Correlations in excited states of local Hamiltonians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical properties of the ground and excited states of a $k$-local Hamiltonian are largely determined by the $k$-particle reduced density matrices ($k$-RDMs), or simply the $k$-matrix for fermionic systems---they are at least enough for the calculation of the ground-state and excited-state energies. Moreover, for a nondegenerate ground state of a $k$-local Hamiltonian, even the state itself is completely determined by its $k$-RDMs, and therefore contains no genuine $>k$-particle correlations, as they can be inferred from $k$-particle correlation functions. It is natural to ask whether a similar result holds for nondegenerate excited states. In fact, for fermionic systems, it has been conjectured that any nondegenerate excited state of a 2-local Hamiltonian is simultaneously a unique ground state of another 2-local Hamiltonian, hence is uniquely determined by its 2-matrix. And a weaker version of this conjecture states that any nondegenerate excited state of a 2-local Hamiltonian is uniquely determined by its 2-matrix among all the pure $n$-particle states. We construct explicit counterexamples to show that both conjectures are false. We further show that any nondegenerate excited state of a $k$-local Hamiltonian is a unique ground state of another $2k$-local Hamiltonian, hence is uniquely determined by its $2k$-RDMs (or $2k$-matrix). These results set up a solid framework for the study of excited-state properties of many-body systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".