Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:cond-mat/0308446 · Physical Review Letters

Jeckelmann Replies:

Eric Jeckelmann

Published Aug 20, 2003• 15 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In their Comment (see cond-mat/0301237), Sandvik, Sengupta, and Campbell present some numerical evidences to support the existence of an extended bond-order-wave (BOW) phase at couplings (U,V) weaker than a tricritical point (U_t,V_t) in the ground state phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled U-V Hubbard model. They claim that their results do not agree with the phase diagram proposed in my Letter (cond-mat/0204244), which shows a BOW phase for couplings stronger than the critical point only. However, I argue here that their results are not conclusive and do not refute the phase diagram described in the Letter.

DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.91.089702

Related papers

Comment on “Ground-State Phase Diagram of a Half-Filled One-Dimensional Extended Hubbard Model”

Anders W. Sandvik, Pinaki Sengupta, David K Campbell

In Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 236401 (2002), Jeckelmann argued that the recently discovered bond-order-wave (BOW) phase of the 1D extended Hubbard model does not have a finite extent in the (U,V) plane, but exists only on a segment of a first-order SDW-CDW phase boundary. We here present quantum Monte Carlo result of higher precision and for larger system sizes than previously and reconfirm that the BOW phase does exist a finite distance away from the phase boundary, which hence is a BOW-CDW transition curve.

arXiv:cond-mat/0301237•Physical Review Letters•Aug 20, 2003•27 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Accurate ground-state phase diagram of the one-dimensional extended Hubbard model at half filling’ ”

G. P. Zhang

We respond to Jeckelman's Comment on our paper [G. P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 68, 153101 (2003)], which discusses his previous work [E. Jeckelmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 236401 (2002)]. We feel that it is important to point out that his previous results show a trend contradicting the weak-coupling limit, a conclusion that is independent of our calculation. Therefore, our comments on his previous results remain valid and our conclusion is unchanged.

Physical Review B•May 4, 2005•2 citations

Phase Diagram of the One-Dimensional Half-Filled Extended Hubbard Model

Satoshi Ejima, Satoshi Nishimoto

We determine the ground-state phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled Hubbard model with on-site (nearest-neighbor) repulsive interaction U (V) and nearest-neighbor hopping t using the density-matrix renormalization group technique. Based on the results of the excitation gaps, Luttinger-liquid exponents, and bond-order-wave (BOW) order parameter, we confirm that the BOW phase appears in a substantial region between the charge-density-wave (CDW) and spin-density-wave phases. Each phase boundary is determined by multiple means and it allows us to make a cross-check on the validity of our estimations. We also find that the BOW-CDW transition changes from continuous to first order at the tricritical point (U(t),V(t)) approximately (5.89 t,3.10 t) and the BOW phase shrinks to zero at the critical end point (U(c),V(c)) approximately (9.25 t,4.76 t).

arXiv:0710.0673•Physical Review Letters•Nov 20, 2007•119 citations

Tuning the bond-order wave phase in the half-filled extended Hubbard model

Manoranjan Kumar, S. Ramasesha, Z. G. Soos

Theoretical and computational studies of the quantum phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled extended Hubbard model (EHM) indicate a narrow bond-order wave (BOW) phase with finite magnetic gap ${E}_{m}$ for on-site repulsion $U<{U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$, the critical point, and nearest-neighbor interaction ${V}_{c}\ensuremath{\approx}U/2$ near the boundary of the charge-density wave (CDW) phase. Potentials with more extended interactions that retain the EHM symmetry are shown to have a less cooperative CDW transition with higher ${U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$ and wider BOW phase. Density-matrix renormalization group is used to obtain ${E}_{m}$ directly as the singlet-triplet gap, with finite ${E}_{m}$ marking the BOW boundary ${V}_{s}(U)$. The BOW/CDW boundary ${V}_{c}(U)$ is obtained from exact finite-size calculations that are consistent with previous EHM determinations. The kinetic energy or bond order provides a convenient new estimate of ${U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$ based on a metallic point at ${V}_{c}(U)$ for $U<{U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$. Tuning the BOW phase of half-filled Hubbard models with different intersite potentials indicates a ground state with large charge fluctuations and magnetic frustration. The possibility of physical realizations of a BOW phase is raised for Coulomb interactions.

arXiv:0812.0234•Physical Review B•Jan 5, 2009•41 citations

Comment on “Accurate ground-state phase diagram of the one-dimensional extended Hubbard model at half filling”

Eric Jeckelmann

It is shown that Guoping Zhang's results [G. P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 68, 153101 (2003)] for the charge-density wave-phase boundary in the half-filled one-dimensional extended Hubbard model are incorrect and that his criticism of my work [E. Jeckelmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 236401 (2002)] is groundless.

arXiv:cond-mat/0401490•Physical Review B•May 4, 2005•8 citations

Bond-order-wave phase and quantum phase transitions in the one-dimensional extended Hubbard model

Pinaki Sengupta, Anders W. Sandvik, David K Campbell

We use a stochastic series-expansion quantum Monte Carlo method to study the phase diagram of the one-dimensional extended Hubbard model at half-filling for small to intermediate values of the on-site U and nearest-neighbor V repulsions. We confirm the existence of a novel, long-range-ordered bond-order-wave (BOW) phase recently predicted by Nakamura [J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 3123 (1999)] in a small region of the parameter space between the familiar charge-density-wave (CDW) state for $V\ensuremath{\gtrsim}U/2$ and the state with dominant spin-density-wave (SDW) fluctuations for $V\ensuremath{\lesssim}U/2.$ We discuss the nature of the transitions among these states and evaluate some of the critical exponents. Further, we determine accurately the position of the multicritical point, ${(U}_{m}{,V}_{m})=(4.7\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.1,2.51\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.04)$ (in energy units where the hopping integral is normalized to unity), above which the two continuous SDW-BOW-CDW transitions are replaced by one discontinuous (first-order) direct SDW-CDW transition. We also discuss the evolution of the CDW and BOW states upon hole doping. We find that in both cases the ground state is a Luther-Emery liquid, i.e., the spin gap remains but the charge gap existing at half-filling is immediately closed upon doping. The charge and bond-order correlations decay with distance r as ${r}^{\ensuremath{-}{K}_{\ensuremath{\rho}}},$ where ${K}_{\ensuremath{\rho}}$ is approximately $0.5$ for the parameters we have considered. We also discuss advantages of using parallel tempering (or exchange Monte Carlo)---an extended ensemble method that we here combine with quantum Monte Carlo---in studies of quantum phase transitions.

arXiv:cond-mat/0102141•Physical review. B, Condensed matter•Apr 1, 2002•215 citations
In their Comment (see cond-mat/0301237), Sandvik, Sengupta, and Campbell present some numerical evidences to support the existence of an extended bond-order-wave (BOW) phase at couplings (U,V) weaker than a tricritical point (U_t,V_t) in the ground state phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled U-V Hubbard model. They claim that their results do not agree with the phase diagram proposed in my Letter (cond-mat/0204244), which shows a BOW phase for couplings stronger than the critical point only. However, I argue here that their results are not conclusive and do not refute the phase diagram described in the Letter.
In Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 236401 (2002), Jeckelmann argued that the recently discovered bond-order-wave (BOW) phase of the 1D extended Hubbard model does not have a finite extent in the (U,V) plane, but exists only on a segment of a first-order SDW-CDW phase boundary. We here present quantum Monte Carlo result of higher precision and for larger system sizes than previously and reconfirm that the BOW phase does exist a finite distance away from the phase boundary, which hence is a BOW-CDW transition curve.
We determine the ground-state phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled Hubbard model with on-site (nearest-neighbor) repulsive interaction U (V) and nearest-neighbor hopping t using the density-matrix renormalization group technique. Based on the results of the excitation gaps, Luttinger-liquid exponents, and bond-order-wave (BOW) order parameter, we confirm that the BOW phase appears in a substantial region between the charge-density-wave (CDW) and spin-density-wave phases. Each phase boundary is determined by multiple means and it allows us to make a cross-check on the validity of our estimations. We also find that the BOW-CDW transition changes from continuous to first order at the tricritical point (U(t),V(t)) approximately (5.89 t,3.10 t) and the BOW phase shrinks to zero at the critical end point (U(c),V(c)) approximately (9.25 t,4.76 t).
Theoretical and computational studies of the quantum phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled extended Hubbard model (EHM) indicate a narrow bond-order wave (BOW) phase with finite magnetic gap Em{E}_{m}Em​ for on-site repulsion $U<{U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$, the critical point, and nearest-neighbor interaction ${V}_{c}\ensuremath{\approx}U/2$ near the boundary of the charge-density wave (CDW) phase. Potentials with more extended interactions that retain the EHM symmetry are shown to have a less cooperative CDW transition with higher ${U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$ and wider BOW phase. Density-matrix renormalization group is used to obtain Em{E}_{m}Em​ directly as the singlet-triplet gap, with finite Em{E}_{m}Em​ marking the BOW boundary Vs(U){V}_{s}(U)Vs​(U). The BOW/CDW boundary Vc(U){V}_{c}(U)Vc​(U) is obtained from exact finite-size calculations that are consistent with previous EHM determinations. The kinetic energy or bond order provides a convenient new estimate of ${U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$ based on a metallic point at Vc(U){V}_{c}(U)Vc​(U) for $U<{U}^{\ensuremath{\ast}}$. Tuning the BOW phase of half-filled Hubbard models with different intersite potentials indicates a ground state with large charge fluctuations and magnetic frustration. The possibility of physical realizations of a BOW phase is raised for Coulomb interactions.
We use a stochastic series-expansion quantum Monte Carlo method to study the phase diagram of the one-dimensional extended Hubbard model at half-filling for small to intermediate values of the on-site U and nearest-neighbor V repulsions. We confirm the existence of a novel, long-range-ordered bond-order-wave (BOW) phase recently predicted by Nakamura [J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 3123 (1999)] in a small region of the parameter space between the familiar charge-density-wave (CDW) state for $V\ensuremath{\gtrsim}U/2$ and the state with dominant spin-density-wave (SDW) fluctuations for $V\ensuremath{\lesssim}U/2.$ We discuss the nature of the transitions among these states and evaluate some of the critical exponents. Further, we determine accurately the position of the multicritical point, ${(U}_{m}{,V}_{m})=(4.7\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.1,2.51\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.04)$ (in energy units where the hopping integral is normalized to unity), above which the two continuous SDW-BOW-CDW transitions are replaced by one discontinuous (first-order) direct SDW-CDW transition. We also discuss the evolution of the CDW and BOW states upon hole doping. We find that in both cases the ground state is a Luther-Emery liquid, i.e., the spin gap remains but the charge gap existing at half-filling is immediately closed upon doping. The charge and bond-order correlations decay with distance r as ${r}^{\ensuremath{-}{K}_{\ensuremath{\rho}}},$ where ${K}_{\ensuremath{\rho}}$ is approximately 0.50.50.5 for the parameters we have considered. We also discuss advantages of using parallel tempering (or exchange Monte Carlo)---an extended ensemble method that we here combine with quantum Monte Carlo---in studies of quantum phase transitions.