Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Simulation

Correlation Length versus Gap in Frustration-Free Systems

arXiv
Authors: David Gosset, Yichen Huang

Year

2015

Paper ID

27124

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

104

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Hastings established exponential decay of correlations for ground states of gapped quantum many-body systems. A ground state of a (geometrically) local Hamiltonian with spectral gap ε has correlation length ξ upper bounded as ξ=O(1/ε). In general this bound cannot be improved. Here we study the scaling of the correlation length as a function of the spectral gap in frustration-free local Hamiltonians, and we prove a tight bound ξ=O\(1/sqrtε\) in this setting. This highlights a fundamental difference between frustration-free and frustrated systems near criticality. The result is obtained using an improved version of the combinatorial proof of correlation decay due to Aharonov, Arad, Vazirani, and Landau.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Hastings established exponential decay of correlations for ground states of gapped quantum many-body systems.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #27124 #78846 Analog quantum simulation of Sh... #78810 Secure Quantum Handshakes: Quan... #78802 Quantum Co-Design of Inhomogene... #78801 Constructing Large and Structur...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.