Variational Monte Carlo study of stripes as a function of doping in the Hubbard model
Abstract
We perform variational Monte Carlo simulations of the single-band Hubbard model on the square lattice with both nearest () and next-nearest () neighbor hoppings. Our work investigates the consequences of increasing hole doping on the instauration of stripes and the behavior of the superconducting order parameter, with a discussion on how the two phenomena affect each other. We consider two different values of the next-nearest neighbor hopping parameter, that are appropriate for describing cuprate superconductors. We observe that stripes are the optimal state in a wide doping range; the stripe wavelength reduces at increasing doping, until stripes melt into a uniform state for large values of doping. Superconducting pair-pair correlations, indicating the presence of superconductivity, are always suppressed in the presence of stripes. Our results suggest that the phase diagram for the single-band Hubbard model is dominated by stripes, with superconductivity being possible only in a narrow doping range between striped states and a nonsuperconducting metal.
1 Introduction
The concept of a stripe phase is one of the unconventional features that emerged over the years when interpreting a broad range of experimental results on copper oxide superconductors. Once we allow holes to wander in an antiferromagnetic background, the creation of striped inhomogeneities can be a consequence. The reason for the self-organization of local inhomogeneities can be found in the competition between the tendency of the electrons to cluster in antiferromagnetic regions, hence producing a short-range tendency to phase separation, and the long-range Coulomb interaction that instead frustrates it [1, 2, 3, 4]. Striped states indeed constitute the best compromise between these competing phenomena and allow the doping holes to be delocalized along linear stripes.
From an experimental point of view, the first evidence of stripes comes from a neutron scattering study on a single crystal of La1.48Nd0.4Sr0.12CuO4 [5]. Since then, a variety of experimental probes, based on neutron scattering, x-ray scattering and scanning tunneling microscopy, pointed to the presence of spin and charge orders [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is also a valuable tool to study charge and spin modulations in cuprates. In particular, NMR measures indicated that cuprates that are not La-based may exhibit charge order without spin order [12, 13]. Moreover, NMR has been employed to investigate the nature of the pseudogap critical point when superconductivity is suppressed [14].
The simplest model that has been considered to reproduce the essential features of the cuprates’ phase diagram is the single-band Hubbard model, where only the orbital of Cu atoms is retained and the impact of oxygen atoms is neglected. However, despite its simplicity, obtaining accurate approximations for the ground state and for low-energy excitations is far from being trivial and several states, very close in energy, have been proposed, obtaining different conclusions from different numerical and analytical methods [15]. The model is reported here:
(1) |
where () creates (destroys) an electron with spin on site and is the electron density per spin on site . In the following, we indicate the coordinates of the sites with . It is important that the Hubbard model includes not only the nearest neighbor hopping and the on-site electron-electron repulsion , but also the next-nearest neighbor hopping that has been shown to be a relevant feature in all cuprates, as it constitutes an essential material-dependent parameter, with [16]. The electron density is given by , where is the number of electrons and is the total number of sites. The hole doping is defined as .
In the case, the presence of stripes in the Hubbard model originates from density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) studies on 6-leg ladders [17, 18] and from further works supporting the idea that charge and spin inhomogeneities may pervade the phase diagram of the Hubbard model [19, 20]. Charge modulations have been also proposed to be present and to possibly enhance superconductivity by the Dynamic Cluster Approximation and by determinant Quantum Nonte Carlo [21, 22]. Later, a work which combined a variety of numerical techniques [23], focused on the representative doping at , settling that the lowest-energy stripe is a bond-centered one with periodicity (named the stripe wavelength) in the charge sector and in the spin sector. As a consequence, the enlarged unit cell of length contains, on average, one hole, as obtained by previous Hartree-Fock calculations [24, 25, 26, 27]. Electron pairing was not found in this case and also further studies highlighted the absence of superconductivity at doping , the system being possibly an insulator [28, 29, 30]. Away from doping , stripes have been proposed to be stable by different numerical methods, possibly coexisting with superconductivity [28, 31, 32, 33]. Recently, an accurate variational auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo study proposed a phase diagram where stripe phases with no superconductivity are present close to half filling while a superconductive region emerges around [29].
In the case, stripes emerge already in the Hartree-Fock approximation, for [34]. Then, their presence is confirmed by different numerical methods, which agree in observing a reduction of the stripe wavelength when , while the stripe wavelength increases when [35, 36, 37, 38]. There is consensus on the absence of superconductivity at , while different outcomes on the existence of superconductivity are reported when other dopings are considered. The debate is still open since, recently, a combined study based on DMRG and AFQMC indicates that partially filled stripes coexist with superconductivity in a large doping range of the Hubbard model [39], while a DMRG study on 6-leg cylinders suggests that superconducting correlations decay exponentially for [40].
Alternatively, it has been suggested that superconductivity can be enhanced when models less simplified than the Hubbard one are taken into account. For instance, superconductivity can be recovered, without clear long-range stripe order, with an ab-initio approach that highlights the presence of the realistic off-site interactions [41]. Moreover, the three-band Hubbard (or Emery) model has been proposed as a way to enhance superconductivity [42, 43], while hopping modulation in a stripe-like manner has been suggested to enhance superconductivity even in the pure Hubbard model [44]. Fluctuating stripes have been also proposed to coexist with superconductivity, at difference with the static ones, in the attractive Hubbard model [45].
In this paper, we employ the variational Monte Carlo method with backflow correlations to investigate the effect of doping on stripes and superconductivity in the Hubbard model, for and at . Our simulations are performed on 6-leg ladders, with rungs, the total number of sites being . This geometry has been employed in DMRG calculations and is expected to capture the properties of truly two-dimensional clusters [23], while it allows us to accommodate long stripes along the rungs. First of all, we show that bond-centered and site-centered stripes have similar energies, the only relevant quantity being the stripe wavelength . Then, we observe that stripes are the optimal state in a wide doping range: The stripe wavelength reduces at increasing doping, until stripes melt into a uniform state for large values of the doping. We show that superconducting correlations are always suppressed in the presence of stripes, regardless of their insulating or metallic character. Instead, when the stripes melt into a uniform state, a narrow region of superconductivity is observed, around for and around for . We also report on the effect of the next-nearest neighbor hopping, showing that a larger value of induces a faster disruption of both stripes and superconductivity as a function of doping. The results discussed here are based on the Master’s thesis of the first author of the paper. [46].
2 Method
Our numerical results are obtained with the variational Monte Carlo method (VMC), which is based on the definition of correlated variational wave functions, whose physical properties can be evaluated within a Monte Carlo scheme [47]. In particular, electron-electron correlation is inserted by means of a density-density Jastrow factor [48, 49] on top of a Slater determinant or a Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) state. In addition, backflow correlations, as described in [50, 51], are implemented; the latter ingredient is important to get accurate variational states.
The wave function is defined by:
(2) |
where is the density-density Jastrow factor and is a state that is constructed from the ground state of an auxiliary noninteracting Hamiltonian by applying backflow correlations [50, 51]. The variational wave functions described below are similar to the ones we built to study the parameter regimes discussed in Refs. [28, 38].
The Jastrow factor is given by
(3) |
where is the electron density on site and are pseudopotentials that are optimized for every independent distance of the lattice.
In the case of stripe states, the auxiliary noninteracting Hamiltonian is defined as:
(4) |
The first one defines the kinetic energy of the electrons:
(5) |
where the value of the nearest neighbor hopping parameter is fixed to be equal to the one in the Hubbard Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), in order to set the energy scale. Then, the second and third terms describe linear stripes along the direction that can be either bond-centered or site-centered:
(6) |
and
(7) |
If the stripes are symmetric with respect to the bond halfway in between two neighboring lattice sites, hence they are called bond centered. Conversely, for , the stripes are called site centered, as the symmetry axis lies exactly on a lattice site. The periodicity of the charge modulation in both cases is given by . On the other hand, the spin modulation has a -phase shift across the sites with maximal hole density, resulting in a spin modulation of when is even and when is odd. The spin modulation along the direction is assumed to have Néel order in all cases. For clarity, we report in Fig. 1 a sketch of the spin modulation along the direction, for bond- and site-centered stripes, in the case of even and odd wavelengths ; the length of the arrows is proportional to the size of the local magnetic moments. The effect of the -shift is clearly visible in the figures. The last term in Eq. (4) introduces BCS electron pairing:
(8) |
where the pairing amplitude is modulated in real space:
(9) |
This modulation has been named “in phase” in [52]. A chemical potential is also included in .
In the case of uniform states, the auxiliary Hamiltonian is defined as:
(10) |
The kinetic term is defined as for striped states. The BCS electron pairing is now defined without modulation in real space, i.e. and , for each site . In addition, a standard Néel order with pitch vector can be considered in the uniform state:
(11) |
The auxiliary Hamiltonians of Eqs. (4) and (10) can be diagonalized by standard methods. Its ground state is then constructed. On top of it, backflow correlations are inserted to define of Eq. (2), following our previous works [50, 51].
All the parameters in the trial wave function are optimized with the stochastic reconfiguration method [53], in order to minimize the variational energy. In particular, for striped states, we fix a given stripe wavelength and optimize , , , , , and (as well as all the pseudopotentials in the Jastrow factor and the backflow parameters). For a uniform state, we do not have and as parameters and we optimize instead . Once the energy and all the parameters converge to stable values, the optimization run can be concluded. The values of the parameters are fixed to their averages and a run at fixed parameters is performed to compute the quantum averages needed for the correlation function or the superconducting order parameter.
As already discussed in [28, 38], finite values of and lead effectively to charge and spin modulations, as signaled by a peak (diverging in the thermodynamic limit) at a given vector in the static spin and charge structure factors. In order to assess the metallic or the insulating nature of the ground state, we can investigate the small- behavior of the static charge structure factor , defined as:
(12) |
where indicates the expectation value over the variational wave function. Indeed, charge excitations are gapless when for , while a charge gap is present whenever for [51, 54].
The possible existence of superconductivity is investigated by computing correlation functions between Cooper pairs at distance along the direction. In particular, we can consider pairs along the direction, so that:
(13) |
where destroys two electrons at nearest-neighbor sites (along ). Then, superconductivity exists whenever does not decay to zero at large values of .
3 Results
In this section, we study the instauration of superconductivity and stripes of different wavelength when changing the hole doping . We consider two typical values of the hopping parameter for cuprates ( and ) in order to see how the value of affects the stripe order. The on-site Coulomb repulsion , kept fixed throughout the simulations, is chosen to ensure strong enough correlations. Indeed, in [38], it is shown that for smaller values of , such as , the striped wave functions are not stable and converge to the uniform state with vanishing parameters and .
We consider both commensurate and incommensurate doping values. By ”commensurate” doping we refer to the introduction of an integer number of holes every lattice sites; conversely, this number is noninteger for ”incommensurate” doping values.
The optimal variational state is found by comparing, for each considered value of and , the variational energies of the striped states for various and of the uniform state. The optimal state is then the one with the lowest energy.
3.1
We start by considering the case . The energy per site, in units of , as a function of is reported in Table 1. Here, we compare the energy for the best striped state with that of the uniform state for a broad range of doping values. The striped state is almost always energetically favorable. As increases, the wavelength decreases more and more until, at doping , the striped state and the uniform state become energetically indistinguishable. When discussing the behavior of the gap parameters, we will show that this effectively corresponds to a melting of the stripe.
1/12 | -0.6646 () | -0.6572 | -0.0074 |
1/10 | -0.6920 () | -0.6842 | -0.0078 |
1/8 | -0.7322 () | -0.7238 | -0.0084 |
1/6 | -0.7936 () | -0.7847 | -0.0088 |
1/5 | -0.8281 () | -0.8258 | -0.0023 |
1/4 | -0.8749 () | -0.8727 | -0.0021 |
1/3 | -0.9197 () | -0.9197 | 0 |
In Sec. 2, we have introduced the gap parameters , and related to the ”strength” of the charge, spin, and Néel order, respectively. In this section we proceed by looking at their behavior as the hole-doping increases in the case . Their values are plotted in Fig. 2. For small doping, the striped state is well established and indeed and are finite. This corresponds to a well-defined order in both charge and spin. Also the uniform state, despite not being the optimal one, is able to develop Néel antiferromagnetism in the underdoped regime, as indicated by a finite .
As increases, we see that all these parameters decrease monotonically until, at large values of they become much smaller and eventually negligible. This corresponds, for the striped states, to the absence of any order: the stripe ”melts” and effectively reduces to the uniform state. Hence the degeneracy in energy pointed out for . Our results confirm the shrinking of the stripes at increasing doping, i.e., shorter modulations are favored when more holes are present in the system.
The metallic or insulating behavior of the optimal state can be assessed from the small- behavior of the static structure factor , see Eq. (12). In particular, we plot the quantity at small , as shown in Fig. 3.
As a reference, we used a uniform state (squares), which is known to be metallic (except at half-filling, when each site is occupied by one electron and the Coulomb repulsion prevents them from moving freely) even though it has a higher variational energy. We observe that, for the striped state at (diamonds), clearly tends to zero, compatibly with an insulating behavior. On the other hand, for all the other striped states at and (circles), tends to a finite value indicating that these states are metallic.
Finally, we address the coexistence of superconductivity and stripe order, by computing the superconducting order parameter of Eq. (13). In Fig. 4, we compare the uniform (but not optimal) state at (blue squares), taken as a reference, with some optimal striped states. All the striped states show strongly suppressed pair-pair correlations with respect to the uniform case. The stripes at and (circles), despite having a metallic character, exhibit a suppression in similar to that of the insulating stripe at (diamonds). This supports the idea that the stripe order disrupts superconductivity, no matter their metallic or insulating character.
Since stripes are found to compete with superconductivity, we investigate then whether there is a region where hole-doping is strong enough to restore the uniform state but not too strong to suppress superconductivity. In order to answer this question, we look for the first value of at which the uniform state becomes energetically favorable and compute the pair-pair correlations. For , as discussed in Table 1, the optimal state at is a stripe of wavelength while at we have already reached the uniform state. We then study incommensurate values of in the range . Since the wavelengths of the stripes decrease at increasing doping, it is sufficient to compare the striped state with and the uniform state in this doping regime. Their variational energies are presented in Table 2.
0.26 | -0.8799 | -0.8784 | -0.0015 |
0.27 | -0.8891 | -0.8885 | -0.0006 |
0.28 | -0.8933 | -0.8932 | -0.0001 |
0.29 | -0.9015 | -0.9016 | 0.0001 |
0.31 | -0.9086 | -0.9087 | 0.0001 |
We can identify as the critical doping, the value , where the optimal parameters of the stripe state and vanish. In Fig. 4, lower panel, the pair-pair correlations for this state (black squares) are plotted next to the uniform, but not optimal, superconducting state at (blue squares) and the nonsuperconducting striped state at with (diamonds), for comparison. In this ”intermediate” state, superconductivity is suppressed with respect to the uniform state at smaller doping, due to an already strong hole-doping, but is still present, at difference with the striped state.
3.2
The second set of simulations involved the same search for the optimal state but at a larger value of , namely . The main effect of a larger value of is to suppress the stripe pattern and makes the optimal state converge to the uniform one faster. Indeed, while at the optimal state is a stripe with , already at the striped state is no longer favorable and the uniform state is the optimal one. We can ascribe this behavior to the larger degree of frustration that is present for a larger value of .
We investigate then whether the suppression of the stripes at a lower concentration of holes might be associated to the presence of stronger superconducting correlations around the critical doping . Following the same reasoning as before, the doping at which the uniform state prevails is for in the range . In particular, stripes are suppressed already at . In Fig. 5, we show the pair-pair correlations for the case for different values of doping. Again, we can see how correlations for the uniform state at the critical doping (full squares) are suppressed with respect to the uniform but not optimal, superconducting state at (empty squares), but still stronger than in the cases where stripe order is established.
To conclude the discussion, we compare the magnitude of the superconducting correlations for the two different values of . The curves are plotted in Fig. 6. We observe how, when is larger, superconductivity for the (nonoptimal) uniform state at is slightly suppressed. This is equally true for the uniform states at the critical dopings where the uniform state is restored: The effect of a larger value of in suppressing superconductivity is clearly visible, since superconducting correlations at the critical dopings are smaller at than at , even if is definitely smaller in the first case.
4 Conclusions
We have explored the consequences of increasing hole doping on the instauration of stripe order, superconductivity and their reciprocal interplay, for two prototypical values of . All the main results of the present work are collected and summarized by the final phase diagram reported in Fig. 7. Superconductivity is considered to be present when the average of over the last 10 distances is above a threshold value of 222This threshold value is chosen arbitrarily, but the goal is to show evidences for some residual superconductivity in between the striped states and the uniform nonsuperconducting metal at large doping..
By looking for the optimal state for different values of the hole-doping , we found that stripes are present over a broad range of doping values, as they are energetically favorable in comparison to the uniform state. Remarkably, site and bond-centered stripes have been found to be essentially degenerate in energy, suggesting that there is no relevant difference between the two configurations. Upon increasing , the wavelength of the stripes shrinks until eventually the uniform state is restored. A larger is associated to a shrinking of the wavelength and leads to a faster dissolution of the stripes, with the uniform state being the optimal one at a smaller value of .
The coexistence of superconductivity and stripe order is addressed by looking at the pair-pair superconducting correlations . For both values of , superconductivity is found to be suppressed whenever stripes (no matter their metallic or insulating nature) are present, suggesting that the two phenomena interfere with each other. There is then a small interval in among which the hole-doping is strong enough to restore the uniform state but not too strong to completely suppress superconductivity. Furthermore, our results show that, at all superconducting correlations are weaker than at , even if stripes melt at a smaller value of .
In conclusion, our results confirm that the phase diagram of the Hubbard model is dominated by stripe states, possibly overestimating this phase with respect to superconductivity, when connected to the cuprate physics.
References
References
- [1] Emery V and Kivelson S 1993 Physica C 209 597 – 621 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092145349390581A
- [2] Castellani C, Di Castro C and Grilli M 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75(25) 4650–4653 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4650
- [3] Hellberg C S and Manousakis E 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. 78(24) 4609–4612 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.4609
- [4] Emery V, Kivelson S and Tranquada J 1999 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 8814–8817 URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.96.16.8814
- [5] Tranquada J, Sternlieb B, Axe J, Nakamura Y and Uchida S 1995 Nature 375 561–563 URL https://www.nature.com/articles/375561a0
- [6] Bianconi A, Saini N, Lanzara A, Missori M, Rossetti T, Oyanagi H, Yamaguchi H, Oka K and Ito T 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 76(18) 3412–3415 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.3412
- [7] Hoffman J, Hudson E, Lang K, Madhavan V, Eisaki H, Uchida S and Davis J 2002 Science 295 466–469 URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1066974
- [8] Howald C, Eisaki H, Kaneko N, Greven M and Kapitulnik A 2003 Phys. Rev. B 67(1) 014533 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.014533
- [9] Ghiringhelli G, Le Tacon M, Minola M, Blanco-Canosa S, Mazzoli C, Brookes N, De Luca G, Frano A, Hawthorn D, He F, Loew T, Sala M M, Peets D, Salluzzo M, Schierle E, Sutarto R, Sawatzky G, Weschke E, Keimer B and Braicovich L 2012 Science 337 821–825 URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1223532
- [10] Tranquada J M 2013 AIP Conference Proceedings 1550 114–187 URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4818402
- [11] Comin R and Damascelli A 2016 Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 7 369–405 URL https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031115-011401
- [12] Wu T, Mayaffre H, Krämer S, Horvatić M, Berthier C, Hardy W N, Liang R, Bonn D A and Julien M H 2011 Nature 477(7363) 191–194 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10345
- [13] Zhou R, Vinograd I, Hirata M, Wu T, Mayaffre H, Krämer S, Hardy W N, Liang R, Bonn D A, Loew T, Porras J, Keimer B and Julien M H 2024 Deconstructing the spin susceptibility of a cuprate superconductor (Preprint 2402.02508)
- [14] Frachet M, Vinograd I, Zhou R, Benhabib S, Wu S, Mayaffre H, Krämer S, Ramakrishna S K, Reyes A P, Debray J, Kurosawa Tohru ad Momono N, Oda M, Komiya S, Ono S, Horio M, Chang J, Proust C, LeBoeuf D and Julien M H 2020 Nature Physics 16(10) 1064–1068 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0950-5
- [15] Qin M, Schäfer T, Andergassen S, Corboz P and Gull E 2022 Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13 275–302 (Preprint https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-090921-033948) URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-090921-033948
- [16] Pavarini E, Dasgupta I, Saha-Dasgupta T, Jepsen O and Andersen O K 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 87(4) 047003 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.047003
- [17] White S and Scalapino D 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(13) 136403 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.136403
- [18] Hager G, Wellein G, Jeckelmann E and Fehske H 2005 Phys. Rev. B 71(7) 075108 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.075108
- [19] Chang C C and Zhang S 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104(11) 116402 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.116402
- [20] Zheng B X and Chan G L 2016 Phys. Rev. B 93(3) 035126 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.035126
- [21] Maier T A, Alvarez G, Summers M and Schulthess T C 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104(24) 247001 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.247001
- [22] Mondaini R, Ying T, Paiva T and Scalettar R T 2012 Phys. Rev. B 86(18) 184506 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.184506
- [23] Zheng B X, Chung C M, Corboz P, Ehlers G, Qin M P, Noack R M, Shi H, White S, Zhang S and Chan G L 2017 Science 358 1155–1160 URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aam7127
- [24] Poilblanc D and Rice T 1989 Phys. Rev. B 39(13) 9749–9752 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.39.9749
- [25] Zaanen J and Gunnarsson O 1989 Phys. Rev. B 40(10) 7391–7394 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.40.7391
- [26] Machida K 1989 Physica C: Superconductivity 158 192–196 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092145348990316X
- [27] Schulz H 1989 J. Phys. 50 2833–2849 URL https://doi.org/10.1051/jphys:0198900500180283300
- [28] Tocchio L, Montorsi A and Becca F 2019 SciPost Phys. 7 21 URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.2.021
- [29] Sorella S 2023 Phys. Rev. B 107(11) 115133 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.115133
- [30] Qin M, Chung C M, Shi H, Vitali E, Hubig C, Schollwöck U, White S and Zhang S (Simons Collaboration on the Many-Electron Problem) 2020 Phys. Rev. X 10(3) 031016 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031016
- [31] Vanhala T and Törmä P 2018 Phys. Rev. B 97(7) 075112 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.075112
- [32] Darmawan A, Nomura Y, Yamaji Y and Imada M 2018 Phys. Rev. B 98(20) 205132 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.205132
- [33] Xu H, Shi H, Vitali E, Qin M and Zhang S 2022 Phys. Rev. Research 4(1) 013239 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.013239
- [34] Scholle R, Bonetti P M, Vilardi D and Metzner W 2023 Phys. Rev. B 108(3) 035139 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.035139
- [35] Huang E, Mendl C, Jiang H C, Moritz B and Devereaux T 2018 npj Quantum Materials 3 22 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41535-018-0097-0
- [36] Ido K, Ohgoe T and Imada M 2018 Phys. Rev. B 97(4) 045138 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.045138
- [37] Ponsioen B, Chung S and Corboz P 2019 Phys. Rev. B 100(19) 195141 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.195141
- [38] Marino V, Becca F and Tocchio L F 2022 SciPost Phys. 12 180 URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.6.180
- [39] Xu H, Chung C M, Qin M, Schollwöck U, White S R and Zhang S 2024 Science 384 eadh7691 URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adh7691
- [40] Jiang Y F, Devereaux T P and Jiang H C 2024 Phys. Rev. B 109(8) 085121 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.085121
- [41] Schmid M T, Morée J B, Kaneko R, Yamaji Y and Imada M 2023 Phys. Rev. X 13(4) 041036 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041036
- [42] Jiang S, Scalapino D J and White S R 2023 Phys. Rev. B 108(16) L161111 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L161111
- [43] Ponsioen B, Chung S S and Corboz P 2023 Phys. Rev. B 108(20) 205154 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.205154
- [44] Jiang H C and Kivelson S A 2022 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 e2109406119 URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2109406119
- [45] Sun J, Ying T, Scalettar R T and Mondaini R 2024 Stripes and the emergence of charge -phase shifts in isotropically paired systems (Preprint 2402.17305)
- [46] Lechiara A 2023 Effects of doping on stripe order and superconductivity in cuprates: A variational monte carlo approach URL https://webthesis.biblio.polito.it/26651/
- [47] Becca F and Sorella S 2017 Quantum Monte Carlo approaches for correlated systems (Cambridge University Press)
- [48] Capello M, Becca F, Fabrizio M, Sorella S and Tosatti E 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94(2) 026406 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.026406
- [49] Capello M, Becca F, Yunoki S and Sorella S 2006 Phys. Rev. B 73(24) 245116 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.73.245116
- [50] Tocchio L, Becca F, Parola A and Sorella S 2008 Phys. Rev. B 78(4) 041101 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.78.041101
- [51] Tocchio L, Becca F and Gros C 2011 Phys. Rev. B 83(19) 195138 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.195138
- [52] Himeda A, Kato T and Ogata M 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(11) 117001 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.117001
- [53] Sorella S 2005 Phys. Rev. B 71(24) 241103 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.241103
- [54] Feynman R 1954 Phys. Rev. 94(2) 262–277 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.94.262