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

added general Fermi-Hubbard model and HubbardLattice helper class #465

Merged
merged 12 commits into from Sep 28, 2018

Conversation

bryano
Copy link
Collaborator

@bryano bryano commented Sep 24, 2018

No description provided.

@bryano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bryano commented Sep 24, 2018

Ready for review. Can split up into smaller PRs if needed.

periodic=periodic)
print(x_dimension, y_dimension)
print(len(hubbard_model_special.terms))
print(len(hubbard_model_general.terms))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Leftover debug statements.

@bryano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bryano commented Sep 25, 2018

The failing tests seem to have nothing to do with this PR. Are those a known issue?

@babbush
Copy link
Contributor

babbush commented Sep 25, 2018

Not sure. Looks like some issue with the pubchem website might have occurred. I'll restart tests.

The lattice can have periodic boundary conditions or not.
For a lattice with `n` sites, there are `N = k * n` spatial orbitals.
In the standard Fermi-Hubbard model (which we call the "spinful" model),
there is room for an "up" fermion and a "down" fermion at each site on the
Copy link
Collaborator

@kevinsung kevinsung Sep 26, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps more accurate to say "at each spatial orbital" rather than each "site", since you say there are n sites sand N =k*n spatial orbitals.


where

- The indices :math:`(i, j)` and :math:`{i, j}` run over ordered and
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you need \{i, j\} for the brackets to show up when rendered.

@kevinsung
Copy link
Collaborator

Do you have a reference where I could read about the multi-band Hubbard model? Is there one that you were looking at while implementing this?

@bryano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bryano commented Sep 26, 2018

Yes to magnetic_field, maybe to particle_hole_symmetry if there's a use case. The PR was already getting huge, so I figured I'd wait on those.

@bryano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bryano commented Sep 26, 2018

My understanding of the multi-band Hubbard model is mostly from conversations. I haven't seen any papers that describe it in the abstract.

@bryano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bryano commented Sep 28, 2018

@kevinsung Here's one example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.5431.pdf

optional, and will default to SpinPairs.ALL. In any case, it is
ignored for spinless lattices.

Each potential parameter is a tuple (dof, coefficient).
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please explain "dof".

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While you're at it, please explain where edge_type comes from. This docstring needs to be expanded to make it easier for the user to know how to form the arguments.

@bryano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bryano commented Sep 28, 2018

Is that clearer?

Copy link
Collaborator

@kevinsung kevinsung left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, much better. This is very useful, thanks!

@kevinsung kevinsung merged commit 4f7115e into quantumlib:master Sep 28, 2018
@kevinsung
Copy link
Collaborator

Overriding status check being stuck, since all checks passed.

philipp-q pushed a commit to philipp-q/OpenFermion that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2020
…antumlib#465)

* added general Fermi-Hubbard model and HubbardLattice helper class

* made more 2.7 compliant

* more 2.7 compliance

* fixed bug and more 2.7 compliance

* increased coverage

* increased coverage

* removed debugging vestiges

* coverage

* removed unneeeded pass statements for coverage

* fixed FermiHubbardModel docstring

* expanded docstring for FermiHubbardModel.__init__
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants