ordering · T/Tc 3.60
Alpesh SHETH, PhD 000%

Computational condensed matter physics · Many-body theory

Alpesh SHETH, PhD

I develop rigorous, predictive computational models of quantum materials and validate them against experimental data. Most recently, my research has focused on the infinite-layer nickelates: a family of superconductors that are structural and electronic analogues to cuprates, yet exhibit divergent macroscopic behavior. I demonstrated that this discrepancy is driven by a secondary electronic band unique to the nickelate system. I implement these simulations using Python, C++, and Fortran, deployed across GPU architectures and high-performance computing (HPC) clusters.

FieldQuantum materials · many-body theory
MethodsTight-binding · DFT · Monte Carlo · neural ansätze
Most recentPhD Bordeaux 2025 · JPCM 37, 125703
On this pageFive models, run as you read

01Research

Research

My PhD research, supervised by Sébastien Burdin at the Laboratoire Ondes et Matière d'Aquitaine (CNRS, Université de Bordeaux) and defended in November 2025, focused on the infinite-layer nickelates \(R\mathrm{NiO_2}\). Discovered to superconduct in 2019, these compounds are structural and electronic analogues to copper-oxide superconductors. However, experimental observations deviate significantly from the standard one-band cuprate model.

To address this discrepancy, I developed a two-band model: the primary nickel \(3d_{x^2-y^2}\) band hybridized with a secondary interstitial band. This second band conducts current across specific regions of the phase diagram, granting the Fermi surface a high sensitivity to applied pressure and oxygen stoichiometry—degrees of freedom fundamentally absent in one-band descriptions. Crucially, a single set of parameters within this model captures the physics of both the \(R\mathrm{NiO_3}\) and \(R\mathrm{NiO_2}\) families.

This framework yields a directly testable prediction: the characteristic charge/spin ordering wavevector of the electrons is not rigidly pinned by the crystal lattice, as previously assumed, but varies continuously with doping and pressure. This shift can be verified via scattering experiments. Simulation 2 (scroll below) allows you to adjust these physical controls and observe the peak displacement in real time. Published in J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 37, 125703 (2025); preprint arXiv:2407.16042; thesis (open access).

I have since applied this analytical framework to a broader class of computationally heavy problems governed by similar mechanics: high-dimensional state spaces driven by a tunable control parameter, leading to a critical threshold where macroscopic behavior shifts. Concretely, this includes neural networks used to represent many-body quantum states, ab initio predictions of battery aging, and mapping combinatorial optimization problems onto statistical physics models. Each simulation below isolates and visualizes the critical threshold for these respective systems.


Languages

Python · C++ · Fortran · Julia · Bash · MATLAB · LaTeX

Many-body methods

Green's functions · Dynamical mean-field theory · Exact diagonalisation · Kubo formalism

Electronic structure & dynamics

VASP · Quantum ESPRESSO · LAMMPS · CP2K · TRIQS

Data & machine learning

Predictive modelling · Neural-network methods · Data pipelines · Statistical analysis

Optimisation

Simulated annealing · Quantum-inspired solvers · Rigorous benchmarking

Infrastructure

High-performance computing (Slurm) · Git · Workflow automation

02Simulation 1 · Fermiology

Fermi-surface topology of the two-orbital model

The Fermi surface is the boundary between the electron states that are filled and those that are empty; its shape governs almost everything the material does. Two things happen as you raise the energy. First the surface tears and reconnects, changing shape entirely. About 60 meV higher, the second band drops below the cut-off and a new pocket of electrons appears. Drag the band panel to move the energy and watch both.

E±(k) · Γ–X–M–Γ EF = −0.560 eV
Fermi surface · kz = 0 marching squares
−0.560 eV
0.040 eV
0.250 t
Topology electron pocket at Γ
Γ pocket closed
Lifshitz transition
Ni d character rare-earth interlayer Fermi level

Simulation 1. Two-band tight-binding model with \(t = 0.40\) eV: a Ni \(d_{x^2-y^2}\) band with hoppings \(t\) and \(t'\) (in units of \(t\)), and an interlayer band of rare-earth character, coupled by hybridisation \(V\), so that \(\displaystyle E_\pm(\mathbf k) = \tfrac12\bigl(\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2\bigr) \pm \sqrt{\tfrac14\bigl(\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2\bigr)^2 + V^2}.\) Right panel: the zero level set of \(E_\pm(\mathbf k) - E_\mathrm{F}\) on a \(170^2\) grid, contoured by marching squares. Reduced from the model of J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 37, 125703 (2025).

03Simulation 2 · Susceptibility

Where the electrons want to order

This map asks: at which wavelength are the electrons most willing to organise themselves? A bright spot means the material is close to ordering at that spacing — magnetically, or as a static charge pattern. In this model the bright spot sits on the zone boundary and moves as the band fills, ending near the wavevector the copper oxides are known for. Move the control and watch it walk; that motion is the prediction experiments can test. The map is computed row by row when you arrive, and can be recomputed at any energy.

χ0(q) · Lindhard susceptibility idle
χ0 along Γ–X–M–Γ —
−0.400 eV
0.020 eV
nesting peak —
\(\chi_0\) there —
\(\chi_0\) at M —
nesting at (π, π)
low χ0 high χ0 peak marker

Simulation 2. The bare susceptibility \(\displaystyle \chi_0(\mathbf q) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{\mathbf k} \frac{f(E_{\mathbf k}) - f(E_{\mathbf k+\mathbf q})}{E_{\mathbf k+\mathbf q} - E_{\mathbf k}},\) evaluated on a \(64^2\) \(\mathbf k\)-mesh for a \(33^2\) \(\mathbf q\)-mesh. Intraband contributions only, with matrix elements set to unity; degenerate denominators are replaced by \(-\partial f/\partial E\). The maximum arises from nesting and broadens as \(k_\mathrm{B}T\) increases. Scope of the approximation: intraband response at the bare level, without vertex corrections or self-energy.

04Simulation 3 · Optimisation

Portfolio selection as an Ising ground state

Choosing which assets to hold is the same mathematics as finding the lowest-energy arrangement of a magnet. Holding or not holding becomes spin up or spin down; expected return becomes a magnetic field on each site; the risk of holding two correlated assets becomes a coupling between them. With ten assets there are only 1024 possibilities, so every one can be checked and the true best answer is known. That matters: benchmarks of quantum-inspired solvers usually compare against another approximate method. Here the solver is scored against the proven optimum, and the gap to it is the only number worth reporting.

energy trace vs anneal schedule idle
5
1.00
70
\(E\) —
\(E^*\) exact —
gap —
return / risk —
exact optimum reached
E(sweep) E* by enumeration T(sweep), log

Simulation 3. The objective is \(\displaystyle H = -\sum_i h_i x_i + \lambda \sum_{i<j} C_{ij}\, x_i x_j + A\Bigl(\sum_i x_i - K\Bigr)^{\!2},\) with \(x_i \in \{0,1\}\), \(h_i\) the expected returns and \(C_{ij}\) the covariance matrix, minimised by single-flip Metropolis under geometric cooling (simulated annealing) from \(T = 3\) to \(T = 0.01\). Returns and covariances are fixed synthetic data and the random stream is seeded by \((\lambda, K, \text{sweeps})\), so a given setting reproduces its trace exactly. The default budget of 70 sweeps is deliberately short, so the gap to \(E^*\) stays visible and measurable. Full app opens the complete implementation in a window on this page.

05Simulation 4 · Moiré superlattices

Moiré periodicity in twisted bilayers

Stack two identical atomic lattices and rotate one by a fraction of a degree: the overlap produces a much larger repeating pattern — a moiré superlattice — in the same way two overlaid mesh screens do. The electrons feel that larger pattern as if it were the real crystal, which is how twisting a bilayer changes its electrical behaviour. Before my PhD I studied graphene on boron nitride in this geometry using density functional theory.

two honeycomb lattices, relative twist θ θ = 5.00°
5.00°
0.246 nm
\(\lambda/a\) —
\(\lambda\) —
atoms per moiré cell —
magic angle · flat bands
fixed layer twisted layer moiré primitive cell

Simulation 4. The superlattice vectors are constructed as \(\displaystyle \mathbf L_i = \bigl(R(\theta) - I\bigr)^{-1}\mathbf a_i,\) from which \(\lambda = a / 2\sin(\theta/2)\) follows rather than being imposed; the period therefore diverges as \(\theta \to 0\). Near \(\theta \approx 1.1^\circ\) in twisted bilayer graphene the lowest folded bands become narrow, so that \(U/W\) grows large; correlated insulating and superconducting states are observed in that regime. The atom count assumes two atoms per unit cell in each of two layers.

06Simulation 5 · Criticality

The two-dimensional Ising model

The standard textbook model of a phase transition: a grid of magnets, each preferring to point the same way as its neighbours. Vermilion is up, white is down. Below the critical temperature they lock into large domains that drift slowly; above it, order breaks down and the pattern turns to noise. This is the cleanest demonstration of a threshold there is, which is why it anchors this page. It runs on your GPU. Hold a pointer over the lattice to pull the magnets one way; tap or click to push the other.

2D Ising · Metropolis · GPU T/Tc = 0.720
0.720
magnetisation +0.00
regime ordered
critical region
spin up spin down cursor field

Simulation 5. The Hamiltonian is \(\displaystyle H = -J\sum_{\langle ij\rangle} s_i s_j - \sum_i h_i s_i,\) with \(J = 1\) and \(k_\mathrm{B} = 1\), for which Onsager's solution gives \(T_c = 2/\ln(1+\sqrt2) \approx 2.269\). The configuration is held in a texture and updated by a checkerboard-parallel Metropolis pass, one sublattice at a time, so that the neighbours of an updating site are fixed and detailed balance is preserved. The initial condition is seeded, so a given re-seed reproduces the same trajectory.

07Summary

Models, control parameters, and checks

Five of these seven rows are the simulations above; two are still in progress. The last column says what each model was checked against, which is what makes the rest verifiable.

SystemReduced toControl parameterThresholdValidated against
Infinite-layer nickelatesTwo-orbital model: Ni \(d_{x^2-y^2}\) and interlayer \(d_{z^2}\) bandEF, hybridisation V, pressuresecond Fermi pocket opensDFT band structures, ARPES, published spectra
Electronic instabilitiesLindhard susceptibility χ0(q)Doping, temperatureboundary nesting, X → M with fillingCuprate comparison, JPCM 37, 125703
Portfolio selectionIsing Hamiltonian, binary holdingsRisk aversion λ, cardinality Kexact optimum reachedEnumeration over 2N
Twisted bilayersMoiré superlattice, folded mini-zoneTwist angle θbandwidth collapse at 1.1°DFT on graphene / hBN
Spin lattices2D Ising model, nearest-neighbour exchangeTemperature T, applied field horder lost at TcOnsager's exact solution
Many-body ground statesNeural ansatz |ψθ⟩, variational Monte CarloNetwork capacity, sampler qualityvariational energy convergedExact diagonalisation
Battery ageingDFN cell model with ab initio priorsMigration barriers, site capacitiesresidual systematic, not randomLaboratory cycling data

→ table scrolls sideways

08Method

Method

Every model above was built in the same four steps, in that order. The order matters more than any single technique: most of the work is in the first step, and most of the mistakes are caught in the last.

01

Reduce

Identify the minimal set of moving parts that still produces the behaviour — two bands for a nickelate, holdings and correlations for a portfolio. This step sets the ceiling on everything after it: the reduction decides what the computation is able to tell you.

02

Formulate

Write it in a form that established mathematics already knows how to attack — an energy function, a landscape to minimise. Then what you can say about the answer is a result, not just a number the code returned.

03

Compute

Vectorise the inner loops, move the expensive parts onto GPUs or the cluster, and check against cases with known exact answers before running anything large.

04

Validate

Compare against experiment, independent data, or an exact solution — specifically against data the model was not built to reproduce. Where prediction and measurement diverge, the discrepancy identifies precisely which assumption to revisit.

09Record

Publications and training

Download PDF

One peer-reviewed paper, an open-access thesis, a preprint, and the positions behind them. The thesis and both preprints are free to read.

2021 – 2025 · Doctorate PhD in Material Science, Université de Bordeaux Doctoral thesis on the theoretical modelling of infinite-layer nickelates, prepared at the Laboratoire Ondes et Matière d'Aquitaine (UMR 5798, CNRS). Defended 4 November 2025, dir. S. Burdin · full text on HAL
2018 – 2020 · Master's MSc in Condensed Matter Physics, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Department of Physics, Faculty of Science
2015 – 2018 · Bachelor's BSc in Physics, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Department of Physics, Faculty of Science

10What is next

Where the work is going

Four active threads. Each has the same shape as the work above — a large space of possibilities, one dial, a threshold worth finding. For each I have said what remains to be established.

Active

Neural-network quantum states

Writing a quantum state down explicitly costs twice as much memory for every particle added, which puts the practical reach at a few tens of particles. A neural network can represent the state compactly instead, trained by Monte Carlo and checked against exact answers wherever those are still computable. Open directions: finite temperature, real-time dynamics, and neutral-atom hardware.

Validating

Ab initio battery modelling

Quantities computed from first-principles chemistry — how easily lithium moves, how much a site holds, what voltage results — fed as priors into the Doyle–Fuller–Newman cell model, the standard engineering description of a battery. Where that model and real cycling data disagree systematically, the disagreement is the signal, and it becomes the target for predicting cell lifetime.

Measuring

Benchmarking quantum-inspired optimisation

Classical and quantum-inspired solvers run on identical problems, under one metric, against exact baselines — so that a reported speed-up reflects the solver and not a quietly changed convention. Simulation 3 is the public version.

Formulating

Statistical physics of market microstructure

An order book is a large number of agents each making a buy-or-sell decision, pushed far from equilibrium — formally close to a spin system. Whether the sudden shifts in market behaviour can be described in the same language as phase transitions is an open question, and establishing the answer either way is the useful result.

11Contact

Contact

If you are wrestling with a complex system that stubbornly resists being reduced to its mathematical essentials, or a critical threshold currently hiding in the noise, I would like to hear about it. Email is the most reliable way to reach me.

Visits—
Countries—
You are herelocating…