You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The optimize_mps returns the macro_iteration_result and res_mps. If we evaluate the energy by res_mps.expectation(mpo), the energy is not necessarily equal to min(macro_iteration_result). It is not even necessarily contained in macro_iteration_result. For instance, if the minimal energy is not obtained in the last sweep, but in the middle sweeps (energy does not decrease monotonically with the number of sweeps), then we obtainmin(macro_iteration_result)$\neq$res_mps.expectation(mpo)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
for instance, M=10 for H-4 (sto-3g basis, r0=1.6),
Try to evaluate <MPS|H|MPS>, and it does not equivalent to any value appear in the Figure. I am looking into the code to check the bugs
ummm, I think the lowest energy happens in the middle because of using the percent in the first several sweeps, so I was wondering if should modify the convergence condition by excluding the results of the first several sweeps. Although this can be seen in very small systems such as I mentioned above.
The$\neq$
optimize_mps
returns themacro_iteration_result
andres_mps
. If we evaluate the energy byres_mps.expectation(mpo)
, the energy is not necessarily equal tomin(macro_iteration_result)
. It is not even necessarily contained inmacro_iteration_result
. For instance, if the minimal energy is not obtained in the last sweep, but in the middle sweeps (energy does not decrease monotonically with the number of sweeps), then we obtainmin(macro_iteration_result)
res_mps.expectation(mpo)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: