A Problem while simulating spin polarized interacting SSH model

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dhiman9163
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around simulating a spin-polarized SSH model with a specific Hamiltonian that includes both non-interacting and interacting terms. The user successfully simulated the non-interacting part but encountered issues when incorporating the interacting terms, resulting in a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian matrix. They believe the analytical form of the Hamiltonian should yield a Hermitian matrix, indicating an error in their implementation. The user is seeking assistance to identify and correct this mistake. Clarifying the implementation of the interacting terms is crucial for achieving the desired Hermitian property in the Hamiltonian.
Dhiman9163
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I am trying to solve the system using exact diagonalization
I want to simulate a spin polarized SSH model with Hamiltonian of the form
$$\hat{H} = v \sum_{i = 1}^N (\hat{C}_{i,A}^\dagger \hat{C}_{i,B} + h.c.) + w \sum_{i = 1}^N (\hat{C}_{i+1,A}^\dagger \hat{C}_{i,B} + h.c.) + V_1 \sum_{i = 1}^N \hat{n}_{i, A}\hat{n}_{i, B} + V_2 \sum_{i = 1}^N \hat{n}_{i+1, A}\hat{n}_{i, B}$$
I have already simulated the non-interacting part, which works fine. The code for it can be seen [here][1]. But when I include the interacting part, the Hamiltonian matrix become non-hermitian. The code for the interacting system can be seen [here][2].\
From the analytical Hamiltonian, it is clear that the Hamiltonian matrix should be Hermitian. Therefore, I have made some mistake while implementing it. But I can not understand what the mistake is or how to fix it. Can anyone help me do that?


[1]: https://github.com/dhimankchakraborty/Non-Interacting-SSH-Model-without-Spin
[2]: https://github.com/dhimankchakraborty/Interacting-SSH-Model-without-Spin/blob/main/test_01.ipynb
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looking at the notebook (test_01.ipynb), the interaction part likely uses a function that loops over all pairs of sites for V1V1 and V2V2, but maybe the indexing of sites in the two sublattices is messed up.

For example, in a 1D chain of 2N sites (N unit cells, each with A and B),
site index for A in cell i = 2*i - 2 (if starting from 0)
site index for B in cell i = 2*i - 1

Then V1V1 term: ni,Ani,Bni,Ani,B → sites (2i-2) and (2i-1)
V2V2 term: ni+1,Ani,Bni+1,Ani,B → sites (2i) and (2i-1)

If i runs up to N, then for V2V2, when i = N, site 2N (which is i+1,A) may be beyond the number of sites if not careful with boundary conditions.

If OBC, then for i=N, site 2N doesn’t exist — so must skip that term. If code doesn’t skip, it might try to access an invalid index, leading to a wrong matrix element or even an out-of-bounds write that corrupts the matrix.

Possible fix:

Check boundary conditions explicitly — for OBC, V2V2 sum should be over i=1 to N-1 only.

Verify indexing function — make sure the function that maps (unit_cell, sublattice) to site index is correct and consistent.

Print the Hamiltonian matrix for a very small system (N=2) and check which off-diagonal elements are non-zero — they should be symmetric.

Ensure that H[bra,ket] = value and H[ket,bra] = conj(value) are both set for off-diagonal hopping terms. For diagonal terms (like interactions), they are real and symmetric automatically.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Someone who shows interest in science is initially a welcome development. So are fresh ideas from unexpected quarters. In contrast, there is a scientific community that is meticulously organized down to the last detail, allowing little to no external influence. With the invention of social media and other sites on the internet competing for content, unprecedented opportunities have opened up for...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K