Skip to content

Physics Notes

Implementation paths and commands in this guide are relative to src/pairing/ from the repository root.

This solver implements finite-temperature grand-canonical DQMC for a two-flavor Bose-Hubbard model with onsite pairing on a triangular lattice. The active triangular implementation has one orbital per cell, so \(N_s=L_xL_y\).

Hamiltonian

The paper's main-text model has the physical Hamiltonian

\[ \begin{aligned} \hat H={}&t\sum_{\langle ij\rangle} \left(\hat b_i^+\hat b_j+\hat b_j^+\hat b_i +\hat c_i^+\hat c_j+\hat c_j^+\hat c_i\right)\\ &-\sum_i\left(\Delta\,\hat b_i^+\hat c_i^+ +\Delta^*\,\hat b_i\hat c_i\right) +U\sum_i(\hat n_{b,i}-\hat n_{c,i})^2, \end{aligned} \]

where \(\hat n_{b,i}=\hat b_i^+\hat b_i\), \(\hat n_{c,i}=\hat c_i^+\hat c_i\), \(t>0\), and \(U\ge0\). The trace is grand canonical:

\[ Z=\mathrm{Tr}e^{-\beta\hat H_\mu},\qquad \hat H_\mu=\hat H-\mu(\hat N_b+\hat N_c),\qquad \hat N_b=\sum_i\hat n_{b,i},\quad \hat N_c=\sum_i\hat n_{c,i}. \]

The code retains two density-interaction channels,

\[ \hat H_U=\sum_i\left[ U_1(\hat n_{b,i}+\hat n_{c,i})^2 +U_2(\hat n_{b,i}-\hat n_{c,i})^2\right]. \]

The main-text benchmark sets \(U_1=0\) and \(U_2=U\). The paired scan has \(U=1\), \(\mu=-5\), \(\beta=4\), and \(\Delta=0,0.05,\ldots,0.30\); its four observables form panels (e–h) of the combined benchmark figure. The code reads \(U_1\), \(U_2\), \(\mu\), and a real \(\Delta\) from paramC_sets.txt; \(t\) is RT=1 in src/calc_basic.f90. Both BAFQMC and ED use these same input coefficients. The interaction is equivalently

\[ (U_1+U_2)(\hat n_{b,i}^2+\hat n_{c,i}^2) +2(U_1-U_2)\hat n_{b,i}\hat n_{c,i} \]

on each site, as used in the ED construction and energy estimator.

Manuscript notation and pair phase

For the real pairing coefficient used in the calculations, the implementation uses the flavor phase convention

\[ \hat b_{i,\rm code}=\hat b_{i,\rm paper},\qquad \hat c_{i,\rm code}=-\hat c_{i,\rm paper}. \]

In these code operators, the same physical pair term is

\[ \hat H_{\Delta,\rm code} =+\Delta\sum_i\left( \hat b_{i,\rm code}^+\hat c_{i,\rm code}^+ +\hat b_{i,\rm code}\hat c_{i,\rm code}\right). \]

All implementation derivations below use the code operators. Their hats and code subscripts are omitted for readability, including in the Nambu basis, Green-function block table, HS scalar factor, and ED identities. The positive pair coefficient in those formulas is the code representation of the paper's negative pair term.

Hopping and density interactions are unchanged by this phase rotation. The four plotted observables \(\rho\), \(-E\), \(S_{\rm SF}(K)\), and \(S_{\rm DW}(K)\) therefore use the stored values directly. The anomalous amplitude changes sign:

\[ P_{\rm paper}=\frac1{N_s}\sum_i \left\langle\hat b_i\hat c_i+\hat b_i^+\hat c_i^+\right\rangle_{\rm paper} =-\texttt{pair\_equal},\qquad e_\Delta=-\Delta P_{\rm paper}=\Delta\,\texttt{pair\_equal}. \]

The total pair energy is \(E_\Delta=N_s e_\Delta\). The physical energy excludes \(-\mu(\hat N_b+\hat N_c)\) throughout both implementations.

For this \(U_1=0\) model, the condition \(\mu<-3t-|\Delta|\) guarantees a finite trace for every real auxiliary-field configuration, as proved in the SM subsection "Convergence throughout the auxiliary-field domain". All seven paired benchmark points satisfy it. Only the relative-density HS field is coupled to the bosons, so the total-density normal-ordering factor is inactive.

Triangular Lattice Vectors And Bonds

The Hamiltonian's triangular lattice is defined by integer cell topology. The spatial cell index is \((x,y)\), with periodic boundaries, and each site stores three forward bonds:

\[ (x,y)\rightarrow(x+1,y),\qquad (x,y)\rightarrow(x,y+1),\qquad (x,y)\rightarrow(x-1,y+1). \]

This is a standard triangular nearest-neighbor graph. The pairing and number-conserving solvers use the same real-space and reciprocal-space convention:

\[ \mathbf a_1=(1,0),\qquad \mathbf a_2=\left(\frac12,\frac{\sqrt3}{2}\right), \]
\[ \mathbf b_1=2\pi\left(1,-\frac{1}{\sqrt3}\right),\qquad \mathbf b_2=2\pi\left(0,\frac{2}{\sqrt3}\right), \qquad \mathbf b_i\cdot\mathbf a_j=2\pi\delta_{ij}. \]

The three forward displacements are \(\mathbf a_1\), \(\mathbf a_2\), and \(-\mathbf a_1+\mathbf a_2\), all with length \(1\). The kinetic estimator uses the integer bond table and adds both directions explicitly. In src/lattice.f90, the zero-based displacement labels are used to populate

\[ \texttt{aimj\_v}(x,y)=(x-1)\mathbf a_1+(y-1)\mathbf a_2, \]
\[ \texttt{xk\_v}(m,n)= \frac{m}{L_x}\mathbf b_1+ \frac{n}{L_y}\mathbf b_2, \]

with zero-based momentum indices \(m=x-1,n=y-1\), and k_dot_r is the ordinary dot product. For \(3\times3\), the code-facing \(K\) index Latt%inv_cell_list(2*Nlx/3+1, Nly/3+1) represents

\[ K=\frac{2}{3}\mathbf b_1+\frac{1}{3}\mathbf b_2 =\left(\frac{4\pi}{3},0\right), \]

which is one of the triangular-lattice single-particle band minima for the current hopping sign convention.

Continuous Hubbard-Stratonovich Fields

The Trotter step uses two continuous Gaussian fields \(\phi_{1,i,\tau}\) and \(\phi_{2,i,\tau}\). For the intended signs \(U_1\le0\) and \(U_2\ge0\),

\[ e^{-\Delta\tau U_1(n_b+n_c)^2} \propto \int d\phi_1\, e^{-\phi_1^2/2} e^{\alpha_1\phi_1(n_b+n_c)}, \qquad \alpha_1=\sqrt{-2U_1\Delta\tau}, \]
\[ e^{-\Delta\tau U_2(n_b-n_c)^2} \propto \int d\phi_2\, e^{-\phi_2^2/2} e^{i\alpha_2\phi_2(n_b-n_c)}, \qquad \alpha_2=\sqrt{2U_2\Delta\tau}. \]

The auxiliary fields live on spatial sites, not Nambu sectors: Conf%phi_list(ns, i_site, ntau), where ns=1 is the \(U_1\) channel and ns=2 is the \(U_2\) channel. The paper defines \(\alpha_2\) as real; OperatorHubbard%alpha stores the complex coefficient \(i\alpha_2\) for this channel. At zero coupling the corresponding coefficient vanishes.

Nambu Basis Convention

The active pairing implementation uses the four-component bosonic Nambu basis

\[ \chi= \begin{pmatrix} b\\ c\\ b^+\\ c^+ \end{pmatrix}, \qquad H=-\frac12\chi^T\Omega A\chi+\mathrm{const.}, \]

with

\[ \Omega= \begin{pmatrix} 0&0&I&0\\ 0&0&0&I\\ -I&0&0&0\\ 0&-I&0&0 \end{pmatrix}. \]

For the one-body triangular hopping, chemical potential, and onsite pairing piece, the commutator matrix has the block form

\[ A= \begin{pmatrix} T&0&0&\Delta I\\ 0&T&\Delta I&0\\ 0&-\Delta I&-T&0\\ -\Delta I&0&0&-T \end{pmatrix}. \]

Here \(T\) is the normal one-body matrix, including the hopping and chemical potential terms in the code convention. This is the matrix convention used by src/non_interact.f90 and by the HS update matrices. It is not the reduced two-component convention

\[ H=\frac12\tilde\chi^+ \tilde A\tilde\chi,\qquad \tilde\chi=(b,c^+)^T. \]

That reduced convention may be a future optimization, but it is not the current implementation. Do not switch formulas between the two conventions without rederiving the determinant weight, Green matrix, and observable block table.

Although the physical Hamiltonian is Hermitian, the commutator matrix \(A\) in this bosonic Nambu representation is generally non-Hermitian when \(\Delta\neq 0\). The one-body propagator must therefore be built as a general matrix exponential of \(A\), not by a Hermitian diagonalization of \(A\). For a single normal mode with normal coefficient \(h\), the paired Nambu block has eigenvalues

\[ \sqrt{h^2-\Delta^2},\qquad -\sqrt{h^2-\Delta^2}, \]

in the stable regime. A Hermitian diagonalization would instead produce the wrong \(\sqrt{h^2+\Delta^2}\) scale and gives a visibly biased finite-\(\Delta\) benchmark even in the noninteracting limit. src/non_interact.f90 therefore uses LAPACK zgeev to diagonalize the general complex matrix before forming \(\exp(\mp\Delta\tau A)\).

HS Constant In The Nambu Convention

Let \(\lambda_1\) and \(\lambda_2\) denote the actual complex coefficients that multiply the normal-ordered density channels on one space-time site:

\[ \lambda_1=\alpha_1\phi_1,\qquad \lambda_2=i\alpha_2\phi_2,\qquad \alpha_2=\sqrt{2U_2\Delta\tau}. \]

In the Fortran code, OperatorHubbard%alpha stores \(i\alpha_2\), so its product with the real field is \(\lambda_2\). The HS density term satisfies

\[ \lambda_1(b^+ b+c^+ c) +\lambda_2(b^+ b-c^+ c) = -\frac12\chi^T\Omega \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_1+\lambda_2&0&0&0\\ 0&\lambda_1-\lambda_2&0&0\\ 0&0&-(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)&0\\ 0&0&0&-(\lambda_1-\lambda_2) \end{pmatrix} \chi -\lambda_1 . \]

The final \(-\lambda_1\) is the bosonic commutator c-number. It does not appear as a matrix element in the Nambu propagator, but it must appear in the sampling weight. Therefore a local \(U_1\) update contributes

\[ \frac{e^{-\alpha_1\phi_1'}}{e^{-\alpha_1\phi_1}} = \exp[-\alpha_1(\phi_1'-\phi_1)] \]

to ratio_constant. In src/operator_Hubbard.f90 this is implemented as expalpha_old / expalpha_new for IUflag == 1. The \(U_2\) channel has no scalar c-number because its two flavor coefficients sum to zero.

Green Matrix And Local Determinant Factor

For one full imaginary-time product, define

\[ M=I-e^{A_1}e^{A_2}\cdots e^{A_N}, \qquad G=M^{-1}\Omega. \]

The physical Green matrix is \(G\). The quantity propagated and updated in the Fortran code is instead

\[ \tilde G\equiv G\Omega^{-1}=M^{-1}. \]

Despite the historical variable name, Prop%Gr stores \(\tilde G\), not the physical \(G\). The local Metropolis probability is

\[ p(\phi\to\phi')= \min\left[ 1,\left| \texttt{ratio\_constant}\, \texttt{ratio\_gaussian}\, \texttt{ratio\_det} \right|\right], \]

where

\[ \texttt{ratio\_constant} = \frac{e^{-\alpha_1\phi_1'}}{e^{-\alpha_1\phi_1}}, \qquad \texttt{ratio\_gaussian} = \frac{e^{-\phi'^2/2}}{e^{-\phi^2/2}}. \]

The determinant factor is the current Nambu determinant contribution. In src/localU.f90, the local update builds a doubled-sector \(4\times4\) block \(P\) and evaluates

\[ \texttt{ratio\_det}=\det(P)^{-1/2}. \]

The exponent \(-1/2\) is part of the present doubled Nambu convention. Do not change it to \(-1\) or \(-1/4\) without a full rederivation and benchmark update.

Program Green-Function Block Table

The raw Prop%Gr matrix is \(\tilde G\). In the sector order \((b,c,b^+,c^+)\), its blocks represent

\[ \tilde G= \left\langle \begin{pmatrix} bb^+ & bc^+ & -bb & -bc\\ cb^+ & cc^+ & -cb & -cc\\ b^+ b^+ & b^+ c^+ & -b^+ b & -b^+ c\\ c^+ b^+ & c^+ c^+ & -c^+ b & -c^+ c \end{pmatrix} \right\rangle . \]

src/obser_equal.f90 converts these raw blocks into physical contractions by undoing the explicit minus signs in the table. For example, \(G_{b,c}=-\texttt{Prop\%Gr(b,cdag)}\) and \(G_{b^+,b}=-\texttt{Prop\%Gr(bdag,bdag)}\).

Define

\[ n_b(i,j)=G_{b^+,b}(i,j),\qquad n_c(i,j)=G_{c^+,c}(i,j). \]

These are the contractions used directly in physical normal-ordered observables. In particular, cross-flavor products use the two sectors that are present in the explicit Nambu matrix, \(n_b n_c\). They should not be replaced by an ad hoc conjugated product when evaluating doubleOcc.

Observable Estimator Formulas

The scalar equal-time estimators are accumulated per configuration and then averaged over observations, MPI ranks, and bins. The density and number estimators are

\[ N_b=\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,n_b(i,i),\qquad N_c=\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,n_c(i,i), \]
\[ \rho_b=\frac{N_b}{N_s},\qquad \rho_c=\frac{N_c}{N_s},\qquad \rho=\rho_b+\rho_c. \]

The kinetic output is per spatial site and includes the hopping coefficient:

\[ K_{\mathrm{DQMC}} = \frac{t}{N_s}\sum_{i}\sum_{\delta} \mathrm{Re}\left[ n_b(i,j_\delta)+n_b(j_\delta,i) +n_c(i,j_\delta)+n_c(j_\delta,i) \right]. \]

The Wick contractions used by D_bb, D_cc, and D_bc are

\[ D_{bb}(i,j)= n_b(i,i)n_b(j,j) +G_{b^+,b}(i,j)G_{b,b^+}(i,j) +G_{b^+,b^+}(i,j)G_{b,b}(i,j), \]
\[ D_{cc}(i,j)= n_c(i,i)n_c(j,j) +G_{c^+,c}(i,j)G_{c,c^+}(i,j) +G_{c^+,c^+}(i,j)G_{c,c}(i,j), \]
\[ D_{bc}(i,j)= n_b(i,i)n_c(j,j) +G_{b^+,c^+}(i,j)G_{b,c}(i,j) +G_{b^+,c}(i,j)G_{b,c^+}(i,j). \]

The occupancy and pairing outputs are

\[ \texttt{doubleOcc}= \frac{1}{N_s}\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,D_{bc}(i,i), \]
\[ \texttt{squareOcc}= \frac{1}{N_s}\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,[n_b(i,i)^2+n_c(i,i)^2], \]
\[ \texttt{local\_numsquare}= \frac{1}{N_s}\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,[D_{bb}(i,i)+D_{cc}(i,i)], \]
\[ \texttt{numsquare\_up}= \sum_{ij}\mathrm{Re}\,D_{bb}(i,j),\qquad \texttt{numsquare\_do}= \sum_{ij}\mathrm{Re}\,D_{cc}(i,j), \]
\[ \texttt{pair\_equal}= \frac{1}{N_s}\sum_i\mathrm{Re}\, \left[G_{b,c}(i,i)+G_{b^+,c^+}(i,i)\right]. \]

squareOcc preserves the density-product estimator above. In the current model, conservation of \(N_b-N_c\) removes same-flavor anomalous contractions, so its physical meaning is half the per-site normal-ordered same-flavor onsite pair density. local_numsquare includes the full Wick contractions for \(N_s^{-1}\sum_i\langle n_{b,i}^2+n_{c,i}^2\rangle\) and is compared to ED. See the observable reference for the current output inventory and the corresponding distinction for more general paired models.

Delta=0 And Corrected No-Pairing doubleOcc

The no-pairing reference code samples only the b determinant and reconstructs the c sector by complex conjugation. In src/number_conserving/src/obser_equal.f90, the relevant definitions are

\[ \texttt{Grupc}=G_b^T-I,\qquad \texttt{Grdo}=G_b^\ast,\qquad \texttt{Grdoc}=\texttt{Grdo}^T-I. \]

Therefore

\[ \texttt{Grdoc} =(G_b^\ast)^T-I =(G_b^T-I)^\ast =\texttt{Grupc}^\ast, \]

and the corrected no-pairing output named doubleOcc is, configuration by configuration, the physical cross-flavor estimator

\[ \texttt{doubleOcc}_{\mathrm{no\ pairing}} =\frac{1}{N_s}\sum_i\mathrm{Re}\, [\texttt{Grupc}(i,i)\texttt{Grupc}(i,i)^\ast] =\frac{1}{N_s}\sum_i|\texttt{Grupc}(i,i)|^2. \]

This is the same object as the explicit-Nambu doubleOcc at \(\Delta=0\), where the anomalous blocks vanish and the c normal sector is the complex conjugate of the b sector. Therefore Benchmark A compares doubleOcc directly between the two repositories:

\[ \texttt{doubleOcc}_{\mathrm{pairing},\,\Delta=0} =\frac{1}{N_s}\sum_i\mathrm{Re}\,D_{bc}(i,i), \]

against the corrected no-pairing doubleOcc. Older no-pairing output produced with Grdoc = dconjg(transpose(Grdo)) - ZKRON should not be used as a reference, because that bug instead gave \(\texttt{Grdoc}=\texttt{Grupc}\) and turned doubleOcc into \(\mathrm{Re}[\texttt{Grupc}^2]\).

For density correlations, den_upup_sub11, den_dodo_sub11, and den_updo are the \(k=0\) Fourier components of \(D_{bb}\), \(D_{cc}\), and \(D_{bc}\) after the real-space accumulation by separation \(r_i-r_j\).

ED Finite-Temperature Trace

Because \(H_\Delta\) changes total particle number, finite-\(\Delta\) ED uses the grand-canonical Hamiltonian directly rather than fixed-\(N_b,N_c\) blocks. The general ED script builds a no-symmetry boson_basis_general basis over \(2N_s\) boson modes with local cutoff nmax and optional total cutoff ncut.

For the full eigensystem \(H_\mu|\alpha\rangle=E_\alpha|\alpha\rangle\),

\[ Z=\sum_\alpha e^{-\beta E_\alpha},\qquad \langle O\rangle= \frac{1}{Z}\sum_\alpha e^{-\beta E_\alpha} \langle\alpha|O|\alpha\rangle. \]

The implementation shifts energies by \(E_0=\min_\alpha E_\alpha\) for numerical stability and reports

\[ F=E_0-\frac{1}{\beta}\log\sum_\alpha e^{-\beta(E_\alpha-E_0)}. \]

The ED identity tests check

\[ \frac{\partial F}{\partial \Delta} =N_s\,\texttt{pair\_equal}, \qquad \frac{\partial F}{\partial t} =\frac{\texttt{kinetic\_total}}{t} \quad (t\ne0). \]

Both solvers use the same benchmark energy convention. The paper-facing plotted energy is the total physical/internal energy

\[ E=\langle H_{\rm phys}\rangle, \qquad \text{paper panel}=-E . \]

It excludes the chemical-potential term used in the grand-canonical sampling Hamiltonian. The DQMC and ED JSON files store the per-site value

\[ e=\frac{E}{N_s}=\texttt{energy\_density}, \]

so report and plotting scripts must multiply energy_density by \(N_s\) before drawing \(-E\). The chemical-potential contribution and the diagnostic grand-canonical energy density remain per-site diagnostics:

\[ e_\mu=-\mu\rho,\qquad e_{\rm grand}=e+e_\mu=e-\mu\rho. \]

DQMC/ED Normalization Conversions

output file DQMC estimator DQMC normalization ED observable comparison operation Benchmark A Benchmark B
num_up \(\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,n_b(i,i)\) total \(N_b\) mean yes yes
num_do \(\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,n_c(i,i)\) total \(N_c\) mean yes yes
density_up num_up / Nsite per site \(N_b/N_s\) mean yes yes
density_do num_do / Nsite per site \(N_c/N_s\) mean yes yes
density density_up + density_do per site \((N_b+N_c)/N_s\) mean yes yes
density_total alias of density per site density_total mean yes yes
density_site_total \(\rho_i=\mathrm{Re}[G_{b^+ b}(i,i)+G_{c^+ c}(i,i)]\) site vector IPR postprocessing fixed-width row no yes
kinetic hopping expectation including RT per site ED JSON kinetic_total = total \(H_t\) mean_times_nsite yes yes
doubleOcc \(N_s^{-1}\sum_i \mathrm{Re}\,D_{bc}(i,i)\) per site \(N_s^{-1}\sum_i n_{b,i}n_{c,i}\) mean yes yes
squareOcc \(N_s^{-1}\sum_i \mathrm{Re}[n_b(i,i)^2+n_c(i,i)^2]\) per site half normal-ordered same-flavor onsite pair density in the current model mean yes no
local_numsquare \(N_s^{-1}\sum_i \mathrm{Re}[D_{bb}(i,i)+D_{cc}(i,i)]\) per site \(N_s^{-1}\sum_i(n_{b,i}^2+n_{c,i}^2)\) mean yes when reference exists yes
onsite_n2_up \(\sum_i\mathrm{Re}\,D_{bb}(i,i)\) total onsite_n2_up mean yes when reference exists yes
onsite_n2_do \(\sum_i\mathrm{Re}\,D_{cc}(i,i)\) total onsite_n2_do mean yes when reference exists yes
numsquare_up \(\sum_{i,j}\mathrm{Re}\,D_{bb}(i,j)\) total \(N_b^2\) mean yes yes
numsquare_do \(\sum_{i,j}\mathrm{Re}\,D_{cc}(i,j)\) total \(N_c^2\) mean yes yes
pair_equal \(N_s^{-1}\sum_i\mathrm{Re}\langle b_i c_i+b_i^+ c_i^+\rangle\) per site \(N_s^{-1}\partial F/\partial\Delta\) mean zero check yes
interaction_energy_density \((U_1+U_2)(M_b^{(2)}+M_c^{(2)})/N_s+2(U_1-U_2)\texttt{doubleOcc}\) per site interaction_energy_density mean no yes
pairing_energy_density \(\Delta\,\texttt{pair\_equal}\) per site pairing_energy_density mean zero check yes
energy_density \(e=E/N_s=e_t+e_U+e_\Delta\), excluding \(-\mu N\); paper plots use \(-E=-N_s e\) per site storage energy_density mean no yes
chemical_energy_density \(-\mu\rho\) per site chemical_energy_density mean diagnostic diagnostic
grand_energy_density energy_density + chemical_energy_density per site grand_energy_density mean diagnostic diagnostic
sf_K \(N_s^{-2}\sum_{ij}e^{iK\cdot(r_i-r_j)}\langle b_i^+ b_j+c_i^+ c_j\rangle\) complex scalar S_SF_K real/imag block stats no yes
dw_K \(N_s^{-2}\sum_{ij}e^{iK\cdot(r_i-r_j)}[D_{bb}(i,j)+D_{cc}(i,j)+D_{bc}(i,j)+D_{cb}(i,j)]\) complex scalar S_DW_K real/imag block stats no yes
psf_Gamma \(N_s^{-2}\sum_{ij}\langle b_i^+ c_i^+ c_j b_j\rangle\) complex scalar S_PSF_Gamma real/imag block stats no yes

Here

\[ M_b^{(2)}=\sum_i\langle n_{b,i}^2\rangle,\qquad M_c^{(2)}=\sum_i\langle n_{c,i}^2\rangle. \]

For \(K\)-point observables the pairing code uses the same \(K\) index and phase convention as the number-conserving solver when both lattice dimensions are multiples of three. ED entrypoints reject incompatible \(K\) labels, and campaign analysis must mark sf_K and dw_K unavailable rather than treating placeholders or zeros as physics data. At compatible sizes sf_K and dw_K are standard Hermitian structure-factor channels:

\[ S_{\rm SF}(K)=\frac{1}{N_s}\langle b_K^+b_K+c_K^+c_K\rangle, \qquad S_{\rm DW}(K)=\frac{1}{N_s^2}\langle n_K n_{-K}\rangle , \quad n_K=\sum_i e^{-iK\cdot r_i}(n_{b,i}+n_{c,i}). \]

Their exact thermal averages are real and non-negative. DQMC still writes two columns because the estimator is accumulated as a complex Fourier sum; the real part is the comparison channel and a statistically significant imaginary part marks the observable unreliable. The same imaginary-part reliability rule applies to the \(\Gamma\)-point psf_Gamma. The IPR computed from density_site_total is a DQMC spatial-uniformity diagnostic. It is useful for spotting broken site indexing or severe sampling inhomogeneity, but it should not be used as a strict ED agreement gate in low-density pilots because the ratio \(\sum_i \rho_i^2/(\sum_i\rho_i)^2\) has a finite-sample upward bias.

The kinetic naming contract is:

DQMC file `kinetic`: per spatial site.
ED JSON `kinetic_total`: total hopping expectation including the coefficient `t`.
DQMC-vs-ED and DQMC-vs-DQMC comparison operation: `mean_times_nsite`.