over the last decades , numerous data on hot giant electric dipole resonance ( gdr ) parameters have been accumulated .
since the field seems to have matured , it might be useful at this point to gather all present data in one comprehensive compilation in a uniform format .
the introduction is organized in the following way : first , we give some theoretical motivation why gdr parameters might be dependent on temperature , hence what question the present compilation tries to address .
then , in subsection [ sect : exp ] , we give an overview over typical experimental techniques used for measuring hot gdr parameters ; in subsection [ sect : smc ] we describe different ways of how hot gdr parameters are extracted from such experiments by means of statistical - model calculations .
although we have not attempted to extract any gdr parameters from such calculations ourselves , we believe it is helpful for the reader to get a general impression of the experimental and data - analysis part of the compiled works . in subsection [ sect : data ] we explain how different sets of gdr parameterizations from the original articles were brought onto a common footing .
finally , we end the introduction with a statement regarding our policy and a note on references .
a first good understanding of statistical @xmath0 emission was gained from the works of brink @xcite and axel @xcite who realized that average electric - dipole ( @xmath1 ) transition strengths in different energy regimes can be described in a unified fashion by assuming that the gdr can be built on any excited state , and that the gdr properties do not depend on the temperature of the excited state in question .
this so - called brink - axel hypothesis has been refined in the past to allow for temperature- and spin - dependent widths . a model to motivate such a modification takes into account shape fluctuations of the nucleus .
since the ground - state gdr splits into two components for a nucleus with static deformation , and the splitting depends on the degree of deformation @xcite , it is reasonable to assume that at finite temperatures , when the nucleus can explore a large volume in deformation space , the gdr response will be an average over different deformations and hence , different splittings .
the result within this adiabatic damping model will be a more diffuse and certainly wider gdr than the ground - state gdr .
quantitatively , assuming a fermi - gas level density , one can write the nuclear entropy in the microcanonical ensemble as @xmath2 , where @xmath3 is some potential energy proportional to the square of the deformation @xmath4 .
the entropy is trivially maximized for @xmath5 ; expanding @xmath6 for small @xmath7 yields @xmath8 . with @xmath9 , the probability distribution to find a nucleus with energy @xmath10 and
deformation @xmath11 becomes @xmath12 where the second factor represents a gaussian distribution of deformations around @xmath5 and a width of @xmath13 .
assuming that the splitting of the gdr into two components is roughly proportional to the nuclear deformation , the shape - fluctuation model predicts an increase in width of the gdr roughly proportional to @xmath14 .
moreover , there is also a potential spin dependence of the gdr width which stems from the possibility of spin - induced deformation .
finally , orientation fluctuations of the nucleus and nuclear - structure effects such as pairing can influence the temperature dependence of the gdr in different energy regimes .
several groups have calculated temperature - dependent gdr widths along these lines @xcite and a simple scaling law has emerged @xcite .
investigations of the low - energy tail of the gdr have also yielded indications for a temperature - dependent gdr width .
it was , e.g. , noted by popov @xcite in @xmath15 experiments on sm nuclei that the @xmath0 strength function tends to approach a finite value for @xmath16 for @xmath0 transitions in the quasicontinuum ( below the neutron separation energy ) .
this experimental observation led kadmenski , markushev , and furman ( kmf ) to propose a @xmath0 strength - function model for spherical nuclei with a temperature - dependent width @xcite based on the effect of in - medium nucleon - nucleon collisions .
the proposed temperature dependence was derived within migdal s theory of fermi liquids and has the form @xmath17 .
the model was later improved by sirotkin @xcite who included the pauli exclusion principle , and it was extended to deformed nuclei within the framework of the generalized lorentzian model by kopecky and uhl @xcite and by inclusion of a coupling term between the @xmath1 operator and the quadrupole deformation according to mughabghab and dunford @xcite .
the kmf model ( taken at constant temperatures ) and its extensions have been successfully applied to improve @xmath0 and isomeric production cross sections @xcite and they have been used for direct fits of measured low - energy @xmath0 strength functions @xcite .
the connection of collisional - damping models with hot gdr parameters has been made in @xcite .
unlike the measurement of the gdr by ground - state photo - absorption cross - section measurements @xcite , measurements of hot gdr parameters can be performed in many different ways .
one of the simplest ways is by fusion - evaporation reactions where only @xmath0 rays are detected @xcite .
such measurements are the most inclusive reactions , since the high - energy @xmath0 yield which competes with particle and especially neutron evaporation is representative for a range of different product nuclei , excitation energies , and spins .
moreover , it is not necessarily guaranteed that all detected @xmath0 rays stem from fusion - evaporation reactions .
other reactions such as inelastic or deep inelastic scattering can compete and yield @xmath0 rays from target or projectile - like fragments .    to improve the sensitivity of such experiments to the fusion - evaporation reaction channel , typical gates such as , e.g.
, @xmath0-multiplicity filters @xcite , detection of heavy evaporation residues @xcite , and detection of evaporated , light charged particles such as protons or @xmath18 particles @xcite can be performed .
the resulting @xmath0-ray spectra are more exclusive , not only in terms of the product nuclei from which high - energy @xmath0 rays are emitted , but also in terms of the spin and the excitation - energy range investigated . for example
, a gate on different @xmath0 folds translates rather directly into certain spin regions of the investigated product nucleus @xcite .
a gate on evaporated light charged particles will not only reduce the average charge and mass of the product nucleus , but it will also reduce its average excitation energy , since the evaporated particles will carry away some part of the initial excitation energy of the compound nucleus @xcite ; hence applying such a gate will test the gdr at somewhat lower temperatures than the fully inclusive experiment . in the same way , gating on the @xmath0 sum energy @xcite or on specific product nuclei by means of detecting in coincidence discrete , known low - energy @xmath0 transitions @xcite will also influence the average spin and excitation - energy region from which the high - energy @xmath0 rays are emitted , since one effectively biases the competition between high - energy @xmath0 decay and neutron evaporation in one or the other direction .
other , more rarely used gating conditions are , e.g. , the isomeric @xmath0 decay by discrete transitions @xcite or the @xmath18 decay of a product nucleus @xcite , both of which have similar implications for the average spin and excitation - energy range from which prompt high - energy @xmath0 rays are observed .    for heavy nuclei ,
an added difficulty is the possibility of fission of the compound nucleus .
typically , for low spins , the production of an evaporation residue dominates while for high spins fission will become the dominant exit channel @xcite .
hence , by gating on evaporation residues or fission fragments , one effectively selects a spin region from which high - energy @xmath0 emission is observed @xcite . in the case of the fission exit channel , one also observes high - energy @xmath0 emission from the fission fragments themselves @xcite , though typically at significantly higher @xmath0 energies owing to the much lower mass of the fission fragments .
another complication is the fact that high - energy @xmath0 emission can occur from the compound nucleus ( which is desired ) , or during the saddle - to - scission motion after the nucleus has passed the fission barrier @xcite .
also , for the heaviest nuclei investigated , it is not clear whether a true compound nucleus forms which is confined by some fission barrier or whether one observes direct fission or just the formation of a mononucleus . where we suspect the latter as in , e.g. , @xcite
, the extracted data do not enter the present compilation .    in some cases
, one employs inelastic ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) or deep inelastic scattering @xcite to excite the target or projectile nucleus . by measuring the kinetic energy of at least one of the products ,
one can reconstruct the reaction kinematics event by event and it is possible to obtain initial excitation - energy indexed coincident high - energy @xmath0 spectra with only one beam energy .
otherwise , the excited nucleus can be treated in the same way as a compound nucleus which is formed in a fusion - evaporation reaction .
high - energy @xmath0 spectra are typically analyzed using a statistical - model calculation . in the first step , total fusion cross sections and maximum @xmath19 or average @xmath20 angular momenta
are determined .
typically , total fusion cross sections can be verified by experiment ; maximum angular momenta are calculated by the theory of either winther @xcite or swiatecki @xcite .
average angular momenta can then be determined by @xmath21 . in the next step ,
the decay of the highly excited compound nucleus is modeled .
in many cases , this simply involves a hauser - feshbach - type theory @xcite into which particle and @xmath0 transmission coefficients ( sometimes including higher - than-@xmath1 multipolarities ) as well as nuclear level densities enter .
typically , particle transmission coefficients are not discussed in great detail in the compiled works .
the level - density models are either the phlhofer model @xcite ( the default in the statistical - model code cascade @xcite ) or the reisdorf model @xcite .
the phlhofer model relies on the local dilg _
parameterization @xcite for excitation energies up to and slightly above the nucleon separation energy , while it interpolates then to a regime where the level - density parameter @xmath22 becomes proportional to the nuclear mass number @xmath23 .
the reisdorf approach builds on the generalized superfluid model by ignatyuk _
@xcite , but it uses a global parameterization for the asymptotic level density parameter @xmath22 . in one case
@xcite , the level - density model by fineman _
@xcite is used in the data analysis . _
_ _    statistical - model calculations are often adapted to different experimental situations . for light compound nuclei near the @xmath24 line , an isospin - dependent formalism
is often used @xcite .
also , the wigner energy @xcite is sometimes included in the level - density parameterization @xcite . for large excitation energies , pre - equilibrium emission due to direct and semi - direct reaction mechanisms are often taken into account ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) .
especially the peqag2 code @xcite has been developed for this purpose . in the case of fissile compound nuclei ,
the fission channel and the decay of excited fission fragments are modeled as well ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) .
when gating conditions were applied in the experiment , they are usually reflected in the statistical - model calculation as well , which often implies the need to use a monte - carlo simulation tool such as in @xcite . in some cases , also
asymmetries @xmath25 of @xmath0 emission are calculated ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , however , experimental asymmetries do not enter into the present work ( with the exception of their influence on the sign of the quoted deformation as in , e.g. , @xcite ) .
typically , calculated high - energy @xmath0 spectra are compared to their experimental counterparts , and the @xmath0 transmission coefficients ( parameterized by one- or two - component lorentzians multiplied by a factor @xmath26 ) are varied until the best fit is obtained . if absolute values in the high - energy region are compared , the fit is often normalized to the data in an energy region of 37  mev ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , far below the peak of the gdr .
statistical uncertainties are usually determined in the normal fashion by varying gdr parameters until the quality of the fit deteriorates .
systematic uncertainties are more difficult to estimate .
a good way is , e.g. , to perform several fits to the experimental data with different level - density parameterizations as in @xcite or differing sets of other input parameters into the statistical - model calculation ( say , e.g. , those which describe the dynamic of the fission process such as the nuclear viscosity which governs the timescale of the saddle - to - scission motion as in @xcite ) .
the range of resulting gdr parameters might give a good indication of the size of the systematic error .
other sources of systematic errors concern the experimental conditions . some of the most important problems there involve inefficient neutron-@xmath0 discrimination ( often done by time - of - flight techniques as in @xcite , or by simply considering @xmath0 rays only at backward angles as in @xcite ) , contamination of high - energy @xmath0 spectra by cosmic rays ( which can be greatly reduced by coincidence measurements as in @xcite ) , target impurities , pile - up ( see , e.g. , @xcite for a thorough investigation of these two effects ) , and add - back issues .
add back is a technique often used for an array of small detectors where for high - energy @xmath0 rays one observes a significant amount of ( i ) compton scattering from one detector into a neighboring one , and ( ii ) pair production with subsequent annihilation @xmath0 rays being detected in neighboring detectors .
the add - back technique remedies this situation by adding the deposited energies in neighboring detectors and ( rightly ) consider such events as stemming from one single @xmath0 ray ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) .
pile up is a problem especially for large detectors , where two or more coincident @xmath0 rays hit the same detector and their energies add up and are falsely registered as one high - energy @xmath0 ray ( see , e.g. , the discussion in @xcite ) .
if one applies the add - back technique , however , pile up can also occur when two coincident @xmath0 rays hit two neighboring detectors .
obviously , for any given detector array , there is an optimal balance between the benefit of applying the add - back technique and the possible distortions of the high - energy @xmath0 spectrum due to pile up . where we found that this balance was not met @xcite ,
we have rejected the data for the present compilation .
some other physical background involves nuclear bremsstrahlung which is emitted in the first moments of the fusion process where individual nucleons of the projectile are greatly de - accelerated in the proximity of target nucleons and emit high - energy @xmath0 rays ( see , e.g. , the discussion in @xcite ) .
these @xmath0 rays can either be modeled ( and hence subtracted from the high - energy @xmath0 spectrum which is to be fitted by the statistical - model calculation as in @xcite ) , or they are simply considered as a source of systematic error as in @xcite .
another possible source of high - energy @xmath0 rays is the pre - equilibrium @xmath0 emission during the formation of the compound nucleus which has been investigated by measuring high - energy @xmath0 spectra for ( isospin ) symmetric and asymmetric reactions as in , e.g. , @xcite .
since in the extreme , such reactions essentially probe the di - nuclear system and not a compound nucleus ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , the resulting data are not entered into the present compilation . in general , in our compilations we focus more on low - energy data to avoid complications due to non - compound sources of high - energy @xmath0 rays , hence , data concerning the saturation or increase of the gdr width at very high excitation energies such as in @xcite are typically omitted .      in our data treatment ,
the first step was to determine the target isotope from the context ( for those few articles where it was not stated explicitly ) .
ranges of laboratory energy @xmath27 , initial excitation energy @xmath28 , and initial spin @xmath29 were replaced by their central values .
average initial spins @xmath30 were determined from maximum spins @xmath31 by means of @xmath21 for the case of fusion - evaporation reactions but irrespective of gating conditions .
ranges in final spin @xmath32 after gdr @xmath0 emission were replaced by central values as well ; the widths of the @xmath32 ranges were converted into @xmath33 values which were preferred in this case over regular uncertainties due to the often non - gaussian distribution of final spins .
hot gdr parameterizations can take many different forms .
the most common is probably the parameterization in terms of a centroid @xmath10 , width @xmath34 , and maximum @xmath35 of an equivalent lorentzian photon - absorption cross section .
the maximum @xmath35 is often formulated as a fraction @xmath6 of the thomas - reiche - kuhn ( trk ) sum rule which describes the integral @xmath36  mev  mb of the lorentzian in terms of neutron @xmath37 , proton @xmath38 , and mass @xmath23 numbers @xcite . for two - component lorentzian parameterizations , often the total @xmath39 , and either the ration @xmath40 or the relative fraction @xmath41 are given . in either case , the given parameters were converted into @xmath42 and @xmath43 values .
sometimes , the total is assumed to fulfill the trk while only the ratio or the relative fraction @xmath44 is determined by the fit . in these cases ,
the errors are marked by an asterisk to indicate correlations .
in other cases , no information is given on the total .
in those cases , the fraction @xmath43 is given in terms of the fraction @xmath42 in the table .    in case of gdr widths , some authors reduce their number of fit parameters by introducing a phenomenological relation between the widths and the centroids of a two - component lorentzian according to @xmath45 , where @xmath46 becomes the fit parameter @xcite . in such cases ,
we have calculated the widths @xmath34 including their errors . however , the errors are again correlated and marked by an asterisk . in the case of two gdr centroids ,
some authors give the average @xmath47 and the ratio @xmath48 .
sometimes this ratio is replaced by an average deformation @xmath11 which can be related to @xmath48 by either @xmath49 ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) or @xmath50 ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , where @xmath51 and @xmath52 denote the centroids of the gdr components due to oscillations perpendicular and parallel to the symmetry axis . in the case where the original article did not mention which of the two formulas applies @xcite
, the two formulas resulted in values for @xmath53 and @xmath54 within 0.2  mev of each other , a difference far less than the quoted statistical error .
in general , however , we did not concern ourselves with deformations .
only when oblate deformation was established from , e.g. , the asymmetry @xmath25 , a - sign was added to the deformation parameter ( in cases where the original article only provided the absolute value , see , e.g. , @xcite ) .    in our treatment of errors ,
the first step was to add quadratically statistical and systematical errors ( when quoted separately ) .
where a range of systematic uncertainties is given , we adopted the center value of that range as a representative systematic uncertainty .
when uncertainties are given in terms of a @xmath33 , it was converted by @xmath55 . in general ,
rigorous error propagation was performed .
however , no original work published the full covariance matrix for the fitted gdr parameters .
therefore , the derived errors are only representative of the true errors under the assumption that the originally fitted parameters are fully uncorrelated . in cases where we determined more parameters than were originally fitted , an asterisk denotes the correlations which were introduced to the errors . in cases where
gdr parameters were held fixed during the fit , a little f was added in the table instead of an error . some works do not cite errors at all . in such cases
we have made no attempt to estimate the errors . in a few cases where @xmath53 and @xmath54 were given without errors ,
while @xmath56 was given with error , we could not find a good method to translate this error into errors of the individual values , and hence @xmath53 and @xmath54 remain without errors ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) .
although we have tried to avoid a true evaluation of the original articles , we have excluded some of them from the present compilation .
typically , where high - energy @xmath0 rays from sources other than a compound nucleus were investigated ( such as the mononucleus as in @xcite or the di - nuclear system as in @xcite ) , the resulting data are not used for the present compilation . in a different case ,
the data in question were heavily contaminated by pile - up events which lead to unphysical gdr parameters @xcite .
in general , when different fits to the same data were performed ( using different input parameters for the statistical - model calculation such as the level - density formula , see , e.g. , @xcite , or the nuclear viscosity in the case of an open fission channel , see , e.g. , @xcite ) , we present all possible fits . on the other hand , when essentially the same data were presented in a conference proceedings as well as in a subsequent refereed article with no or minimal differences in the fit parameters ,
we typically report only the results from the refereed article with few exceptions .
finally , when no gdr parameters were given ( see , e.g. , @xcite or when we feel that the statistical - model description of the experiment is rather tentative @xcite , we made no attempt to fit the experimental spectrum ourselves , hence such data are not taken into account in the present compilation .
when data from this compilation are cited , reference should also be made to the original publication as well .
we would like to thank chris kawatsu and mark shevin for the initial literature search .
this work was supported by national science foundation grant no .
phy01 - 10253 .
99 d. brink , ph.d .
thesis , oxford university , 1955 .
p. axel , phys .
rev .  * 126 , 671 ( 1962 ) .
p. dagostino , g. fazio , g. giardina , m. herman , a. lamberto , g.f .
rappazzo , r. sturiale , f. malaguti , d.o .
eremenko , n.v .
eremin , s.yu .   platonov , and o.a .
yuminov , bull .
phys .  * 62 , 1736 ( 1998 ) .
dimitri kusnezov , y. alhassid , and k.a .
snover , phys .
lett .  * 81 , 542 ( 1998 ) ; dimitri kusnezov , y. alhassid , k.a .
snover , and w.e .
ormand , nucl .
phys .  * a 687 , 212c ( 2001 ) .
ormand , p.f .
bortignon , and r.a .
broglia , phys .
lett .  * 77 , 607 ( 1996 ) .
ahmad ansari , nguyen dinh dang , and akita arima , phys .
c * 63 , 024310 ( 2001 ) .
yu.p . popov , fiz .
chastits at .
yadra * 13 , 1165 ( 1982 ) [ sov .
j. part .
* 13 , 483 ( 1982 ) ] .
kadmenski , v.p .
markushev , and v.i .
furman , yad .
37 , 277 ( 1983 ) [ sov .  j. nucl .
phys .  * 37 , 165 ( 1983 ) ] .
sirotkin , yad .
43 , 570 ( 1986 ) [ sov .  j. nucl.phys .  * 43 , 362 ( 1986 ) ] .
j. kopecky and m. uhl , phys .
c * 41 , 1941 ( 1990 ) .
s.f . mughabghab and c.l .
dunford , phys .
b * 487 , 155 ( 2000 ) .
grudzevich , yad .
62 , 227 ( 1999 ) [ phys .  at .
nucl .  * 62 , 192 ( 1999 ) ] .
a. voinov , m. guttormsen , e. melby , j. rekstad , a. schiller , and s. siem , phys .
c * 63 , 044313 ( 2001 ) . v. baran , m. colonna , m. di toro , a. guarnera , v.n kondratyev , and a. smerzi , nucl .
phys .  * a 599 , 29c ( 1996 ) .
samuel s. dietrich and barry l. berman , at .
data nucl .
data tables * 38 , 199 ( 1998 ) .
g. feldman , k.a .
snover , j.a .
behr , c.a .
gossett , j.h .
gundlach , and m. kiciska - habior , phys .
c * 47 , 1436 ( 1993 ) .
rathi , d.r .
chakrabarty , v.m .
datar , suresh kumar , e.t .
mirgule , a. mitra , v. nanal , and h.h .
oza , phys .
c * 67 , 024603 ( 2003 ) .
a. bracco , j.j .
gaardhje , a.m. bruce , j.d .
garrett , b. herskind , m. pignanelli , d. barnoud , h. nifenecker , j.a .
pinston , c. ristori , f. schussler , j. bacelar , and h. hofmann , phys .
lett .   * 62 , 2080 ( 1989 ) .
f. lucarelli , n. gelli , p. blasi , m. cinausero , e. fioretto , g. prete , d. fabris , g. nebbia , g. viesti , e.m .
fiore , l. fiore , v. paticchio , and p.f .
bortignon , z. phys .
a * 355 , 35 ( 1996 ) .
kelly , j.f .
liang , a.a .
sonzogni , k.a .
snover , j.p.s .
van schagen , and j.p .
lestone , phys .
c * 56 , 3201 ( 1997 ) .
gaardhje , a.m. bruce , and b. herskind , nucl .
phys .  * a 482 , 121c ( 1988 ) .
m. kmiecik , a. maj , a. bracco , f. camera , b. million , and o. wieland , eur .
j. a * 12 , 5 ( 2001 ) .
a. stolk , a. balanda , m.n .
harakeh , w.h.a .
hesselink , j. penninga , and h. rijneveld , nucl .
phys .  * a 505 , 241 ( 1989 ) . f. camera , a. bracco , v. nanal , m.p .
carpenter , f. della vedova , s. leoni , b. million , s. mantovani , m. pignanelli , o. wieland , b.b .
back , a.m. heinz , r.v.f .
janssens , d. jenkins , t.l .
khoo , f.g .
kondev , t. lauritsen , c.f .
lister , b. mcclintock , s. mitsuoka , e.f .
moore , d. seweryniak , r.h .
siemssen , r.j .
van swol , d. hofman , m. thoennessen , k. eisenman , p. heckman , j. seitz , r. varner , m. halbert , i. dioszegi , and a. lopez - martens , phys .
b * 560 , 155 ( 2003 ) .
g. van t hof , j.c.s .
bacelar , i. diszegi , m.n .
harakeh , w.h.a .
hesselink , n. kalantar - nayestanaki , a. kugler , h. van der ploeg , a.j.m .
plompen , and j.p.s .
van schagen , nucl .
phys .  * a 638 , 613 ( 1998 ) .
r. butsch , m. thoennessen , d.r .
chakrabarty , m.g .
herman , and p. paul , phys .
c * 41 , 1530 ( 1990 ) .
dietrich , j.c .
browne , w.j .
oconnell , and m.j .
kay , phys .
c * 10 , 795 ( 1974 ) .
n.p . shaw , i. diszegi , i. mazumdar , a. buda , c.r .
morton , j. velkovska , j.r .
beene , d.w .
stracener , r.l .
varner , m. thoennessen , and p. paul , phys .
c * 61 , 044612 ( 2000 ) .
tveter , j.j .
gaardhje , a. maj , t. ramsy , a. ata , j. bacelar , a. bracco , a. buda , f. camera , b. herskind , w. korten , w. krlas , a. menthe , b. million , h. nifenecker , m. pignanelli , j.a .
pinston , h.v.d .
ploeg , f. schussler , and g. sletten , phys .
lett .  * 76 , 1035 ( 1996 ) ; t.s .
tveter , j.j .
gaardhje , a. maj , t. ramsy , a. atac , j. bacelar , a. bracco , a. buda , f. camera , b. herskind , w. korten , w. krlas , a. menthe , b. million , h. nifenecker , m. pignanelli , j.a .
pinston , h. v.  d.   ploeg , f. schussler , and g. sletten , nucl .
phys .  * a 599 , 123c ( 1996 ) .
t. baumann , e. ramakrishnan , a. azhari , j.r .
beene , r.j .
charity , j.f .
dempsey , m.l .
halbert , p .- f .
hua , r.a .
kryger , p.e .
mueller , r. pfaff , d.g .
sarantites , l.g .
sobotka , d.w .
stracener , m. thoennessen , g. van buren , r.l .
varner , and s. yokoyama , nucl .
phys .  * a 635 , 428 ( 1998 ) .
g. enders , f.d .
berg , k. hagel , w. khn , v. metag , r. novotny , m. pfeiffer , o. schwalb , r.j .
charity , a. gobbi , r. freifelder , w. henning , k.d .
hildebrand , r. holzmann , r.s .
mayer , r.s .
simon , j.p .
wessels , g. casini , a. olmi , and a.a .
stefanini , phys .
lett .  * 69 , 249 ( 1992 ) .
draper , j.o .
newton , l.g .
sobotka , h. lindenberger , g.j .
wozniak , l.g .
moretto , f.s .
stephens , r.m .
diamond , and r.j .
mcdonald , phys.rev .
lett .  * 49 , 434 ( 1982 ) .
n. herrmann , r. bock , h. emling , r. freifelder , a. gobbi , e. grosse , k.d .
hildebrand , r. kulessa , t. matulewicz , f. rami , r.s .
simon , h. stelzer , j. wessels , p.r .
maurenzig , a. olmi , a.a .
stefanini , w. khn , v. metag , r. novotny , m. gnirs , d. pelte , p. braun - munzinger , and l.g .
moretto , phys .
lett .  * 60 , 1630 ( 1988 ) .
r. hingmann , w. khn , v. metag , r. mhlhans , r. novotny , a. ruckelshausen , w. cassing , h. emling , r. kulessa , h.j .
wollersheim , b. haas , j.p .
vivien , a. boullay , h. delagrange , h. doubre , c. grgoire , and y. schutz , phys .
lett .  * 58 , 759 ( 1987 ) .
m. thoennessen , j.r .
beene , f.e .
bertrand , d.j .
horen , m.l .
halbert , d.c .
hensley , j.e .
lisantti , w. mittig , y. schutz , n. alamanos , f. auger , j. barrette , b. fernandez , a. gillibert , b. haas , j.p .
vivien , and a.m. nathan , phys .
c * 43 , r12 ( 1991 ) .
a. winther , nucl .
phys .  * a 594 , 203 ( 1995 ) .
w. swiatecki , nucl .
phys .  * a 376 , 275 ( 1982 ) . w.
hauser and h. feshbach , phys .
rev .  * 87 , 366 ( 1952 ) .
f. phlhofer , nucl .
phys .  * a 280 , 267 ( 1977 ) .
w. reisdorf , z. phys .
a * 300 , 227 ( 1981 ) .
w. dilg , w. schantl , h. vonach , and m. uhl , nucl .
phys .  * a 217 , 269 ( 1973 ) .
ignatyuk , k.k .
istekov , and g.n .
smirenkin , yad .
* 29 , 875 ( 1979 ) [ sov .
j. nucl .
* 29 , 450 ( 1979 ) ] .
fineman , k .-
brinkmann , a.l .
caraley , n. gan , r.l .
mcgrath , and j. velkovska , phys .
c * 50 , 1991 ( 1994 ) .
w.d . myers and w.j .
swiatecki , nucl .
phys .  * 81 , 1 ( 1966 ) .
a. baanda , j.c.s .
bacelar , e. btk , j.a .
bordewijk , a. krasznahorka , h. van der ploeg , r.h .
siemssen , h.w .
wilschut , and a. van der woude , nucl .
phys .  * a 575 , 348 ( 1994 ) .
e. btk , report fu sav 89/5 , bratislava 1989 .
m. kiciska - habior , k.a .
snover , j.a .
behr , c.a .
gossett , j.h .
gundelach , and g. feldman , phys .
c * 45 , 569 ( 1992 ) .
m. kiciska - habior , k.a .
snover , j.a .
behr , g. feldman , c.a .
gossett , and j.h .
gundlach , phys .
c * 41 , 2075 ( 1990 ) .
s. flibotte , b. haas , p. taras , h.r .
andrews , d.c .
radford , and d. ward , nucl .
phys .  * a 531 , 205 ( 1991 ) .
gaardhje , c. ellegaard , b. herskind , r.m .
diamond , m.a .
deleplanque , g. dines , a.o .
macchiavelli , and f.s .
stephens , phys .
lett .  * 56 , 1783 ( 1986 ) .
m. kiciska - habior , k.a .
snover , c.a .
gossett , j.a .
behr , g. feldman , h.k .
glatzel , j.h .
gundlach , and e.f .
garman , phys .
c * 36 , 612 ( 1987 ) .
morsch , w. spang , j.r .
beene , f.e .
bertrand , r.l .
auble , j.l .
charvet , m.l .
halbert , d.c .
hensley , i.y .
lee , r.l .
varner , d.g .
sarantites , and d.w .
stracener , phys .
lett .  * 64 , 1999 ( 1990 ) ; m. thoennessen , phys .
lett .  * 66 , 1640 ( 1991 ) ; h.p .
morsch , w. spang , j. beene , and f. bertrand , phys .
lett .  * 66 , 1641 ( 1991 ) .
d. pierroutsakou , a. boiano , a. de rosa , m. di pietro , g. inglima , m. la commara , ruhan ming , b. martin , r. mordente , a. ordine , f. rizzo , v. roca , m. romoli , m. sandoli , f. soramel , l. stroe , m. trotta , and e. vardaci , eur .
j. a * 17 , 71 ( 2003 ) .
m. thoennessen , e. ramakrishnan , j.r .
beene , f.e .
bertrand , m.l .
halbert , d.j .
horen , p.e .
mueller , and r.l .
varner , phys .
c * 51 , 3148 ( 1995 ) .
s. flibotte , ph .
chomaz , m. colonna , m. cromaz , j. degraaf , t.e .
drake , a. galindo - uribarri , v.p .
janzen , j. jonkman , s.w .
marshall , s.m .
mullins , j.m .
nieminen , d.c .
radford , j.l .
rodriguez , j.c .
waddington , d. ward , and j.n .
wilson , phys .
lett .  * 77 , 1448 ( 1996 ) .
l. campajola , a. de rosa , a. donofrio , l. gialanella , g. inglima , m. la commara , a. ordine , d. pierroutsakou , v. roca , m. romano , m. romoli , m. sandoli , f. terrasi , g. cardella , a. di pietro , a. musumarra , m. papa , g. pappalardo , f. rizzo , n. alamanos , f. auger , a. gillibert , a. incicchitti , d. prosperi , g. de angelis , e. fioretto , and r. bernabei , z. phys .
a * 352 , 421 ( 1995 ) ; l. campajola , a. de rosa , a. donofrio , l. gialanella , g. inglima , m. la commara , a. ordine , d. pierroutsakou , v. roca , m. romano , m. romoli , m. sandoli , f. terrasi , f. amorini , g. cardella , r. croce , a. di pietro , a. musumarra , m. papa , g. pappalardo , f. rizzo , j.p.s .
van shagen , n. alamanos , f. auger , a. gillibert , d. prosperi , g. de angelis , and e. fioretto , nucl .
phys .  * a 583 , 119c ( 1995 ) ; m. sandoli , l. campajola , a. de rosa , a. donofrio , g. inglima , m. la commara , a. ordine , d. pierroutsakou , v. roca , m. romano , m. romoli , f. terrasi , m. trotta , g. cardella , m. papa , g. pappalardo , f. rizzo , n. alamanos , f. auger , and a. gillibert , z. phys .
a * 357 , 67 ( 1997 ) ; d. pierroutsakou , a. boiano , a. de rosa , m. di pietro , g. inglima , m. la commara , ruhan ming , b. martin , r. mordente , a. ordine , f. rizzo , v. roca , m. romoli , m. sandoli , f. soramel , l. stroe , m. trotta , and e. vardaci , eur .
j. a * 17 , 71 ( 2003 ) .
k. yoshida , j. kasagi , h. hama , m. sakurai , m. kodama , k. furutaka , k. ieki , w. galster , t. kubo , and m. ishihara , phys .  lett .
b * 245 , 7 ( 1990 ) ; j. kasagi , k. furutaka , t. murakami , a. yajima , m. ohshima , s. niiya , h. tominaga , k. yoshida , h. hama , k. ieki , w. galster , k. kubo , m. ishihara , and a. galonsky , nucl .
phys .  * a 538 , 585c ( 1992 ) .
le faou , t. suomijrvi , y. blumentfeld , p. piattelli , c. agodi , n. alamanos , r. alba , f. auger , g. bellia , ph .
chomaz , r. coniglione , a. del zoppo , p. finocchiaro , n. frascaria , j.j .
gaardhje , j.p .
garron , a. gillibert , m. lamehi - rachti , r. liguori - neto , c. maiolino , e. migneco , g. russo , j.c .
roynette , d. santonocito , p. sapienza , j.a .
scarpaci , and a. smerzi , phys .
lett .  * 72 , 3321 ( 1994 ) ; t. suomijrvi , y. blumenfeld , p. piattelli , j.h .
le faou , c. agodi , n. alamanos , r. alba , f. auger , g. bellia , ph .
chomaz , r. coniglione , a. del zoppo , p. finocchiaro , n. frascaria , j.j .
gaardhje , j.p .
garron , a. gillibert , m. lamehi - rachti , r. liguori - neto , c. maiolino , e. migneco , g. russo , j.c .
roynette , d. santonocito , p. sapienza , j.a .
scarpaci , and a. smerzi , phys .
c * 53 , 2258 ( 1996 ) ; t. suomijrvi , j.h .
le faou , y. blumenfeld , p. piattelli , c. agodi , n. alamanos , r. alba , f. auger , g. bellia , ph .
chomaz , r. coniglione , a. del zoppo , p. finocchiaro , n. frascaria , j.j .
gaardhje , j.p .
garron , a. gillibert , m. lamehi - rachti , r. liguori - neto , k. loukachine , c. maiolino , e. migneco , s. montironi , g. russo , j.c .
roynette , d. santonocito , p. sapienza , j.a .
scarpaci , and a. smerzi , nucl .
phys .  * a 583 , 105 ( 1995 ) .
gaardhje , a.m. bruce , j.d .
garrett , b. herskind , d. barnoud , m. maurel , h. nifenecker , j.a .
pinston , p. perrin , c. ristori , f. schussler , a. bracco , and m. pignanelli , phys .
lett .  * 59 , 1409 ( 1987 ) .
m. kiciska - habior , k.a .
snover , j.a .
behr , c.a .
gossett , y. alhassid , and n. whelan , phys .
b * 308 , 225 ( 1990 ) .
p. thirolf , d. habs , d. schwalm , r.d .
fischer , and v. metag , nucl .
phys .  * a 482 , 93c ( 1988 ) .
w. hennerici , v. metag , h.j .
hennrich , r. repnow , w. wahl , d. habs , k. helmer , u. v.  helmolt , h.w .
heyng , b. kolb , d. pelte , d. schwalm , r.s .
simon , and r. albrecht , nucl .
phys .  * a 396 , 329c ( 1983 ) .
zhu , d. bazzacco , s. lunardi , g. viesti , m. cinausero , g. de angelis , m. de poli , a. gadea , d.r .
napoli , c.m .
petrache , and c. rossi alvarez , phys .
c * 55 , 1169 ( 1997 ) .
adam maj , maria kmiecik , nicolas schunk , and jan styczn , aip conf .
proc .  * 802 , 264 ( 2005 ) .
newton , b. herskind , r.m .
diamond , e.l .
dines , j.e .
draper , k.h .
lindenberger , c. schck , s. shih , and f.s .
stephens , phys .
lett .  * 46 , 1383 ( 1981 ) .
van schagen , f. amorini , g. cardella , r. croce , a. dipietro , a. musumarra , m. papa , g. pappalardo , f. rizzo , l. campajola , a. derosa , a. donofrio , g. inglima , m. lacommara , d. pierroutsakou , v. rocca , m. pomano , m. romoli , m. sandoli , and f. terrasi , nucl .
phys .  * a 583 , 123c ( 1995 ) . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
reaction and gdr parameters *    lp5.9 in no.&number of item + ref.&reference + pro.&projectile nucleus + tar.&target nucleus + cn&compound nucleus as determined by the gating conditions + @xmath27&laboratory beam energy ( mev ) , sometimes given at the center of the target + @xmath28&excitation energy of the compound nucleus ( mev ) as determined by the gating conditions , sometimes averaged over the target thickness + @xmath30&initial average angular momentum of the compound nucleus ( @xmath57 ) as determined by the gating conditions , sometimes calculated by @xmath21 where @xmath31 is the maximum spin of the compound system calculated by the theories of winther or swiatecki + @xmath58&initial temperature of the compound nucleus ( mev ) as determined by the gating conditions ; sometimes determined before or after pre - equilibrium particle emission , but always before particle evaporation + l.d.&level density parameterization : r = reisdorf , p = phlhofer , i = ignatyuk , d = dilg , f = fineman ; in some cases , the wigner energy is included in the parameterization + @xmath59&level density parameter ( mev ) , often used only for conversion of excitation energy to temperature of the compound nucleus ; the default value for the phlhofer l.d .
parameterization is @xmath60  mev which should be assumed if no value is given + @xmath61&final average angular momentum of the compound nucleus ( @xmath57 ) after high - energy @xmath0 emission and influenced by gating conditions + @xmath33&full width at half maximum of the final angular momentum distribution ( @xmath57 ) + @xmath62&final average excitation energy of the compound nucleus ( mev ) after high - energy @xmath0 emission and influenced by gating conditions + @xmath63&final temperature of the compound nucleus ( mev ) after high - energy @xmath0 emission and influenced by gating conditions + code&statistical model computer code used for fitting the experimental spectra : c = cascade ( many different modifications exist ) , p = pace , p2=peqag2 ; if no code is given , most likely some version of the code cascade was used + gate&gating condition : @xmath18d=@xmath18 decay , @xmath0c=@xmath0 coincidences , d@xmath0t = discrete @xmath0 transitions , did = discrete isomeric decay , dis = deep inelastic scattering , er = evaporation residues , f=@xmath0-fold , ff = fission fragments , ipc = internal pair conversion , is = inelastic scattering , lcp = light charged particle , @xmath0m=@xmath0 multiplicity , @xmath64=@xmath0 sum energy , st = subtraction technique + @xmath42&strength of the first component of the gdr ( fraction of the trk sum rule ) + @xmath53&centroid of the first component of the gdr ( mev ) + @xmath65&width of the first component of the gdr ( mev ) + @xmath42&strength of the second component of the gdr ( fraction of the trk sum rule ) + @xmath53&centroid of the second component of the gdr ( mev ) + @xmath65&width of the second component of the gdr ( mev ) + @xmath33&full width at half maximum of the gdr cross - section parameterization ( mev ) + def.&average deformation @xmath11 or in some cases @xmath66 of the compound nucleus after high - energy @xmath0 emission +                t. baumann , e. ramakrishnan , a. azhari , j. r. beene , r. j. charity , _ et al .
_ , nucl .
a * 635 * , 428 ( 1998 ) ; e. ramakrishnan , t. baumann , a. azhari , r.a .
kryger , r. pfaff , _ et al .
_ , phys .
lett .  * 76 * , 2025 ( 1996 ) .
a. bracco , f. camera , m. mattiuzzi , b. million , m. pignanelli , j. j. gaardhje , a. maj , t. ramsy , t. tveter , z. elazny , phys .
lett .  * 74 * , 3748 ( 1995 ) ; a. bracco , f. camera , z. phys .
a * 349 * , 213 ( 1994 ) .
f. camera , a. bracco , s. leoni , b. million , m. mattiuzzi , _ et al .
_ , phys .
c * 60 * , 014306 ( 1999 ) ; f. camera , a. bracco , g. colombo , s. leoni , b. million , _
et al . _ ,
a * 649 * , 115c ( 1999 ) .
e. f. garman , k. a. snover , s. h. chew , s. k. b. hesmondhalgh , w. n. catford , p. m. walker , phys .
c * 28 * , 2554 ( 1983 ) ; a. lazzarini , d. habs , w. hennerici , r. kroth , j. schirmer , and v. metag , phys .  rev .
* 53 * , 1045 ( 1984 ) .
g. van t hof , j. c. s. bacelar , i. diszegi , m. n. harakeh , w. h. a. hesselink , n. kalantar - nayestanaki , a. kugler , h. van der ploeg , a. j. m. plompen , j. p.
s. van schagen , nucl .
a * 638 * , 613 ( 1998 ) .
m. kmiecik , a. maj , a. bracco , f. camera , m. casanova , s. leoni , b. million , b. herskind , r. a. bark , w. e. ormand , nucl .
a * 674 * , 29 ( 2000 ) ; a. bracco , f. camera , s. leoni , nucl .
a * 682 * , 449c ( 2001 ) ; a. bracco , f. camera , s. leoni , b. million , a. maj , m. kmiecik , nucl .
a * 687 * , 237c ( 2001 ) .
g. viesti , m. lops , b. fornal , d. bazzacco , p. f. bortignon , _ et al .
_ , nucl .
a * 604 * , 81 ( 1996 ) ; m. cinausero , d. bazzacco , p. f. bortignon , g. de angelis , d. fabris , _ et al .
_ , nucl .
a * 599 * , 111c ( 1996 ) .


the dmrg algorithm was introduced by steven white @xcite , as an algorithm for calculating ground state properties of principally one - dimensional strongly correlated systems in condensed matter physics .
the connection between dmrg and matrix product states @xcite ( also known as finitely correlated states ) was first made by rommer and stlund @xcite , who identified the thermodynamic limit of dmrg with a position - independent matrix product wavefunction .
although dmrg had already proven itself to be useful empirically , this was an important step in rigorously establishing the physical basis of the algorithm due to the concrete and easy to manipulate form of matrix product states .
work on the spectra of density matrices @xcite , later formulated as scaling of the von neumann entropy @xcite has placed the algorithm on a firm footing , showing that the required computational effort ( realized via the basis dimension @xmath0 ) is essentially a function of the entanglement of the wavefunction @xcite , which for one - dimensional ground - states scales at worst logarithmically with the system size @xcite .
computationally , mps algorithms came to the fore with the assistance of a quantum information perspective , leading to algorithms for periodic boundary conditions @xcite , and finite temperature algorithms based on density operators @xcite . at around the same time , methods for simulation of real time evolution were developed in dmrg @xcite , which can also benefit from mps formulations @xcite .
the common theme of mps approaches is to allow algorithms that operate on multiple , distinct wavefunctions at the same time .
this is possible in the original formulation of dmrg only by constructing a mixed effective hilbert space that is weighted appropriately to represent all of the relevant states simultaneously .
this is inefficient , as the algorithms typically scale as @xmath1 ( or up to @xmath2 for periodic boundary conditions @xcite ) in the number of basis states @xmath0 , so increasing @xmath0 so as to represent multiple states in the same basis is typically much slower than performing separate operations on each basis .
in addition , the mixed basis approach lacks flexibility . while traditional dmrg programs calculate the wavefunction and a few ( often predetermined ) expectation values or correlation functions , if instead the wavefunction is calculated in the mps representation of eq .
( [ eq : mpwavefunction ] ) it can be saved for later use as an _ input _ for many purposes .
perhaps the simplest such operation beyond the scope of traditional dmrg is to calculate the _ fidelity _ , or _
overlap _ between the wavefunctions obtained from separate calculations . in the mps formulation ,
this calculation is straightforward .
nevertheless the determination of the scaling function for the fidelity of finite - size wavefunctions for different interaction strengths , provides a new tool for investigating phase transitions and crossover phenomena @xcite .
indeed , due to the simplicity of the calculation the fidelity is likely in the coming years to be the first choice for quantitatively determining critical points .
similar measures of entanglement , such as the concurrence and single- and two - site entropy @xcite , are also straightforward to calculate , hence the mps formalism allows us to apply directly the emerging tools of quantum information to the study of realistic systems in condensed matter physics .
an alternative measure , the loschmidt echo @xcite is important because , unlike many of the quantum information theoretic measures , this is directly accessible in experiments while showing the rich behavior of the simpler measures .
the loschmidt echo is more time - consuming to measure numerically as it requires a full time evolution simulation rather than a direct measurement , nevertheless it is well within the current state of the art @xcite .    in this paper
, we focus on the case of open boundary condition matrix product states
. this does not preclude calculation of periodic systems , however the entanglement of such periodic states is increased such that in the large @xmath3 limit ( where @xmath3 is the lattice size ) , the number of states kept tends to the square of that required for open boundary conditions @xcite .
algorithms exist for periodic boundary conditions @xcite and infinite systems @xcite ( not to be confused with the ` infinite - size ' dmrg algorithm ) , and the basic formulas introduced here carry over to these cases , but we do not describe the specific algorithms here . in sec .
[ sec : mps ] , we introduce the basic formulation of matrix product states , and formulas for the fidelity .
[ sec : operators ] is devoted to a new approach , whereby we construct the hamiltonian operator itself as an mps , with many advantages .
we cover some remaining details of the dmrg algorithm in sec .
[ sec : dmrg ] , before discussing in detail the use of abelian and non - abelian quantum numbers in sec .
[ sec : quantumnumbers ] .
we finish with a few concluding remarks in sec .  [
sec : conclusions ] , including some observations on finite temperature states .
we denote an mps on an @xmath3-site lattice by the form @xmath4 the local index @xmath5 represents an element of a local hilbert space at site @xmath6 .
the two important cases we cover here are when @xmath5 runs over a @xmath7-dimensional local basis for a wavefunction @xmath8 , in which case we refer to this as a matrix product wavefunction ( mpw ) , or @xmath5 is a @xmath9-dimensional local basis for all operators acting on a local site , which we refer to as a matrix product operator ( mpo ) . in this paper
, we use mps for a generic state irrespective of the form of the local space , and use mpw or mpo as necessary when the distinction between wavefunctions and operators is important . in general , the matrix product form can also represent periodic @xcite and infinite ( non - periodic ) states @xcite , but here we use only the open - boundary form equivalent to the wavefunction obtained by dmrg @xcite . to enforce this boundary condition , we require the left - most matrix @xmath10 to be @xmath11 dimensional , and the right - most matrix @xmath12 to be @xmath13 . here we have introduced @xmath0 as the basis size , or dimension of the _ matrix basis _ of the @xmath14-matrices .
this quantity is often denoted @xmath15 , or sometimes @xmath16 , in the quantum information literature , but we emphasize it is exactly the same quantity in all cases . in general @xmath0 is position
dependent , as we do not require the @xmath14-matrices to be square even away from the boundary .
because of the 1-dimensional basis at the boundaries we can regard the mps wavefunction to be a sequence of operators attached to left and right ( or outgoing and incoming ) vacuum states .
this makes the operator product in eq .
( [ eq : mpwavefunction ] ) an ordinary number , so the trace operation can be dropped .      in practice , a mps state with no particular constraints on the form of the @xmath14-matrices
is numerically difficult to handle .
we are always free to insert some product of a non - singular @xmath17 operator @xmath18 and its inverse @xmath19 in the middle of our mps , thus we can apply an arbitrary transformation to the matrix basis of an @xmath14-matrix , as long as we make the corresponding transformation to its neighbor . using this freedom , we can transform the @xmath14-matrices into a form where they are orthonormalized , that is , we prefer that they satisfy one of two possible constraints , @xmath20 states satisfying these conditions are orthonormalized in the sense that if all @xmath14-matrices to the left of some matrix @xmath21 are orthogonalized in the left - handed sense , then the basis on the left - hand side of @xmath21 is orthonormal ( _ ie _ the identity operator in the effective hilbert space is trivial ) .
conversely , if all @xmath14-matrices to the right of @xmath21 are orthogonalized in the right - hand sense , then the basis on the right - hand side of @xmath21 is orthogonal .
usually , we want both these conditions to be true simultaneously .
note that it is not , in general , possible for _ all _ of the @xmath14-matrices ( including @xmath21 itself ) to be in orthonormal form at the same time .
there are several ways of transforming an arbitrary mps into this normalized form .
two ways that we consider here are the singular value decomposition ( svd ) , and the related reduced density matrix , as used in dmrg @xcite .
the simplest , and in principle the fastest , is the svd , well - known from linear algebra @xcite .
for example , for the left - handed orthogonality constraint on @xmath22 , where we have re - inserted the matrix indices @xmath23 , we consider @xmath24 to be a single index of dimension @xmath25 , giving an ordinary @xmath26 dimensional matrix , and carry out the singular value decomposition , @xmath27 where @xmath28 is column - orthogonal , @xmath29 , and @xmath30 is row - orthogonal , @xmath31 .
@xmath15 is a non - negative diagonal matrix containing the singular values .
this form coincides with the schmidt decomposition , where @xmath15 gives the coefficients of the wavefunction in the schmidt basis @xcite .
the matrix @xmath28 therefore satisfies the left - handed orthogonality constraint , so we use this as the updated @xmath14-matrix , and multiply the @xmath14-matrix on the right by @xmath32 .
this implies that the @xmath14-matrix on the right is no longer orthonormalized ( even if it was originally ) , but we can apply this procedure iteratively , to shift the non - orthogonal @xmath14-matrix to the boundary  or even beyond it  at which point the @xmath33 @xmath14-matrix coincides with the norm of the wavefunction . an important point here is that we can choose to discard some of the states , typically those that have the smallest singular value .
this reduces the matrix dimension @xmath0 , at the expense of introducing an approximation to our wavefunction , such that the squared norm of the difference of our approximate and exact wavefunctions is equal to the sum of the squares of the discarded singular values .
note however that the singular values only correspond to the coefficients of the schmidt decomposition if all of the remaining @xmath14-matrices are orthogonalized according to eq .
( [ eq : normalizationconstraint ] ) .
if this is not the case , the singular values are not useful for determining which states can be safely discarded .    alternatively , we can construct the reduced density matrix , obtained by tracing over half of the system .
this is achieved by @xmath34 which is a @xmath35 matrix , with @xmath0 eigenvalues coinciding with the values on the diagonal of @xmath36 , and the remaining eigenvalues are zero .
again , the eigenvalues are only meaningful if the remaining @xmath14-matrices are appropriately orthogonalized .
the utility of the density matrix approach over the svd , is that we can introduce mixing terms into the density matrix which can have the effect of stabilizing the algorithm and accelerating the convergence , which is further discussed in sec .
[ sec : dmrg ] .
the overlap of two mps is an operation that appears in many contexts . for wavefunctions
this gives the fidelity of the two states , and for operators this is equivalent to the operator inner product @xmath37 which induces the frobenius norm .
direct expansion of the mps form yields , @xmath38 due to the open boundary conditions , the direct product @xmath39 reduces to an ordinary @xmath17 matrix , after which can construct successive terms recursively , via @xmath40 with an analogous formula if we wish to start at the right hand side of the system and iterate towards the left boundary , @xmath41 for the purposes of numerical stability , it is advisable for the @xmath14- and @xmath42-matrices to be orthogonalized in the same pattern , that is , @xmath43-matrices are associated exclusively with the left - hand orthogonality constraint and @xmath44-matrices are associated with the right - hand orthogonality constraint . if we iterate all the way to the boundary , the @xmath43- ( or @xmath44- ) matrix ends up as a @xmath33 matrix that contains the final value of the fidelity .
alternatively , we can iterate from both ends towards the middle and calculate the fidelity as @xmath45 .
the key notion of the matrix product scheme is that of _ local updates _ ; that is , we modify , typically though some iterative optimization scheme , one ( or perhaps a few ) @xmath14-matrix while keeping the remainder fixed .
a useful and flexible alternative is the _ center matrix formulation _
, where , instead of modifying an @xmath14-matrix directly , we introduce an additional matrix @xmath46 into the mps , @xmath47 this allows us to preserve orthogonality of the matrices at all times ; matrices @xmath48 for @xmath49 are normalized always according to the left - handed constraint , and matrices for @xmath50 are normalized according to the right - handed constraint .
we directly modify only the matrix @xmath46 which simplifies the local optimization problem as @xmath46 is just an ordinary matrix . to introduce the local degrees of freedom ,
say for the @xmath51 states , we _ expand _ the basis for @xmath21 .
that is , we replace the @xmath17 dimensional matrices @xmath21 with @xmath52 matrices @xmath53 , given by @xmath54 and introduce the @xmath26 dimensional center matrix @xmath55 with @xmath56 running over @xmath25 states .
this does nt change the physical wavefunction , as @xmath57 .
similarly , we can expand the basis for the @xmath14-matrix on the right side of @xmath46 , to give the effect of modifying either a single @xmath14-matrix , or two ( or more ) at once .
in the center matrix formulation , the singular value decomposition required for truncating the basis is simply the ordinary svd on the matrix @xmath58 , and we multiply ( for a right - moving iteration ) @xmath59 , which preserves the left - handed orthogonality constraint , and @xmath60 which is not orthogonal , but becomes so when we again expand the basis to construct the new @xmath46 matrix .
the density matrix in the center matrix formulation is simply @xmath61 or @xmath62 for left and right moving iterations respectively . for readers already familiar with dmrg
, the center matrix corresponds exactly with the matrix form of the _ superblock wavefunction _ @xcite .
the utility of the mps approach is realized immediately upon attempting manipulations on the wavefunction eq .
( [ eq : mpwavefunction ] ) .
suppose we have two distinct mps , defined over the same local hilbert spaces , @xmath63 the superposition @xmath64 is formed by taking the sum of the matrix products , @xmath65 , which can be factorized into a new mps , @xmath66 , with @xmath67 to preserve the one - dimensional basis at the boundaries , the direct sum is replaced by a concatenation of columns or rows , for the left and right boundary respectively .
this procedure results in an mps of increased dimension , @xmath68 .
thus , after constructing these matrices we need to re - orthogonalize the state , and then we can , if necessary , truncate the basis size to a given truncation error , which is well defined here and measures the exact difference between the original and truncated wavefunctions .
alternatively , the normalized and truncated mps @xmath69 can be constructed directly , by calculating the overlap matrices @xmath43 between @xmath70 and @xmath71 . from the @xmath43-matrices introduced in eq .
( [ eq : ematrix ] ) , we can construct directly the orthogonalized reduced density matrices of @xmath69 and truncate the basis as required , in a single step .
this approach has better computational scaling than the two - step procedure of first orthogonalizing and then truncating , especially when the number of mps in the superposition is large .
but in general , iterative optimization approaches , where we use a dmrg - like algorithm to optimize the overlap @xmath72 , have even better performance scaling with large @xmath0 or more states in the superposition .
a useful generalization of the mps structure eq .
( [ eq : mpwavefunction ] ) is to use it to represent an operator ( an mpo ) instead of a wavefunction .
this has been used before for calculating finite - temperature density matrices @xcite , but here we instead want to use this structure to represent the hamiltonian operator itself . all hamiltonian operators with finite - range interactions have an _ exact _ mps representation with a relatively small matrix dimension @xmath73 .
for example , the ising model in a transverse field has a dimension @xmath74 , and the fermionic hubbard model has dimension @xmath75 .
we use the capital letter to distinguish from the dimension of the wavefunction , @xmath0 .
similarly , the local dimension of the upper index is denoted here by @xmath15 , which is usually just equal to @xmath9 , but slightly complicated in the case of non - abelian quantum numbers ( see sec .  [
sec : nonabelian ] ) .
we denote an mpo by the form @xmath76 where again we require that the first and last dimensions are @xmath77 , for open boundary conditions .
the orthogonality constraint used previously for the mps , eq .
( [ eq : normalizationconstraint ] ) , is not appropriate for hamiltonian operators .
when applied to an operator , the usual orthogonality constraints utilize the ( frobenius ) operator norm , which scales exponentially with the dimension of the hilbert space . with this normalization ,
components of an mpo hamiltonian , such as the identity operator or some interaction term , tend to differ in magnitude by some factor that increases exponentially with the lattice size .
arithmetic manipulations on such quantities is a recipe for catastrophic cancellation @xcite resulting in loss of precision . mixing operators with a unitary transformation ( for example @xmath78 ) , will lead to a disaster if @xmath79 and @xmath80 differ by a sufficiently large order of magnitude , @xmath81 for typical double - precision floating point arithmetic .
but such rotations are inevitable in the orthogonalization procedure because in general the operator inner product @xmath82 will not be zero .
instead we completely avoid mixing different rows / columns of the operator @xmath73-matrices , only collapsing a row or column if it is exactly parallel with another row or column . in this case , the actual norm of each component of the @xmath14-matrices is irrelevant , as they are never mixed with each other ( but see also the discussion of the single - site algorithm in sec .  [ sec : dmrg ] ) .
for physical hamiltonian operators this remains essentially optimal , with the minimum possible matrix dimension @xmath73 .
the only operators for which this orthogonalization scheme does not produce an optimal representation are operators that have a form analogous to an aklt @xcite state where the local basis states of the @xmath83 chain are replaced by local operators .
the resulting operator contains an exponentially large number of @xmath84-body interactions for all @xmath85 .
we know of no physical hamiltonians of this form .    given a hamiltonian as a sum of finite - range interactions , it is possible to construct the operator @xmath73-matrices such that they are entirely lower ( or upper ) triangular matrices , thus in principle we can ` normalize ' the matrices via some kind of generalized @xmath86 or @xmath87 decomposition . in practice we do nt need to do this , as the hamiltonian can easily be constructed in lower - triangular form from the beginning .
imposing , again without loss of generality , that the top - left and bottom - right components of the operator @xmath73-matrices are equal to the identity operator @xmath88 , we can construct the sum of @xmath89-site local terms @xmath90 as a position - independent mps , @xmath91 which we regard as a @xmath92 matrix , the elements of which are @xmath93 dimensional local operators .
for nearest - neighbor terms , @xmath94 , we have @xmath95 with the obvious generalization to @xmath84-body terms .
the direct sum and direct product of lower triangular matrices is itself lower triangular , thus this form can be preserved throughout all operations .
for open boundary conditions , the left ( right ) boundary @xmath96 ( or @xmath97 ) matrices are initialized to @xmath98 and @xmath99 respectively .    the principal advantage of formulating the hamiltonian operator ( and indeed , _ all _ operators needed in the calculation ) in this way that it can be manipulated extremely easily , amounting to a symbolic computation on the operators .
this is in contrast to the ad hoc approach used in past dmrg and mps approaches where the block transformations required for each operator are encoded manually , with limited scope for arithmetic operations . in particular , the sum of operators is achieved via eq .
( [ eq : mpssum ] ) .
products of operators are achieved by matrix direct product ; given mpo s @xmath14 and @xmath42 , the product @xmath100 is given by the matrices @xmath101 an implication of this is that the square of an mpo has a matrix dimension of at most @xmath102 , which , since @xmath73 is usually rather small , means that it is quite practical to calculate expectation values for higher - order moments , for example of the _ variance _ @xmath103 which has been mentioned previously @xcite as it gives a rigorous _ lower bound _ on the energy ( although with no guarantee that this corresponds to the ground - state ) . in practice
this lower bound is too wide to be useful in all but the simplest cases , but of more interest is the property that the variance is , to first order , proportional to the squared norm of the difference between the exact and numerical wavefunctions , and therefore also proportional to the truncation error @xcite ( see sec .  [ sec : dmrg ] ) .
thus , this quantity gives a quantitative estimate of the goodness of the wavefunction even for situations where the truncation error is not available . for our numerical mps algorithms
the variance takes the role of the precision @xmath104 in numerical analysis @xcite via @xmath105 .    of a similar form to the product of two operators ,
the action of an operator @xmath73 on a wavefunction @xmath106 gives a wavefunction @xmath107 with matrix elements , @xmath108 the mpo formulation also gives a natural form for the evaluation of expectation values , similarly to the fidelity of eq .
( [ eq : overlap ] ) , @xmath109 where the @xmath43- and @xmath44-matrices now have an additional index @xmath110 that represents the terms in the mpo @xmath73 , with a recursive definition @xmath111 where again we can either iterate all the way to a boundary , at which point the @xmath110 index collapses down to one - dimensional and the @xmath112 or @xmath113 are @xmath33 dimensional matrices containing the expectation value , or we can iterate from both boundaries and meet at the middle , where our expectation value is given by the scalar product eq .
( [ eq : expectation ] ) .
incidentally , given that the identity operators occur in a fixed location in the operator @xmath73-matrix ( ie .
at the top - left and bottom - right of the @xmath73-matrix ) this fixes the index @xmath110 of the reduced hamiltonian and identity operators for the left and right partitions of the system .
that is , in the application of the hamiltonian @xmath114 matrices to the wavefunction we are guaranteed that the @xmath115 component of @xmath116 corresponds precisely to @xmath117 , and the @xmath118 component corresponds to @xmath119 .
thus , even after an arbitrary series of mpo computations we can still identify exactly which component of the @xmath120 matrices corresponds to the block hamiltonian .
this is useful for eigensolver preconditioning schemes @xcite , for example to change to a basis where the block hamiltonian is diagonal .    .
the @xmath121 symbols denote the impurity magnetization calculated via adaptive time dmrg , the dashed line is a guide to the eye .
parameters of the calculation were ( in units of bandwidth ) , @xmath122 , on a log - discretized wilson chain with @xmath123 . at time @xmath124 , the hamiltonian was switched to @xmath125 and @xmath126 . , scaledwidth=80.0% ]    as an example of the utility of this approach , fig . [
fig : timeexample ] shows the time evolution of the magnetization of the impurity spin in the single impurity anderson model ( siam ) , where the ground - state is obtained with a small magnetic field which is then turned off at time @xmath124 .
the mps operator approach readily allows the evaluation of the commutators required for a small @xmath127 expansion of the expectation value of an observable in the heisenberg picture , @xmath128 - \frac{t^2}{2!\hbar^2}[h,[h , a ] ] - \frac{it^3}{3!\hbar^3}[h,[h,[h , a ] ] ] + \cdots \ ; .\ ] ] since the number of terms in the repeated commutator will , in general , increase exponentially the accessible time - scales from such an expansion are clearly limited .
nevertheless this is a very fast and accurate way to obtain short - time - scale dynamics , and in this example @xmath129 order is easily enough to determine the @xmath130 relaxation rate . for this calculation
, the terms up to @xmath131 took a few seconds to calculate , while the @xmath132 term took 6 minutes and the @xmath133 term took just over an hour , on a single processor 2ghz athlon64 .
this time was divided between calculating the mpo matrix elements ( the dimension of which was just over 2500 at the impurity site ) , and calculating the expectation value itself .
we now have all of the ingredients necessary to construct the dmrg algorithm for determining the ground - state .
indeed , given the previous formulations , the dmrg itself is rather simple ; using the center matrix formulation , we iteratively improve the wavefunction locally by using the center matrix @xmath46 as input to an eigensolver for the ground - state of the hamiltonian .
the details of this calculation are precisely as for dmrg , already covered elsewhere @xcite .
an important component of dmrg , which has been neglected in some matrix product approaches , is the truncation error .
if only a single site is modified at a time , the maximum number of non - zero singular values is bounded by the matrix dimension @xmath0 , thus the matrix dimension can not be incrementally increased as the calculation progresses .
some way of avoiding this limitation is practically essential for a robust algorithm .
the original dmrg formulation @xcite solved this problem by modifying two a - matrices simultaneously , equivalent to expanding the matrix dimension for both the left and right @xmath14-matrices in eq .
( [ eq : centermatrixmps ] ) so that the center matrix has dimension @xmath134 .
a scheme for single - site algorithms that avoids the limit on the singular values was introduced by steven white @xcite , which uses a mixed density matrix constructed by a weighted sum of the usual reduced density matrix and a perturbed density matrix formed by applying the @xmath112-matrices ( on a right - moving sweep ) or @xmath113-matrices ( on a left - moving sweep ) of the hamiltonian , @xmath135 where @xmath136 is some small factor that fixes the magnitude of the fluctuations .
this solves nicely the problem of the bound on the number of singular values and introduces fluctuations into the density matrix that give the algorithm good convergence properties , often better than the two - site algorithm .
a minor problem is that the scaling of the @xmath112 matrices is not well defined , in that we can scale the @xmath112-matrices by an arbitrary @xmath137 non - singular matrix @xmath138 , while at the same time scaling the @xmath44-matrices by @xmath19 . for one- and two - site terms
, there is an ` obvious ' scaling factor to use , whereby the scaling factors are chosen such that the ( frobenius ) operator norm of the @xmath43 and @xmath44-matrices are identical , but i do nt know how this would apply more generally . an alternative that appears interesting is to apply the full hamiltonian to a density operator for the full system , @xmath139 , constructed from the left ( right ) reduced density matrix and the right ( left ) identity operator , followed by a trace over the right ( left ) partition . in mps form , this operation is @xmath140 where @xmath141 is an @xmath137 coefficient matrix .
however , this scheme often fails ; incorporating the @xmath142 matrix reduces the fluctuations such that @xmath143 differs little from @xmath144 itself and the algorithm typically fails to reach the ground - state .
the single - site algorithm @xcite corresponds to choosing @xmath145 .
a useful compromise appears to be using only the _ diagonal _ elements , such that @xmath146 , but this is surely not the last word on this approach . both the two - site and mixed single - site algorithm inevitably result in a reduction in the norm of the wavefunction by truncating the smallest non - zero eigenvalues of the density matrix .
the sum of the discarded eigenvalues , summed over all iterations in one sweep , is equal to the truncation error @xmath147 , familiar from dmrg @xcite ( but note that it is common in the literature to quote an average or maximum truncation error _ per site _ ) .
this quantity is useful in giving an estimate of the error in the wavefunction in this is , for a properly converged wavefunction , proportional to the norm of the difference between the exact ground - state and the numerical approximation .
the presence of the truncation error explains why the bare single - site algorithm , despite having slightly better variational wavefunction than the two - site or mixed single - site algorithms @xcite , converges much slower ; the single site algorithm is a highly constrained optimization within an @xmath0-dimensional basis , whereas the two - site and mixed single - site algorithms are selecting the optimal @xmath0 basis states out of a pool of a much larger set of states , namely the discarded states at each iteration ( total @xmath148 states ) . while the notion of truncation error remains useful in mps algorithms , for the purposes of error analysis we much prefer the variance eq .
( [ eq : variance ] ) as being a direct measure of the accuracy of the wavefunction , independent of the details of a particular algorithm @xcite .
low - lying excited states can be constructed using this algorithm .
this has been done in the past in dmrg by targeting multiple eigenstates in the density matrix , but the mps formulation allows a substantial improvement .
namely , it is easy to incorporate into the eigensolver a constraint that the obtained wavefunction is orthogonal to an arbitrary set of predetermined mps s .
that is , after constructing the mps approximation to the ground - state , we can , as a separate calculation , determine the first excited state by running the algorithm again with the constraint that our obtained wavefunction is orthogonal to the ground - state .
this is achieved by constructing the @xmath43-matrices that project the set of states to orthogonalize against onto the local hilbert space .
these matrices are precisely those used in constructing the fidelity , eq .
( [ eq : overlap ] ) , thus given the center matrix of some state @xmath149 , we project this onto the current hilbert space @xmath150 , and as part of the eigensolver , orthogonalize our center matrix against this state .
this is a very fast operation , much faster than even a single hamiltonian - wavefunction multiplication .
so it is quite practical to orthogonalize against a rather large number of states , the practical limit is rather on numerical limitations in orthogonalizing the krylov subspace in the eigensolver .
if this is combined with an eigensolver capable of converging to eigenvalues in the middle of the spectrum ( say , the lowest eigenvalue larger than some bound @xmath151 ) , then we need only a small number of states to orthogonalize against , say half a dozen states immediately above @xmath151 in energy
. in our numerical tests it seems to be rather common to skip eigenvalues , which is why we can not simply orthogonalize against a single state . with a larger number of states to orthogonalize against , skipping eigenvalues is less of a problem as we are likely to recover the missing eigenstate on a later calculation . using this approach
, quantities such as the level spacing statistics can be determined for system sizes far beyond exact diagonalization @xcite .
an important feature of matrix product states is that they can easily be constrained by quantum numbers representing the global symmetries of the hamiltonian , as long as the symmetry is not broken by the spatial geometry of the mps .
for example , internal rotational symmetries such as @xmath152 and @xmath153 @xcite can be maintained exactly , but for a real - space lattice we can not utilize the momentum in the same way because the representation itself violates this symmetry . to achieve this , we impose a symmetry constraint on the form of the @xmath14-matrices , so that they are _ irreducible tensor operators_. that is , under a symmetry rotation the matrix @xmath154 for each local degree of freedom @xmath155 transforms according to an irreducible representation @xmath156 of the global symmetry group .
this is a very general procedure , that is applicable to essentially all mps approaches and generalizations thereof .      for abelian symmetries ,
the representations are one - dimensional therefore the set of quantum numbers labeling the irreducible representations also forms a group , which we can write as @xmath157 for two representations @xmath158 and @xmath159 , where @xmath160 denotes the group operation . thus to incorporate abelian symmetries into the algorithm we simply attach a quantum number to all of the labels appearing in the mps , with the constraint that each @xmath14-matrix transforms irreducibly , so that the only non - zero matrix elements are @xmath161 where @xmath162 are the quantum numbers attached to the local basis state and left and right matrix basis states respectively .
we have suppressed here indices not associated with a quantum number , a convention which will be followed for the remainder of the paper .    by convention
, for our open boundary condition mps we choose the right hand vacuum state to have quantum number zero .
the symmetry constraint eq .
( [ eq : quantumnumbers ] ) then implies that the quantum number at the left hand vacuum will denote how the state as a whole transforms ( the _ target state _ , in dmrg terminology ) .
this is the only real difference between dmrg and mps algorithms , in that the dmrg convention is to construct both blocks starting from a scalar ( quantum number zero ) vacuum state , so that the superblock wavefunction is a tensor product of two ket states , @xmath163 whereas for the mps formulation the superblock wavefunction is represented by a scalar operator with a tensor product basis @xmath164 with quantum numbers @xmath165 .
this means that , in contrast to the usual formulation of dmrg , the target quantum number is not encoded in the superblock but rather in the left vacuum state .
a consequence of this is that dmrg is capable of representing simultaneously states with different quantum numbers , but an mps is not .
this is an important detail , for example in the calculation of dynamical correlations , as both the correction vector @xcite and the similar ddmrg @xcite algorithm require a basis optimized for both the ground - state @xmath166 and the so - called lanczos - vector @xmath167 , where @xmath14 is some operator that may not be scalar .
however , the mps formulation allows significant optimizations to these algorithms whereby the the calculation of the ground - state is decoupled from that of the lanczos vector @xcite and the two need never appear in the same basis .
if the symmetry group is large enough that some elements do not commute with each other , then it is no longer possible to construct a basis that simultaneously diagonalizes all of the generators hence the approach of the previous section needs some modification .
instead , we label the basis states by quantum numbers that denote the representation , which is no longer simply related to the group elements themselves as the representations are in general no longer ordinary numbers , but instead are matrices of dimension @xmath168 , and eq .  ( [ eq : abeliangrouprep ] ) no longer applies . for @xmath153 ,
we choose to label the representations by the total spin @xmath155 , being related to the eigenvalue of of the spin operator , @xmath169 .
assuming that all of the required operations can be formulated in terms of manipulations of these representations , we have a formulation that is _ manifestly _ @xmath153 invariant ; the rotational invariance is preserved at all steps and at no time in the calculation is it necessary to choose an axis of quantization @xcite .
this supersedes the earlier approach based on the clebsch - gordan coefficients @xcite .
the non - abelian formulation is an important optimization , because it increases the performance of the algorithm by an order of magnitude or more @xcite compared with the abelian case , while enabling more accurate and detailed information about the ground - state magnetization .
the basic ingredient that enables this rotationally invariant construction is the wigner - eckart theorem @xcite , which we can state as : when written in an angular momentum basis , each matrix element of an irreducible tensor operator is a product of two factors , a purely angular momentum dependent factor ( the `` clebsch - gordan coefficient '' ) and a factor that is independent of the projection quantum numbers ( the `` reduced matrix element '' ) .
we formulate the algorithm in such a way that we store and manipulate only the reduced matrix elements , factorizing out completely the clebsch - gordan coefficients .
the efficiency improvement resulting from the non - abelian formulation is that the matrix dimensions @xmath0 and @xmath73 now refer to the number of irreducible representations in the basis , which is typically much smaller than the total degree of the representation . for a scalar state ,
this equivalence is precise : a single representation of degree @xmath84 in the non - abelian approach results in @xmath84 degenerate eigenstates when the symmetry is not used , with a corresponding improvement in efficiency .
we do not give here a full introduction to the theory of quantum angular momentum , rather we present , in the style of a reference , the important formulas required to manipulate mps wavefunctions and operators . for a comprehensive introduction see for example references @xcite .
using the normalization convention of biedenharn @xcite , we define the matrix elements of a tensor operator @xmath170}$ ] transforming as a rank @xmath171 tensor under @xmath153 rotations , as @xmath172}_m \
, | \ , jm \ , \rangle } = { \langle \ , j ' \ , \| \ , { \mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k ] } \ , \| \ , j \ , \rangle } \ ; { \mbox{$c { } ^{j}_{m } { } ^{k}_{m } { } ^{j'}_{m'}$ } } \ ; , \ ] ] where @xmath173 is the clebsch - gordan ( cg ) coefficient , @xmath174 label the representation of @xmath153 , and @xmath175 and @xmath176 label the projections of the total spin onto the @xmath177-axis . using the orthogonality of the clebsch - gordan coefficients , this defines the reduced matrix elements , @xmath178 } \ , \| \
, j \ , \rangle } = \sum_{mm } { \mbox{$c { } ^{j}_{m } { } ^{k}_{m } { } ^{j'}_{m'}$ } } { \langle \ , j'm ' \ , | \ , t^{[k]}_m \ , | \ , jm \ , \rangle } \ ; , \ ] ] where @xmath179 is arbitrary .
note that this normalization is _ not _ the same as that used by varshalovich _ et .
al _ @xcite , whom instead use an additional factor @xmath180 in the reduced matrix elements .
this is a tradeoff ; some formulas simplify slightly with this normalization , but the normalization used here has the advantage that the reduced matrix elements of scalar operators ( with @xmath181 ) coincide with the actual matrix elements as all of the relevant clebsch - gordan coefficients are equal to unity .
given the definition of the reduced matrix elements , we formulate the remaining formulas without further reference to the axis of quantization , except as an intermediate step to relate the reduced matrix elements prior to factorizing out the clebsch - gordan coefficients .
the coupling of two operators is just as for the coupling of ordinary spins ; @xmath182}$ } } \times { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$ } } \right]^{[k ] } \ ; , \ ] ] which denotes the set of operators with components @xmath182}$ } } \times { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$ } } \right]^{[k]}_{\mu } = \sum_{\mu_1 \mu_2 } { \mbox{$c { } ^{k_1}_{\mu_1 } { } ^{k_2}_{\mu_2 } { } ^{k}_{\mu}$ } } { \hbox{${s}^{[k_1]}_{\mu_1}$ } } { \hbox{${t}^{[k_2]}_{\mu_2}$ } } \ ; .\ ] ] applying the wigner - eckart theorem gives , after a few lines of algebra , @xmath183}$ } } \times   { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$ } } \right]^{[k ] } \ , \| \ , j \ , \rangle } \\ = ( -1)^{j+j'+k } \sum_{j '' } \sqrt{(2j''+1)(2k+1 ) }   { \mbox{$\left\ { \begin{array}{ccc } \!{j'}\ ! &                  \!{k_1}\ ! & \!{j''}\ ! \\
\!{k_2}\ ! & \!{j}\ ! &                  \!{k}\ !
\end{array } \right\}$ } } \\ \times { \langle \ , j ' \ , \| \ , { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ s$}}^{[k_1]}$ } } \ , \| \ ,
j '' \ , \rangle } { \langle \ , j '' \ , \| \ , { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$ } } \ , \| \ , j \ , \rangle } \ ; , \end{array } \label{eq : irredproduct}\ ] ] where @xmath184 denotes the @xmath185 coefficient @xcite .    a special case of the coupling law eq .  ( [ eq : irredproduct ] ) that we will need is when the operators act on different spaces , such that they have a tensor product form @xmath186}_{\mu_1}$ } } & = &   { \hbox{${t}^{[k_1]}_{\mu_1}$}}(1 ) \otimes i(2 )
\ ; , \\ { \hbox{${t}^{[k_2]}_{\mu_2}$ } } & = &   i(1 ) \otimes { \hbox{${t}^{[k_2]}_{\mu_2}$}}(2 ) \ ; .
\end{array}\ ] ] here @xmath187 denotes the identity operator and @xmath188}$}}(i)$ ] is an irreducible tensor operator with respect to the angular momentum @xmath189 of part @xmath6 of a two - part physical system ( @xmath190 ) .
the total angular momentum of the system is @xmath191 . in this case
, we write the coupling as @xmath192}$ } } \mathbf{\times } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$ } } { \big]}$}^{[k]}}$ ] @xmath193 @xmath194}$}}(1 ) \mathbf{\otimes } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$}}(2 ) { \big]}$}^{[k]}}$ ] . repeated application of the wigner - eckart theorem to these tensor operators
gives , after some algebra , @xmath195}$}}(1 ) \mathbf{\otimes } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$}}(2 ) { \big]}$}^{[k ] } } \ , \| \
, j \ , ( j_1j_2\alpha_1\alpha_2 ) \
, \rangle } \vspace{0.25 cm } \\
= { \mbox{$\left [ \begin{array}{ccc } \!{j_1}\ ! &                                  \!{j_2}\ ! & \!{j}\ ! \\
\!{k_1}\ ! & \!{k_2}\ ! &                                  \!{k}\ ! \\
\!{j'_1}\ ! & \!{j'_2}\ ! & \!{j'}\ !
\end{array } \right]$ } }          { \langle \ , j'_1 \ , ( \alpha'_1 ) \ , \| \ , { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_1]}$}}(1 ) \ , \| \ , j_1 \ , ( \alpha_1 ) \ ,
\rangle }          { \langle \ , j'_2 \ , ( \alpha'_2 ) \ , \| \ , { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k_2]}$}}(2 ) \ , \| \ , j_2 \ , ( \alpha_2 ) \ , \rangle } \ ; , \end{array } \label{eq : tensorproductcoupling}\ ] ] where @xmath196 $ } } \equiv           [ ( 2j'_1 + 1)(2j'_2 + 1)(2j+1)(2k+1)]^{\frac{1}{2 } }           { \mbox{$\left\ { \begin{array}{ccc } \!{j_1}\ ! &                                  \!{j_2}\ ! & \!{j}\ ! \\
\!{k_1}\ ! & \!{k_2}\ ! &                                  \!{k}\ ! \\
\!{j'_1}\ ! & \!{j'_2}\ ! & \!{j'}\ !
\end{array } \right\}$ } } \ ; , \ ] ] and the term in curly brackets is the wigner @xmath197 coefficient , which can be defined as a summation over @xmath185 coefficients @xcite , @xmath198    we can define an operator norm , corresponding to the usual frobenius norm , such that @xmath199}$}}||^2_{\mbox{\tiny frob } } = \tr { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ x$}}^{[k]}$ } } \cdot   { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ x$}}^{\dagger[k]}$ } } =   \tr { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ x$}}^{\dagger[k]}$ } } \cdot { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ x$}}^{[k]}$ } } \ ; .\ ] ] after some arithmetic , we see that @xmath199}$}}||^2_{\mbox{\tiny frob } } = \sum_{j'j } ( 2j'+1 ) |{\langle \ , j ' \ , \| \ , { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ t$}}^{[k]}$ } } \ , \| \ , j \ , \rangle}|^2\ ] ] for the center - matrix formalism , we need the transformation @xmath200}$}}_{ij } \rightarrow \sum_k \ ; c_{ik } \ ; { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ a'$}}^{[s]}$}}_{kj}\ ] ] where @xmath171 is a @xmath201 dimensional index that encapsulates both a @xmath202 and a @xmath203 index runs over the clebsch - gordan expansion of @xmath204 . ] : @xmath205 . requiring @xmath206}$}}_{kj}$ ] to satisfy the right orthogonality constraint ,
@xmath207 , this requires @xmath208}$}}_{kj } = \delta_{j'j}\delta_{s 's } \quad \left[\mbox{with }   k \simeq ( s',j')\right]\ ] ] with @xmath209}$}}_{ij'}\ ] ] in the other direction , we need @xmath200}$}}_{ij } \rightarrow \sum_k \ ; { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ a'$}}^{[s]}$}}_{ik } \ ; c_{kj}\ ] ] where @xmath210 .
requiring @xmath206}$}}_{ik}$ ] to satisfy the left orthogonality constraint , @xmath211 , this requires @xmath208}$}}_{ik } = \delta_{s 's } \delta_{i'i } \sqrt{\frac{2k+1}{2i+1 } }   \quad \left[\mbox{with } k \simeq ( s',i')\right]\ ] ] and @xmath212}$}}_{j'j } \sqrt{\frac{2i+1}{2k+1}}\ ] ]    the most natural definition for a matrix product operator has two lower indices and three upper , @xmath213}_{s'i ' } { } ^{si}\ ] ] which transforms as the product of two operators of rank @xmath214 $ ] , with matrix elements @xmath215}_{r}$ } } \ , | \ , sq ; jm \ , \rangle } = { \langle \ , s';j ' \ , \| \ , { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ m$}}^{[k]}$ } } \ , \| \ , s;j \ , \rangle } \ ; { \mbox{$c { } ^{s}_{q } { } ^{k}_{r } { } ^{s'}_{q'}$ } } \ ; { \mbox{$c { } ^{j}_{m } { } ^{k}_{r } { } ^{j'}_{m'}$ } } \ ; .\ ] ] note that the product of an operator and a state requires a contraction of the index @xmath155 , which has the symmetry of over two _ lower _
indices , and then shifting the result index @xmath202 from upper to lower . for @xmath153 ,
the required phase factor is @xmath216 , giving the rule @xmath217}$ } } = { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ ( ma)$}}^{[s']}$ } }   = \sum_s ( -1)^{s+k - s ' } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ m$}}^{[k]}$}}^{s 's } \otimes { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ a$}}^{[s]}$ } } \ ; . \label{eq : operatorstateproduct}\ ] ]    the action of a matrix - product operator on another matrix product operator is @xmath218}$ } } = { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ m$}}^{[m]}$ } } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ n$}}^{[n]}$ } } \ ; , \ ] ] which corresponds to the ordinary ( contraction ) product in the local basis and the tensor product in the matrix basis , and therefore results in the product of a @xmath185 and a @xmath197 coefficient from equations eq .
( [ eq : irredproduct ] ) and eq .
( [ eq : tensorproductcoupling ] ) respectively .    for the evaluation of matrix elements ,
we need the operation @xmath219 on expanding out the reduced matrix elements , we see immediately that the coupling coefficient is @xmath220}$}}_{i'j ' } = \sum_{a , i , j , k , s , s ' } { \mbox{$\left [ \begin{array}{ccc } \!{j}\ ! &                                  \!{s}\ ! & \!{j'}\ ! \\
\!{a}\ ! & \!{k}\ ! &                                  \!{a'}\ ! \\
\!{i}\ ! & \!{s'}\ ! & \!{i'}\ !
\end{array } \right]$ } } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ m$}}^{[k]}$}}^{s's}_{a'a } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ a$}}^{[s']}$}}^*_{i'i } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ b$}}^{[s]}$}}_{j'j }   { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ f$}}^{[a]}$}}_{ij}\ ] ] conversely , from the left hand side , @xmath221 is @xmath222}$}}_{ij } = \sum_{a',i',j',k , s',s } \frac{2i'+1}{2i+1 } { \mbox{$\left [ \begin{array}{ccc } \!{j}\ ! &                                  \!{s}\ ! & \!{j'}\ ! \\
\!{a}\ ! & \!{k}\ ! &                                  \!{a'}\ ! \\
\!{i}\ ! & \!{s'}\ ! & \!{i'}\ !
\end{array } \right]$ } } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ e$}}^{[a']}$}}_{i'j ' } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ m$}}^{[k]}$}}^{s's}_{a'a } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath
$ a$}}^{[s']}$}}^*_{i'i } { \hbox{${\mbox{\boldmath $ b$}}^{[s]}$}}_{j'j}\ ] ]    on interchanging @xmath223 , @xmath224 , this becomes the equation for a direct operator - matrix - product multiply .
but using the center - matrix formalism , we want instead the operation @xmath225 where @xmath46 and @xmath226 transform as scalars , the quantum numbers impose @xmath227 , @xmath228 .
this is essentially a scalar product @xmath229 , and the coupling coefficients drop out .
in this paper , we have presented an introduction to the mps formulation of the dmrg algorithm for the calculation of ground- and excited states of one - dimensional lattice hamiltonians .
the mps formulation is extremely flexible , allowing the possibility for algorithms that act on several distinct wavefunctions at once .
the simplest such algorithms are for the fidelity and expectation values involving unrelated wavefunctions , @xmath230 and @xmath231 , which are difficult to extract from conventional dmrg .
this gives access to new tools for the analysis of quantum phase transitions , by measuring the scaling function and exponents for the fidelity between ground - states as a function of the interaction strength .
in addition , the mps formulation allow optimized versions of algorithms for dynamical correlations @xcite and time evolution @xcite , which remains a fertile area for continued algorithmic improvements .
finally , we note that in the simulation of finite temperature states via a density operator or purification @xcite in the absence of dissipative terms that mix the particle numbers between the real and auxiliary systems , the symmetries of the system are _ doubled _ , such that the symmetries of the hamiltonian are preserved by the real and auxiliary parts independently . for simulations in a canonical ensemble , this leads to a significant efficiency improvement that , as far as we know , has not yet been taken into consideration .
thanks to ulrich schollwck and thomas barthel for many stimulating conversations .
while preparing this manuscript , we learned that a rotationally invariant formulation using the clebsch - gordan coefficients @xcite has been applied to the tebd algorithm for infinite systems @xcite .