Gap scaling at Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless quantum critical points in one-dimensional Hubbard and Heisenberg models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss how to locate critical points in the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) universality class by means of gap-scaling analyses. While accurately determining such points using gap extrapolation procedures is usually challenging and inaccurate due to the exponentially small value of the gap in the vicinity of the critical point, we show that a generic gap-scaling analysis, including the effects of logarithmic corrections, provides very accurate estimates of BKT transition points in a variety of spin and fermionic models. As a first example, we show how the scaling procedure, combined with density-matrix-renormalization-group simulations, performs extremely well in a nonintegrable spin-$3/2$ XXZ model, which is known to exhibit strong finite-size effects. We then analyze the extended Hubbard model, whose BKT transition has been debated, finding results that are consistent with previous studies based on the scaling of the Luttinger-liquid parameter. Finally, we investigate an anisotropic extended Hubbard model, for which we present the first estimates of the BKT transition line based on large-scale density-matrix-renormalization-group simulations. Our work demonstrates how gap-scaling analyses can help to locate accurately and efficiently BKT critical points, without relying on model-dependent scaling assumptions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".