_N.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}![\[fig:D10\]Examples of the $D$-dependence of the ground state chiral condensate for $m/g=0.125$, $x=10$ and five system sizes (left). The right plot shows a zoom into the region $D\in[80,160]$ for $N=84$. See comments in the text about the irregular approach to the $1/D=0$ limit. The red band represents the uncertainty related to the bond dimension, taken as explained in the text. ](cond_mg0.125_x10_N84.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}

A typical example of such extrapolation is shown in Fig. \[fig:D200\] for $x=200$ and in Fig. \[fig:D10\] for $x=10$, at $m/g=0.125$. In both cases, we observe very good convergence towards the $1/D=0$ limit, with the above defined error from this step being of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ for the former and $\mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for the latter. This error is represented by a red band. Note that despite going to $D=160$, the convergence in bond dimension is so good that actually even with $D=40$ we would already obtain the result with an outstanding precision, of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ for $x=200$ (i.e. only an order of magnitude worse than with $D=160$) or even of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for $x=10$ (i.e. the same as with $D=160$). The $x=10$ case illustrates that in some cases the convergence in $D$ is so good that our uncertainty comes from issues with the numerical precision. The MPS optimization procedure is considered to be converged when the relative change in the ground state energy in subsequent sweeps falls below a certain tolerance parameter, taken to be $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}=10^{-12}$ in our case. Notice, however, that this precision refers to the ground state energy, which typically converges better than other observables, so it will correspond to a somewhat worse precision in the chiral condensate, which we estimate to be in the $10^{-11}-10^{-10}$ region. In the $x=10$ case, the
_ N.ps " fig:"){width="34.50000%"}![\[fig: D10\]Examples of the $ D$-dependence of the ground state chiral condensate for $ m / g=0.125 $, $ x=10 $ and five system size (leave). The right plot shows a zoom into the area $ D\in[80,160]$ for $ N=84$. See comments in the text about the irregular access to the $ 1 / D=0 $ limit. The red set represents the uncertainty relate to the bond dimension, lead as explained in the text. ] (cond_mg0.125_x10_N84.ps " fig:"){width="34.50000% " } 

 A typical model of such extrapolation is shown in Fig.   \[fig: D200\ ] for $ x=200 $ and in Fig.   \[fig: D10\ ] for $ x=10 $, at $ m / g=0.125$. In both cases, we observe very adept convergence towards the $ 1 / D=0 $ limit, with the above defined error from this measure being of $ \mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ for the former and $ \mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for the latter. This error is represented by a red band. notice that despite going to $ D=160 $, the convergence in bond dimension is so good that actually even with $ D=40 $ we would already receive the result with an outstanding precision, of $ \mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ for $ x=200 $ (i.e. only an order of magnitude worse than with $ D=160 $) or even of $ \mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for $ x=10 $ (i.e. the same as with $ D=160 $). The $ x=10 $ case illustrates that in some subject the convergence in $ D$ is so good that our doubt hail from issues with the numerical preciseness. The MPS optimization procedure is regard to be converged when the relative variety in the ground state energy in subsequent sweeps falls below a certain tolerance parameter, taken to be $ \varepsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}=10^{-12}$ in our case. Notice, however, that this precision refers to the flat coat state department of energy, which typically converge better than other observables, so it will correspond to a somewhat bad precision in the chiral condensate, which we estimate to be in the $ 10^{-11}-10^{-10}$ area. In the $ x=10 $ case, the
_N.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}![\[fig:D10\]Examples of the $D$-dependencg if the grouns state zhiral condensate for $m/g=0.125$, $x=10$ aid fuve ststem sizes (left). The rkght plot shows a zoon into the csgion $D\lu[80,160]$ for $K=84$. See romments in the text aboud the irregulas xp'roach to the $1/D=0$ limit. The red band rqpresenys the uncertainjy rekwted no the bond dimension, taken as sxplaintd in the text. ](conc_mg0.125_x10_N84.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}

A typical fxamole of such extrapllation is whowg in Fig. \[fig:D200\] wor $x=200$ and pu Fig. \[fig:D10\] fkr $x=10$, at $m/g=0.125$. In both cases, we obsdrve rery good cincerhgnce towards the $1/Q=0$ limit, with the aboee defimed error from thms srep being of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ for the former anq $\mathcal{M}(10^{-12})$ yor the latter. This eerir is repsesevred by a rsd banf. Nkte that dsspite goint to $D=160$, the convergemcq in bond dimehsion ys so good that actually even with $D=40$ we wmuls already obtain the rewult with an outstandlng precifion, of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ for $x=200$ (i.e. only an order of magnitgde wkfse tman dutj $D=160$) or even of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for $x=10$ (i.e. the same as rjtn $C=160$). The $x=10$ case ijlustrates yhwt yn some cases the convsrgence in $D$ is so good trat oyr uncertwintu comes from issues with thw numerical irecusion. The MPS optilization prucedore is considered to be convexged wgen the relwtive chahee in the ground ststa energy in subsequent sweqps falls belpw a ceftaim tolewance paraleter, taken to be $\varepsllon_{\mcthrm{dol}}=10^{-12}$ in our case. Notice, however, that this 'cecision refets do nhe grounb statc energy, which eypically convgrges betcer thxn other ogservabnes, so it wyll correspong to a somewhet worse [recusiob in thd chiral condenxate, whick we wstimate to be in bhe $10^{-11}-10^{-10}$ tefion. In the $x=10$ ccrt, rhe
_N.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}![\[fig:D10\]Examples of the $D$-dependence of the chiral for $m/g=0.125$, and five system shows zoom into the $D\in[80,160]$ for $N=84$. comments in the text about the approach to the $1/D=0$ limit. The red band represents the uncertainty related to bond dimension, taken as explained in the text. ](cond_mg0.125_x10_N84.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"} A typical example such is in \[fig:D200\] for $x=200$ and in Fig. \[fig:D10\] for $x=10$, at $m/g=0.125$. In both cases, we observe good convergence towards the $1/D=0$ limit, with the defined error from this being of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ for the and for the This is by a red Note that despite going to $D=160$, the convergence in bond dimension is so good that actually even $D=40$ we obtain the with outstanding of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ for only an order of magnitude worse or even of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for $x=10$ (i.e. the as with The $x=10$ case illustrates that in cases the convergence in $D$ is so good our uncertainty comes from issues with the numerical precision. The MPS optimization procedure is considered converged when the relative in the ground energy subsequent falls a certain parameter, taken to be $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}=10^{-12}$ in our case. Notice, however, that precision refers to the ground state energy, which typically converges other so it will to a somewhat worse in chiral condensate, which we be the the case,
_N.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}![\[fig:D10\]Examples of The $D$-dependEnce oF thE grOuNd stAte cHiral condensatE For $m/G=0.125$, $x=10$ and five system sizes (leFt). The RiGHt plOT sHows a Zoom intO ThE REgiOn $d\iN[80,160]$ foR $N=84$. sEe CommeNts In the teXt about the IrrEgUlar approach TO tHe $1/D=0$ limit. ThE reD band represeNts The uncErTaiNTy relAteD to thE bond dIMensioN, taken as eXpLAined iN The text. ](CONd_Mg0.125_x10_N84.Ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}

A typicaL ExAMple of such extrApolatIoN Is SHOwn In FIg. \[fig:D200\] for $x=200$ AnD in FiG. \[Fig:D10\] for $X=10$, At $M/G=0.125$. iN boTH cases, we obserVe very good cONveRgence ToWarDS the $1/D=0$ lImit, wItH The Above defineD errOr from thiS step bEIng of $\maTHcal{O}(10^{-9})$ foR the foRmeR anD $\matHCaL{O}(10^{-12})$ For ThE LatTEr. thiS ErrOr is reprEsEnTed by A red BAND. note ThaT desPite gOing to $D=160$, the conVerGencE In bOnd diMensiOn is So Good tHat actUally EvEn with $D=40$ we would aLreaDy obtain tHe rEsUlt WiTh an oUTstandIng PreCision, oF $\mathcaL{o}(10^{-8})$ foR $x=200$ (I.E. ONlY an order of magnitudE wORSe Than with $d=160$) or eveN Of $\MaTHcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for $X=10$ (i.E. thE samE AS with $d=160$). The $X=10$ CaSe illustRates tHAt In Some casEs The conVeRgeNce In $D$ is SO gooD that oUr uncertAinty COmes from issues WIth the numericAL pRECiSIon. THe MpS optimizatIon pROcedUre iS CoNsiDEred tO be coNvERgED when the relative chaNgE in the GrounD state energy iN subsequenT SWEeps fallS belOW a CErtain tolerancE paraMeter, taken TO be $\varepSilon_{\Mathrm{toL}}=10^{-12}$ in our casE. nOtice, howEveR, thAt tHis PREcIsion refers to THE groUnD state eNerGy, which TypIcaLly ConVeRges betteR than othEr ObSeRvAblEs, so iT Will corrEsPonD tO a sOmewhAT worse PreciSion In ThE ChiRal condENsATE, whiCh We EstiMatE tO be in The $10^{-11}-10^{-10}$ rEGioN. In the $x=10$ Case, the
_N.ps "fig:"){width="34.50 000%"}![\[ fig:D 10\ ]Ex am ples  ofthe $D$-depend e nceof the ground state ch iralco n dens a te  for$m/g=0. 1 25 $ ,  $x =1 0$  an df iv e sys tem  sizes(left). Th e r ig ht plot show s  a  zoom into  th e region $D\ in[ 80,160 ]$  fo r  $N=8 4$.  Seecommen t s in t he text a bo u t thei rregula r ap proa ch to the $1/D=0$ li m it. The red ba nd rep re s en t s  th e u ncertainty  r elate d  to the bo n d dim e nsion, takenas explaine d  in  the t ex t.] (cond_ mg0.1 25 _ x10 _N84.ps "fi g:") {width="3 4.5000 0 %"}

At ypicalexampl e o f s uche xt ra pol at i oni ssho w n i n Fig. \ [f ig :D200 \] f o r $ x=20 0$andin Fi g. \[fig:D10\ ] f or $ x =10 $, at  $m/g =0.1 25 $. In  bothcases ,we observe very  goo d converg enc etow ar ds th e  $1/D= 0$lim it, wit h the a b ove  d e f i ne d error from thisst e p  b eing of$\math c al {O } (10^{-9} )$  fo r th e forme r an d  $ \mathcal {O}(10 ^ {- 12 })$ for  t he lat te r.Thi s err o r is  repre sented b y a r e d band. Note t h at despite go i ng t o$ D=16 0$,  the conver genc e  inbond di men s ion i s sogo o dt hat actually even w it h $D=4 0$ we  would alread y obtain t h e result w itha no utstanding pre cisio n, of $\ma t hcal{O}( 10^{- 8})$ for  $x=200$( i .e. only  an  or der  of m ag nitude worset h an w it h $D=16 0$)  or eve n o f $ \ma thc al {O}(10^{- 12})$ fo r$x =1 0$  (i .e. t h e same a swit h$D= 160$) .  The $ x=10$  cas eil l ust rates t h at i n so me  c ases  th econve rgen c e i n $D$ i s so good  th a t ou run certain ty comes from  i ssues with  t henumeri c a l precis ion. The MPS optimizati o n proce dur e iscons idered to  be  conve rge d  whenthe re lativ echa n g e int h egro un d state en e r gyin su bs eque nt swee ps falls below a c e rta in tolerancepar amet e r ,tak e nt o b e$ \va r e psilon_{\mathrm {tol}}=10^ {- 1 2} $ in our c a se.  N otice,however , tha t  this p recisionrefers to  t he g r o und  state ene rgy, whi ch typica l ly co n ve rgesbet ter th an  ot her o bserva b les , soit wil lcorres pondto  a somew hat worse precision inthe ch iralcon densate,whi c h w e estimat e to  be in the  $1 0^{ -11}- 10^ { -10}$  reg i on . I n  the$x=1 0 $ case, t h e
_N.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}![\[fig:D10\]Examples_of the_$D$-dependence of the ground_state chiral_condensate_for $m/g=0.125$,_$x=10$_and five system_sizes (left). The_right plot shows a_zoom into the_region_$D\in[80,160]$ for $N=84$. See comments in the text about the irregular approach to the_$1/D=0$_limit. The_red_band_represents the uncertainty related to_the bond dimension, taken as_explained in_the text. ](cond_mg0.125_x10_N84.ps "fig:"){width="34.50000%"}

A typical example of such_extrapolation_is shown in_Fig. \[fig:D200\] for $x=200$ and in Fig. \[fig:D10\] for $x=10$, at_$m/g=0.125$. In both cases, we observe_very good convergence_towards_the_$1/D=0$ limit, with the_above defined error from this step_being of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ for the former_and $\mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$ for the latter. This error_is represented by a red band._Note that despite going to_$D=160$, the_convergence in bond dimension is_so good that_actually even_with $D=40$ we_would already obtain the result with_an outstanding precision,_of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ for $x=200$ (i.e. only_an_order of magnitude_worse_than_with $D=160$)_or even of_$\mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$_for $x=10$_(i.e._the same as with $D=160$). The_$x=10$_case illustrates that in some cases the_convergence in $D$ is_so_good that our uncertainty_comes from issues with the_numerical precision. The MPS optimization procedure_is considered_to be_converged when the relative change in the ground state energy in_subsequent sweeps falls below a certain_tolerance parameter, taken to_be $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{tol}}=10^{-12}$_in_our case. Notice,_however,_that this_precision refers to the ground state energy,_which typically_converges better than other observables, so_it will correspond to_a_somewhat worse precision in the chiral_condensate, which we estimate to be_in the $10^{-11}-10^{-10}$ region. In_the_$x=10$_case, the