MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389489590 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.245122

Dynamical variational Monte Carlo as a quantum impurity solver: Application to cluster dynamical mean field theory

2023· article· en· W4389489590 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Rosenberg, David Sénéchal, A.–M. S. Tremblay, M. Charlebois

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. B./Physical review. B · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsQuantum Monte CarloStatistical physicsSolverMonte Carlo methodHubbard modelPhysicsCluster (spacecraft)Monte Carlo molecular modelingLimit (mathematics)Monte Carlo method in statistical physicsDynamic Monte Carlo methodBenchmark (surveying)ScalingQuantumQuantum mechanicsHybrid Monte CarloComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsMathematical analysisMarkov chain Monte Carlo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two of the primary sources of error in the Cluster dynamical mean field theory (CDMFT) technique arise from the use of finite size clusters and finite size baths, which makes the development of impurity solvers that can treat larger systems an essential goal. In this work we introduce an impurity solver based on the recently developed dynamical variational Monte Carlo (dVMC) method. Variational Monte Carlo possesses a favorable scaling as a function of system size, which enables the treatment of systems beyond the reach of current exact diagonalization solvers. To benchmark the technique, we perform a systematic set of CDMFT calculations on the single-band one-dimensional Hubbard model. We compare to results obtained with an exact diagonalization solver for small clusters, and against the exact solution in the thermodynamic limit obtained by Lieb and Wu for larger clusters. The development of improved impurity solvers will help extend the reach of quantum cluster methods, which can be applied to a wide range of strongly correlated electron systems, promising new insights into their emergent behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. B./Physical review. BSame topicPhysics of Superconductivity and MagnetismFrench-language works237,207