Reply to the Comment by Sandvik, Sengupta, and Campbell on ``Ground State Phase Diagram of a Half-Filled One-Dimensional Extended Hubbard Model''

TL;DR

This paper is a scientific reply defending a previously proposed phase diagram of a one-dimensional Hubbard model against numerical evidence presented by others, emphasizing that their results are inconclusive and do not invalidate the original findings.

Contribution

The author clarifies and defends the original phase diagram of the Hubbard model, arguing that recent numerical evidence does not refute it.

Findings

Recent numerical results are inconclusive

The original phase diagram remains valid

The debate clarifies the phase boundaries in the model

Abstract

In their Comment (see cond-mat/0301237), Sandvik, Sengupta, and Campbell present some numerical evidences to support the existence of an extended bond-order-wave (BOW) phase at couplings (U,V) weaker than a tricritical point (U_t,V_t) in the ground state phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled U-V Hubbard model. They claim that their results do not agree with the phase diagram proposed in my Letter (cond-mat/0204244), which shows a BOW phase for couplings stronger than the critical point only. However, I argue here that their results are not conclusive and do not refute the phase diagram described in the Letter.