You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, the ExponentiallyDecayingCouplingTerms add couplings with a uniform decay rate lambda.
It should be fairly straight-forward to allow lambda_ to be a non-uniform array with one value per site of the MPS (unit cell).
This could be used for e.g. a SSH-type model with long range, see https://tenpy.johannes-hauschild.de/viewtopic.php?t=302
Slightly annoying, right now the convention is that the strength is ~ lambda^|i-j|, which includes a lambda on the first site.
We should probably change this to something like prod(i < k < j) lambda[k] , which amounts to lambda^|i-j-1| for uniform couplings.
This might break backwards compatibility with existing code using the ExponentiallyDecayingCouplingTerms. I assume that this would not affect many users, though.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now, the ExponentiallyDecayingCouplingTerms add couplings with a uniform decay rate lambda.
It should be fairly straight-forward to allow
lambda_
to be a non-uniform array with one value per site of the MPS (unit cell).This could be used for e.g. a SSH-type model with long range, see https://tenpy.johannes-hauschild.de/viewtopic.php?t=302
Slightly annoying, right now the convention is that the strength is ~ lambda^|i-j|, which includes a lambda on the first site.We should probably change this to something like prod(i < k < j) lambda[k] , which amounts to lambda^|i-j-1| for uniform couplings.
This might break backwards compatibility with existing code using the ExponentiallyDecayingCouplingTerms. I assume that this would not affect many users, though.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: