SciPost Submission Page
Quantum fidelity susceptibility in excited state quantum phase transitions: application to the bending spectra of nonrigid molecules
by J. Khalouf-Rivera, M. Carvajal, F. Pérez-Bernal
This is not the current version.
|As Contributors:||Miguel Carvajal · Jamil Khalouf-Rivera · Francisco Perez-Bernal|
|Arxiv Link:||https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12335v2 (pdf)|
|Date submitted:||2021-03-08 09:16|
|Submitted by:||Perez-Bernal, Francisco|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics|
We characterize excited state quantum phase transitions in the two dimensional limit of the vibron model with the quantum fidelity susceptibility, comparing the obtained results with the information provided by the participation ratio. As an application, we perform fits using a four-body algebraic Hamiltonian to bending vibrational data for several molecular species and, using the optimized eigenvalues and eigenstates, we locate the eigenstate closest to the barrier to linearity and determine the linear or bent character of the different overtones.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 2 on 2021-7-6 (Invited Report)
1. The paper is well written and ordered.
2. The idea of using the quantum fidelity susceptibility (QFS) and comparing it to the use of the participation ratio to characterize the excited state phase transitions is a good one.
1. A large fraction of this paper has been published before, by the same authors! See their article in the Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer [261 (2021) 107436].
2. The lengthy discussion of the 2D vibron model is nearly identical in the two papers.
3. The general Hamiltonian given in Eq. 13 has been discussed in the JQSRT article, and the *same* fit results (Table 1) were presented there. There is no need to reproduce them here.
n. The addition of QFS to the author's narrative does not warrant an article with the size and scope of this manuscript.
This has been a very difficult paper to review because it is too similar to the author's previous article in JQRST. I spent a lot of time trying to find the differences between the article. Those differences, related to the use of quantum fidelity susceptibility to locate the control parameters corresponding to excited state phase transitions, contain the nucleus of an interesting paper, but only if they are presented differently, without excessive repetition of previously published work.
I can only make one requested change: focus your paper far more sharply than you have done! Avoid republishing your previous discussions and results and instead focus on the only relevant idea for this manuscript: the quantum fidelity susceptibility. I think that the entire manuscript has to be rewritten, referring to previously published work instead of reproducing it. This will clarify the value of using the QFS instead of burying it in discussion and analysis given elsewhere.
Anonymous Report 1 on 2021-5-17 (Invited Report)
The work “Quantum fidelity susceptibility in excited state quantum phase transitions: application to the bending spectra of nonrigid molecules” by Khalouf-Rivera, Carvajal and P erez-Bernal represents an extension of the analysis performed by the same authors in Ref.. The purpose of these works is to identify (ES)QPTs and quantum phases in the spectrum of the two-dimensional vibron model with a general Hamiltonian containing terms up to the four-body interactions. As shown in the previous work, the model in this form provides a satisfactory description of experimental data on numerous molecules, so it is certainly worth of attention.
In the previous work, the main tool to distinguish quantum phases was the participation ratio, which measures the localization of eigenstates in a selected basis. However, this quantity fails to perform the desired task of an ESQPT indicator in generic systems in which ESQPTs do not show localization effects in the initial eigenbasis. Here the authors employ the so-called fidelity susceptibility (FS) of the eigenstates. This is just the lowest-order (quadratic) term of the fidelity expansion in powers of the local parameter change. Since the FS quantifies how rapid is the local change of the selected eigenstate with the control parameter, it can serve as an indicator of structural changes and ESQPTs in the spectrum.
The work is well written and presents interesting new results. The authors show the behavior of the FS not only in the l=0 eigenstates, that undergo (in the infinite size limit) the ESQPT, but also in the l>0 ones, which have no ESQPT and show only fading signatures of the structural change. The method based on the FS is proven to be a useful heuristic tool for fast localization of rapid structural changes of eigenstates in the model parameter space, including excited-state critical effects. Applications of this type may follow also in other models, whose complexity hinders the full semiclassical analysis needed for the identification of ESQPTs.
I recommend the present work for publication in the SciPost Physics. Below I give a few minor comments which may help to improve the clarity of the paper.
Here are some reccommendations for the authors:
1) I believe that the authors should mention that the FS is supposed to be large not only in crossing the QPT and ESQPT critical points, but also near any sufficiently sharp avoided crossing of levels. This directly follows from Eq.(8). So particularly in chaotic systems the present approach may face a trouble.
2) Concerning the origin of the concept of quantum monodromy, it would be convenient to cite besides the Child’s work also Cushman and Duistermaat, Bulletin of Am. Math. Soc. 19, 1988.
3) On page 3 the authors say that “For a system with n effective degrees of freedom, the order of the derivative of the level density that is non-analytic is n–1.” However, this is true only in some cases (though the most common ones), particularly for ESQPTs caused by nondegenerate stationary points. A short comment on the other cases would be helpful.
4) Equation (7) deserves more motivation. It would be worth to say that the first derivative of the fidelity vanishes, so that the FS is the leading-order term in the fidelity expansion.
5) The introduction of two control parameters, namely xi and lambda, is somewhat confusing, especially in Eq.(12), where both parameters play essentially the same role. Maybe a few motivating words would be in order here.