SciPost Submission Page
Critical properties of quantum three and fourstate Potts models with boundaries polarized along the transverse field
by Natalia Chepiga
Submission summary
As Contributors:  Natalia Chepiga 
Preprint link:  scipost_202109_00009v1 
Date submitted:  20210906 16:59 
Submitted by:  Chepiga, Natalia 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approaches:  Theoretical, Computational 
Abstract
By computing the lowlying energy excitation spectra with the density matrix renormalization group algorithm we confirm the boundary conformal field theory predictions for the threestate Potts minimal model in 1+1D with boundaries polarized in the direction of the transverse field. We further show that the transversepolarized boundary conditions lead to scaleinvariant conformal towers of states at the critical point of the quantum fourstate Potts model  a special symmetric case of the AshkinTeller model. Finally, we phenomeno logically establish the duality between fixed and free, and between transversepolarized and threestatemixed boundary conditions at the fourstate Potts critical point.
Current status:
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 20211021 (Invited Report)
Strengths
1 Extended numerical calculation for non diagonal boundary condition quantum chain
Weaknesses
1 It is seems the author ignore many results in the literature. Due to that he ignores exact results, and report some results (not precise)
Report
The author provide a numerical investigation of the conformal dimensions
happening in some special boundary conditions of the the 3 and 4state Potts
model. He uses an extension of the Density Matrix Rennormalization Group,
proposed previously by the author previously.
The main result of the paper is the verification that the predicted operator
content predicted by Afleck, Oshikawa and Saleur, in 1998 (the reference
(21) of the paper) is correct.
I have some objections for this paper.
a) Several studies of the operator content of the Potts models were done
in the last 2025 years, that the author do not compare. Many of the
results were obtained by exploring the fact that the model is a
representation of the TemperleyLieb algebra ( see for example the papers
of alcaraz, Batchelor,Rittenberg, on the above period).
b) Due to the point (a) several results were derived exploring the equivalence
of energy levels of the the XXZ quantum chain and the Potts (or the
Ashkinteller). Since the XXZ can be solved by the Bethe ansatz (for some
boundaries), the lowlying levels can be estimated for lattices quantum
chains of quite large chains, or even analytically.
c) Due to the point b) for example, (see eq. 5.11 of Ann.Phys. 182 (1988)
the exact result for the sound velocity
of the 3state model is \sqrt{3}/2 = 0.866035..., that is different from
the result assumed in the paper (0.857), actually the same problem already
appear in a previous publication of the author (ref.15). In the 4state
Potts model the author should also know that the exact value is \pi/4=0.78539816
....
d) The point c) wonders me since using only lattices up to size 14, the
authors of J.Phys.A 19,107 (1985), obtain for the sound velocity of the
3state Potts model a value .8580.867 (not lattice 100 like the present
paper), this is an indication that the extrapolations may not be considered prop
erly in the present paper.
e) The author also present some considerations about a model (eq. 10) that
he claims to be the AshkinTeller model. The quantum AshkinTeller has a long
story, and the operator content on several boundaries are already known. The
author would help if write the AshkinTeller (also the Potts modes) in terms
of the standard Z(N) operator, satisfying the Z(N) exchange algebra, and
also in terms of two coupled Ising chains. In this formulation will
be more clear what are the mixed boundary conditions.
In summary, my overall vision of the present paper is that the author did
a lot of numerical work in a problem that is already known a lot of results,
without going in the details of the literature, and re deriving proximate
results whose numerically exact results are known.
Due to the above facts I believe this paper will bring confusion in the
literature and I recommend its rejection.