-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
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
infsiteinds
with QNs and arbitrary initial state
#68
Comments
You may just have to use a larger unit cell for this case (e.g. |
In that case I would have an average flux of
|
Keeping this open until #69 is successfully merged |
#69 seems not work for me. After the fix, I still get "Flux not invariant under one unit cell translation, not implemented" error when calling |
@mingruyang could you share a minimal example with a stacktrace as a comment in #69? |
I'll close for now since it should be fixed by #69, which is now merged into @mingruyang, I guess the issue you report is either fixed by #69 or actually related to subspace expansion, which is being tracked and discussed in #75? If you see another issue beyond the one being tracked in #75 please report it as a new issue with a minimal reproducible code example and stacktrace. |
If I try to initialize an infiniteMPS with an arbitrary initial state, for example
I get this error
If I understand correctly, the idea is that to not accumulate a QN flux passing from on cell to the following, the total flux of the unit cell is set to zero by calling
shift_flux_to_zero
that reassigns the quantum numbers by removing the average defined as total flux / unit cell size. This works smoothly if theflux
of all quantum numbers is a multiple of the unit cell size.In my previous example the total charge flux = 1 is not a multiple of 2 and the
shift_flux_to_zero
returns that error.Maybe to solve the issue one can just catch these cases, multiply every single quantum number by the size of the unit cell, apply the shift to construct the MPS and restore the "physical' QNs by dividing by the unit cell size when computing observables. Would that work?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: