Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Variational MPO approach for finding NESS #8

Open
4psireal2 opened this issue Jun 15, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Variational MPO approach for finding NESS #8

4psireal2 opened this issue Jun 15, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@4psireal2
Copy link

4psireal2 commented Jun 15, 2024

Many thanks for this great repo! Is there a possibility to find the non-equilibrium steady state using a variational approach? For reference

@tfmlaX
Copy link
Member

tfmlaX commented Jun 17, 2024

Thank you!
I know about this variational approach and it looks very interesting - we can look into it. Do you have some experience with this approach?

@4psireal2
Copy link
Author

Yes I do! Its implementation works for my system, the 1D quantum contact process. However, the ground state is the absorbing state and I want to probe NESS of non-zero particle number density instead. The hope was that NESS could be the first excited state but simulations with DMRG1(2) have only returned unphysical solutions. I think the problem could be due to the vectorised MPO ansatz which doesn't fulfill the positivity property of a density matrix. Also the excited states of Lˆ†L are typically different from the eigenstates of L so I wouldn't know how to interpret the result either.

I just thought with the MPS ansatz of your framework for open system, methods for closed system such as DMRG can be recycled.

@4psireal2
Copy link
Author

Some passsing thought:

  1. How does the MPS's bond dimension grow with time using your implementation?
  2. Is there some relation between the state found by long-time imaginary time evolution and the state found by long-time real time evolution? If yes, how?

@tfmlaX
Copy link
Member

tfmlaX commented Jun 17, 2024

I just thought with the MPS ansatz of your framework for open system, methods for closed system such as DMRG can be recycled.

This is non-trivial as we don't work at the level of the reduced systems dynamics but time-evolve the full state of the system and its environment. I'll have to take some time to understand a bit more deeply this variational approach to see how (if?) it can be reformulated/connected to what we do.

How does the MPS's bond dimension grow with time using your implementation?

I would say this is model-dependent and I'm not sure that I'm able to give a general answer.

Is there some relation between the state found by long-time imaginary time evolution and the state found by long-time real time evolution? If yes, how?

Very interesting question. Generally speaking, the long-time imaginary time evolution should bring the state towards the zero-temperature ground state; I do not know under which conditions it is the same as the steady state obtained with real time evolution.

@tfmlaX tfmlaX added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants