"Sx");
auto op_second_x = op(SpinOneSite(sj_second),"Sx");

// Create the bra/dual version of the MPS psi.
auto psidag = dag(psi);

// Prime the link indices to make them distinct from the original ket links.
psidag.prime("Link");

// Index linking 'first'-1 to 'first':
auto li_1 = leftLinkIndex(psi,first);

auto C = prime(psi(first),li_1)*op_first_x;
C *= prime(psidag(first),"Site");
for (int k = first+1; k < second; ++k) {
    C *= psi(k);
    C *= psidag(k);
}
// Index linking 'second' to 'second'+1:
auto lj = rightLinkIndex(psi,second);

C *= prime(psi(second),lj)*op_second_x;
C *= prime(psidag(second),"Site");

auto spin_spin_inter_x = elt(C); // <-- final value that I wanted to compute

Is my approach correct? Or maybe I should also remove QNs on the sites between first and second?

1 Answer

+1 vote
answered by (36.6k points)
edited by
 
Best answer

Hi, so instead of removing QNs at all, I would recommend using the fact that Sx = (S+ + S-)/2. Then if you measure four correlation functions:

<S+ S+>, <S+ S->, <S- S+>, <S- S->

, you can recombine those numbers to get

<Sx Sx>

. It doesn’t require any extra code if you wrap your measurement code in a function and pass the operator names into this function in the four combinations above.

Does that sound good to you?

Miles

commented by (240 points)
That's a great note! I have two follow up questions:

1) Does the relation Sx = (S+ + S-)/2 still hold, when we calculate first the expectation values, and then just put them into the formula? So, is <Sx> = (<S+> + <S->)/2 is a correct formula?

2) How would a similar one look in the case of two-site correlators? Is it something like this <Sx_i Sx_j> = (<S+_i S+_j> + <S-_i S-_j>)/2, or is it more complicated?
commented by (6.1k points)
1) For single site expectation values, yes you can just calculate them separately as you show.

2) For multi-site correlation functions, you would need to expand it out, i.e. <Sx_i Sx_j> = (<S+_i S+_j> + <S+_i S-j> + <S-_i S+_j> + <S-_i S-_j>)/4.

-Matt
commented by (240 points)
That's fantastic! Thank you!
commented by (36.6k points)
Ok glad it’s making sense! Sorry my answer got formatted very strangely, but I just fixed it.

Yes, as Matt’s answer explains, if you just replace Sx with (S+ + S-)/2 and then expand all the terms using the linearity of correlation functions, then you get the expression he wrote (it is just a linear function because the wavefunction is a vector and the operators are linear operators on the vector space).

Best regards,
Miles’
Welcome to ITensor Support Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers from other members of the community.

Formatting Tips:
  • To format code, indent by four spaces
  • To format inline LaTeX, surround it by @@ on both sides
  • To format LaTeX on its own line, surround it by $$ above and below
  • For LaTeX, it may be necessary to backslash-escape underscore characters to obtain proper formatting. So for example writing \sum\_i to represent a sum over i.
If you cannot register due to firewall issues (e.g. you cannot see the capcha box) please email Miles Stoudenmire to ask for an account.

To report ITensor bugs, please use the issue tracker.

Categories

...