Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Simulating matrix models with tensor networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that tensor networks, specifically matrix product states and the density matrix renormalization group, can simulate bosonic and supersymmetric matrix models with computational cost that scales polynomially in the…

desk verdict Solid SU(2) feasibility study; the SU(N) scalability claim goes beyond what the data show. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04133 v1 pith:UI4GGHVQ submitted 2024-12-05 hep-th cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Enrico M. Brehm , Yibin Guo , Karl Jansen , Enrico Rinaldi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords matrixmodelstensornetworksproductstatesdensityrenormalizationgroupBFSSmodelBMNsupersymmetricentanglemententropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Matrix models are quantum-mechanical theories of matrices that, through gauge/gravity duality, encode information about higher-dimensional gauge theories, string theory, and quantum black holes; simulating their ground states is a route into regimes that analytical methods cannot reach. This paper argues that tensor networks provide a scalable numerical route: it represents ground states as matrix product states, optimizes them with the density matrix renormalization group, and reports that the bond dimension needed for fixed truncation error saturates as the number of matrices grows. The result, if correct, is a polynomial-cost simulation method for bosonic matrix models with up to nine matrices for SU(2) and, with a bond-dimension extrapolation, for SU($N$) matrices up to $N=6$, as well as for the supersymmetric minimal BMN-like model. The computed ground-state energies, gauge-invariance violations, and entanglement quantities are presented as benchmarks that align with earlier simulations.

What carries the argument

The central objects are matrix product states (MPS), tensor networks shaped as a one-dimensional chain whose bond dimension $D$ controls the accuracy, and the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG), a variational algorithm that sweeps through the chain, updates two neighbouring tensors at a time, and truncates the growing bond dimension by singular value decomposition with a controlled truncation error. The Hamiltonian is written as a matrix product operator (MPO), and each bosonic oscillator's infinite Fock space is truncated to $\Lambda$ states per site. The scalability argument rests on the observed saturation of the required bond dimension with the number of matrices and on the weak dependence on $\Lambda$, which turns the exponential growth of the Hilbert space into polynomial cost. For the larger SU(N) models the load-bearing device is a $1/D$ extrapolation of observables to $D\to\infty$.

What would settle it

Run the same SU(3) (or SU(4)) model at a bond dimension well beyond the fitted range, for example $D=800$ with the same $\Lambda$, and check whether the ground-state energy falls on the $1/D$ extrapolation curve within the quoted error bars; alternatively compare the extrapolated $E_0/N^2$ with a rigorous bootstrap bound at the same cutoff. A high-$D$ point that deviates by more than the reported uncertainty would show the extrapolation is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim to demonstrate for the first time that matrix product states and the density matrix renormalization group are applicable to matrix models. They map the degrees of freedom of a bosonic model with $D$ matrices and of the minimal BMN-like supersymmetric model onto one-dimensional chains, represent the Hamiltonian as a matrix product operator, and find ground states variationally. For SU(2) bosonic models with two to nine matrices, the largest bond dimension $D_{\max}$ required to hold the truncation error below $10^{-10}$ or $10^{-11}$ saturates as the number of matrices grows and depends only weakly on the Fock-space cutoff $\Lambda$, which implies polynomial computational cost. For SU(N) models with $N=3,4,5$, where the fixed truncation error could not be reached, the ground-state energy and gauge violation are obtained by extrapolating in $1/D$ to the infinite-bond-dimension limit and agree with earlier variational Monte Carlo results; for $N=6$ a rough estimate at fixed $D=200$ is given. The paper concludes that tensor networks are a promising and scalable tool for simulating matrix models.

Load-bearing premise

For the SU(N) results with $N=3,4,5$ the reported ground-state energies depend on a $1/D$ extrapolation to infinite bond dimension using low-order polynomial fits, and for $N=6$ on a single fixed-$D=200$ estimate; if those fits are not representative, the quoted $E_0/N^2$ values and their agreement with the benchmark comparison are unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For SU(2) bosonic matrix models with two to nine matrices, the ground-state energy and gauge-invariance violation can be computed with truncation errors as small as $10^{-11}$, with finite-cutoff effects decaying exponentially in $\Lambda$.
  • The saturation of the required bond dimension means the cost of adding more matrices is polynomial, not exponential, so simulations with many matrices remain feasible at fixed accuracy.
  • For $N=3,4,5$ the extrapolated energies reproduce earlier variational Monte Carlo results while keeping the gauge-invariance violation $\langle G^2\rangle/N^2$ smaller, indicating the method is competitive at larger gauge group rank.
  • The same framework handles at least one supersymmetric model, the SU(2) minimal BMN-like model, where gauge and angular-momentum violations decay exponentially with $\Lambda$.
  • Entanglement entropy and entanglement spectrum are obtained directly from the matrix product state, giving low-energy observables beyond the energy itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the polynomial scaling extends beyond $N=6$, tensor-network simulations could reach matrix models at couplings or temperatures where Monte Carlo sampling suffers from a sign problem, without requiring a quantum computer.
  • The $1/D$ extrapolation used for $N=3,4,5$ could be validated at modest cost by computing a single high-$D$ point for $N=3$; this is a direct test the paper does not perform.
  • The observed large gap between the first two entanglement-spectrum levels hints that entanglement data may carry information about the emergent structure of these ground states; the paper reports the gap but defers physical interpretation to future work.
  • Because the gauge-invariance violation is already smaller than the benchmark at all $N$ studied, enforcing the singlet constraint exactly through a penalty or projected basis might become unnecessary at large $\Lambda$, simplifying future simulations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies matrix product states and the density matrix renormalization group to bosonic and supersymmetric matrix models. The authors map matrix degrees of freedom onto one-dimensional chains, compare several layout schemes through the MPO bond dimension (App. E), and compute ground states for SU(2) bosonic models with up to nine matrices, for SU(N) bosonic models with N=3,...,6, and for a minimal supersymmetric SU(2) model. They report exponential convergence in the Fock-space cutoff Lambda for SU(2), saturating bond dimensions as the number of matrices grows, and extrapolated energies for larger N that agree qualitatively with Ref. [14]. The paper concludes that tensor networks are for the first time demonstrated to be applicable to matrix models, with computational cost scaling polynomially in the number and size of matrices.

Significance. The SU(2) results are a genuine and useful proof of principle: the energy and gauge-violation converge exponentially with Lambda, the required bond dimension saturates with the number of matrices, and the entanglement observables are computed cleanly. The layout-scheme comparison in App. E is also a practical contribution. The broader claim that the method scales polynomially with N is not established: for N>=3 the target truncation error is never reached, the 1/D extrapolations are uncontrolled, and the external benchmark is not independent. As it stands, the paper supports a feasibility statement for SU(2)-type models and an exploratory statement for SU(N); the conclusion overstates the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 5] The SU(N) results for N=3,4,5 are obtained from 1/D extrapolations over D=100-400 (N=3,4) or D=150-350 (N=5), with error bars defined as the difference between quadratic and cubic (or linear and quadratic) fits; for N=6 only a fixed-D=200 estimate is provided. The paper itself states that the available bond dimension was insufficient to reach the target truncation error of 10^-10 except for N=2. Low-order polynomial fits over a narrow D window cannot certify the D->infty limit, and the quoted errors are not controlled truncation-error estimates. Consequently, the reported E0/N^2 and gauge-violation values, and the claimed agreement with Ref. [14], are not robust. Please either provide a controlled extrapolation (for example, validating the extrapolation procedure on N=2, where converged D values are available) or explicitly downgrade these numbers to preliminary estimates.
  2. [Sec. 5 and Sec. 4.1/4.3] The central conclusion that "the computational cost scales polynomially with the number and size of matrices" is not supported for the size N. Fig. 2 and the MPO bond-dimension tables show scaling with the number of matrices at fixed N=2, but the required MPS bond dimension D_req(N,Lambda) for fixed accuracy is never measured for N>=3; Sec. 4.3 states that the target truncation error of 10^-10 is not reached for N>=3. Sec. 4.1 explicitly says the paper "only focus[es] on the MPO bond dimension analysis" and leaves a full cost analysis to future work. Since the two-site DMRG cost in Eq. (3.22) grows as Dmax^3, a polynomial-cost claim requires bounds on D_req(N), not only on the MPO bond dimension. Please either supply this data or restrict the claim to the evidence actually presented.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 6] The validation against Ref. [14] is presented as "excellent agreement" but is only qualitative: no table or quantitative comparison of E0/N^2 or <G^2>/N^2 is given, and Ref. [14] shares an author with the present paper and is itself an approximate variational method (neural-network VMC). This is a consistency check between two approximate methods, not an independent benchmark. Moreover, for N=5 and N=6 the gauge-invariance violation <G^2>/N^2 increases with N, which the paper attributes to limiting Lambda to 6; the singlet constraint is therefore not restored for those data. A quantitative comparison table and a clear statement of the non-independence of the benchmark are needed to support the SU(N) claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence "Figure 5 demonstrates the convergence of the ground state energy and the gauge-invariance violation expectation value for two matrices" is ambiguous; the figure shows several SU(N) values for models with two bosonic matrices. Please clarify the distinction between the number of matrices and N.
  2. [Sec. 4.5.1] The phrase "expected from the 3.5" should read "expected from Eq. (3.5)".
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The phrase "throughout computational cost analysis" should be "thorough computational cost analysis".
  4. [Tables 1 and 2] The MPO compression truncation error of 10^-15 is stated only in App. E.1; it should be given in the main text alongside Tables 1 and 2.
  5. [Fig. 3] The DMRG stopping criterion (energy difference 10^-8) is stated in Sec. 4.2 but not in the caption of Fig. 3; the caption should include it because the saturation plateaus in Fig. 3 are attributed to this criterion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core DMRG convergence analysis is self-contained; the main caveat is that the benchmark Ref. [14] is coauthored by one of the present authors, which weakens its independence but does not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is numerical and self-contained: the authors build MPS representations, run DMRG, measure the bond dimension Dmax needed to reach a fixed truncation error, and check convergence of E0 and <G^2> as functions of the Fock-space cutoff Lambda. None of these steps uses the target results as inputs. The polynomial-scaling conclusion in Sec. 5 is inferred from the observed Dmax saturation for SU(2) with two to nine matrices and from MPO bond-dimension tables; whether that inference is fully supported is a question of evidence strength, not circularity, because the scaling is read off from the paper's own simulations. The Sec. 4.3 SU(N) results are obtained by 1/D extrapolation because the target truncation error 10^-10 was not reachable for N >= 3; this is an explicitly flagged convergence limitation ('the available bond dimension was insufficient to reach the fixed truncation error of 10^-10 except for N = 2'), not a circular step. Similarly, the restricted scope stated in Sec. 4.1 ('we only focus on the MPO bond dimension analysis') and the rough N=6 estimate at fixed D=200 are acknowledged limitations of the scalability evidence. The comparison with Ref. [14] is a consistency check with a preprint that shares an author (E. Rinaldi) with the present paper, so it is not an independent external validation; however, no simulation parameter is fitted to Ref. [14], and the agreement is used only as corroboration, not as an input to any computation. No self-definitional equation, fitted-input-as-prediction, or imported-uniqueness step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics of truncated Fock spaces, a domain assumption that low-energy states of these matrix models are lowly entangled and MPS-representable, and an ad hoc 1/D extrapolation for SU(N) observables. Model couplings g and m are fixed inputs rather than fitted parameters. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Local Fock-space cutoff Lambda = 2 to 20
    Chosen by hand to truncate each bosonic oscillator. Convergence is checked by comparing successive Lambda values, but N=5,6 use Lambda up to 6 only, where results are not fully converged.
  • Bond dimension Dmax and truncation error TE = Dmax up to 400; TE=1e-10 or 1e-11
    Numerical control parameters. For N=3 to 5 the target TE is not reached and results are extrapolated in 1/D, so the reported values depend on these choices.
  • D-to-infinity extrapolation model = linear, quadratic, or cubic in 1/D
    Used in Sec. 4.3 to infer energies and gauge-violation values for N=3,4,5. Error bars are the difference between two fit functions, a heuristic rather than controlled estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Physical states satisfy the SU(N) singlet constraint G_alpha |psi> = 0
    Imported from gauge theory at A_t=0, Eq. (3.18). Used to interpret <G^2> as a measure of unphysical contamination.
  • domain assumption Truncating each bosonic Fock space at Lambda leaves low-energy states and approximate gauge symmetry intact when E << Lambda
    Stated in Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.17), and used to omit penalty terms in all simulations.
  • domain assumption The ground state has low entanglement and is well approximated by an MPS of modest bond dimension
    DMRG validity. Supported by the observed entanglement entropy for one nine-matrix example but not proven generally.
  • ad hoc to paper Extrapolation in 1/D with linear, quadratic, or cubic fits yields reliable D-to-infinity estimates for SU(N) with N=3 to 5
    Introduced in Sec. 4.3 because the target truncation error could not be reached.
  • standard math The su(N) basis and structure constants from Ref. [75] are correct and complete
    Used in App. B to express the Hamiltonian; any error would propagate to the MPO and results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating matrix models with tensor networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UI4GGHVQ

@misc{pith2026241204133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating matrix models with tensor networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UI4GGHVQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04133}
}
read the original abstract

Matrix models, as quantum mechanical systems without explicit spatial dependence, provide valuable insights into higher-dimensional gauge and gravitational theories, especially within the framework of string theory, where they can describe quantum black holes via the holographic principle. Simulating these models allows for exploration of their kinematic and dynamic properties, particularly in parameter regimes that are analytically intractable. In this study, we examine the potential of tensor network techniques for such simulations. Specifically, we construct ground states as matrix product states and analyse features such as their entanglement structure.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Bodendorfer, O

    N. Bodendorfer, O. Oktay, V. Gautam, M. Hanada and E. Rinaldi, Variational Monte Carlo with Neural Network Quantum States for Yang-Mills Matrix Model , 2409.00398

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Maldacena, A simple quantum system that describes a black hole , 2303.11534

    J. Maldacena, A simple quantum system that describes a black hole , 2303.11534

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , Adv

    J.M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231 [ hep-th/9711200]

    arXiv 1998

  4. [3]

    Ishibashi, H

    N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and A. Tsuchiya, A Large N reduced model as superstring, Nucl. Phys. B 498 (1997) 467 [ hep-th/9612115]

    arXiv 1997

  5. [4]

    Banks, W

    T. Banks, W. Fischler, S.H. Shenker and L. Susskind, M theory as a matrix model: A Conjecture, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5112 [ hep-th/9610043]

    arXiv 1997

  6. [5]

    Seiberg, Why is the matrix model correct? , Phys

    N. Seiberg, Why is the matrix model correct? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3577 [hep-th/9710009]

    arXiv 1997

  7. [6]

    Anagnostopoulos, M

    K.N. Anagnostopoulos, M. Hanada, J. Nishimura and S. Takeuchi, Monte Carlo studies of supersymmetric matrix quantum mechanics with sixteen supercharges at finite temperature , Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 021601 [ 0707.4454]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [7]

    Berkowitz, E

    E. Berkowitz, E. Rinaldi, M. Hanada, G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki and P. Vranas, Precision lattice test of the gauge/gravity duality at large- N , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 094501 [ 1606.04951]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Monte Carlo String/M-theory (MCSMC), MCSMCcollaboration, Confinement/deconfinement transition in the D0-brane matrix model — A signature of M-theory?, JHEP 05 (2022) 096 [ 2110.01312]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Monte Carlo String/M-theory (MCSMC)collaboration, Precision test of gauge/gravity duality in D0-brane matrix model at low temperature , JHEP 03 (2023) 071 [2210.04881]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Han, S.A

    X. Han, S.A. Hartnoll and J. Kruthoff, Bootstrapping Matrix Quantum Mechanics , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 041601 [ 2004.10212]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Lin, Bootstrap bounds on D0-brane quantum mechanics , JHEP 06 (2023) 038 [2302.04416]

    H.W. Lin, Bootstrap bounds on D0-brane quantum mechanics , JHEP 06 (2023) 038 [2302.04416]. – 30 –

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Han and S.A

    X. Han and S.A. Hartnoll, Deep Quantum Geometry of Matrices , Phys. Rev. X 10 (2020) 011069 [1906.08781]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Rinaldi, X

    E. Rinaldi, X. Han, M. Hassan, Y. Feng, F. Nori, M. McGuigan et al., Matrix-Model Simulations Using Quantum Computing, Deep Learning, and Lattice Monte Carlo , PRX Quantum 3 (2022) 010324 [ 2108.02942]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gharibyan, M

    H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, M. Honda and J. Liu, Toward simulating superstring/M-theory on a quantum computer , JHEP 07 (2021) 140 [ 2011.06573]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Or´ us,Tensor networks for complex quantum systems , APS Physics 1 (2019) 538 [1812.04011]

    R. Or´ us,Tensor networks for complex quantum systems , APS Physics 1 (2019) 538 [1812.04011]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Magnifico, G

    G. Magnifico, G. Cataldi, M. Rigobello, P. Majcen, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi et al., Tensor Networks for Lattice Gauge Theories beyond one dimension: a Roadmap , 2407.03058

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Polchinski, Tasi lectures on D-branes, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 96): Fields, Strings, and Duality , pp

    J. Polchinski, Tasi lectures on D-branes, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 96): Fields, Strings, and Duality , pp. 293–356, 11, 1996 [hep-th/9611050]

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Nicolai and R

    H. Nicolai and R. Helling, Supermembranes and M(atrix) theory , in ICTP Spring School on Nonperturbative Aspects of String Theory and Supersymmetric Gauge Theories , pp. 29–74, 3, 1998 [hep-th/9809103]

    1998 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dasgupta, H

    A. Dasgupta, H. Nicolai and J. Plefka, An introduction to the quantum supermembrane , Grav. Cosmol. 8 (2002) 1 [ hep-th/0201182]

    2002 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Becker and M

    K. Becker and M. Becker, A Two loop test of M(atrix) theory , Nucl. Phys. B 506 (1997) 48 [hep-th/9705091]

    1997 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker, J. Polchinski and A.A. Tseytlin, Higher order graviton scattering in M(atrix) theory, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) R3174 [ hep-th/9706072]

    1997 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Helling, J

    R. Helling, J. Plefka, M. Serone and A. Waldron, Three graviton scattering in M theory , Nucl. Phys. B 559 (1999) 184 [ hep-th/9905183]

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Herderschee and J

    A. Herderschee and J. Maldacena, Three point amplitudes in matrix theory , J. Phys. A 57 (2024) 165401 [ 2312.12592]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Miller, A

    N. Miller, A. Strominger, A. Tropper and T. Wang, Soft gravitons in the BFSS matrix model , JHEP 11 (2023) 174 [ 2208.14547]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tropper and T

    A. Tropper and T. Wang, Lorentz symmetry and IR structure of the BFSS matrix model , JHEP 07 (2023) 150 [ 2303.14200]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Herderschee and J

    A. Herderschee and J. Maldacena, Soft Theorems in Matrix Theory , 2312.15111

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Banks, W

    T. Banks, W. Fischler, I.R. Klebanov and L. Susskind, Schwarzschild black holes from matrix theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 226 [ hep-th/9709091]

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Banks, W

    T. Banks, W. Fischler, I.R. Klebanov and L. Susskind, Schwarzschild black holes in matrix theory. 2., JHEP 01 (1998) 008 [ hep-th/9711005]

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Klebanov and L

    I.R. Klebanov and L. Susskind, Schwarzschild black holes in various dimensions from matrix theory, Phys. Lett. B 416 (1998) 62 [ hep-th/9709108]

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Halyo, Six-dimensional Schwarzschild black holes in M(atrix) theory , hep-th/9709225

    E. Halyo, Six-dimensional Schwarzschild black holes in M(atrix) theory , hep-th/9709225. – 31 –

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Horowitz and E.J

    G.T. Horowitz and E.J. Martinec, Comments on black holes in matrix theory , Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 4935 [ hep-th/9710217]

    1998 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kabat and W

    D.N. Kabat and W. Taylor, Spherical membranes in matrix theory , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 181 [ hep-th/9711078]

    1998 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hyakutake, Black hole and fuzzy objects in the BFSS matrix model , Phys

    Y. Hyakutake, Black hole and fuzzy objects in the BFSS matrix model , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 046023 [ 1801.07869]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Du and V

    H. Du and V. Sahakian, Emergent geometry from stochastic dynamics, or Hawking evaporation in M(atrix) theory , JHEP 03 (2019) 061 [ 1812.05020]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Filev and D

    V.G. Filev and D. O’Connor, The BFSS model on the lattice , JHEP 05 (2016) 167 [1506.01366]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hanada, What lattice theorists can do for superstring/M-theory , Int

    M. Hanada, What lattice theorists can do for superstring/M-theory , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 (2016) 1643006 [ 1604.05421]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    de Wit, M

    B. de Wit, M. Luscher and H. Nicolai, The Supermembrane Is Unstable , Nucl. Phys. B 320 (1989) 135

    1989

  31. [39]

    Boulton, M.P

    L. Boulton, M.P. Garcia del Moral and A. Restuccia, The ground state of the D = 11 supermembrane and matrix models on compact regions , Nucl. Phys. B 910 (2016) 665 [1504.04071]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Boulton, M.P

    L. Boulton, M.P. Garc ´ ıa del Moral and A. Restuccia,Measure of the potential valleys of the supermembrane theory, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134873 [ 1811.05758]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Berenstein, J.M

    D.E. Berenstein, J.M. Maldacena and H.S. Nastase, Strings in flat space and pp waves from N=4 superYang-Mills, JHEP 04 (2002) 013 [ hep-th/0202021]

    2002 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dasgupta, M.M

    K. Dasgupta, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and M. Van Raamsdonk, Matrix perturbation theory for M theory on a PP wave , JHEP 05 (2002) 056 [ hep-th/0205185]

    2002 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ehlers and W

    J. Ehlers and W. Kundt, Exact solutions of the gravitational field equations ,

  36. [44]

    Lin, The Supergravity dual of the BMN matrix model , JHEP 12 (2004) 001 [hep-th/0407250]

    H. Lin, The Supergravity dual of the BMN matrix model , JHEP 12 (2004) 001 [hep-th/0407250]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Duff and J.X

    M.J. Duff and J.X. Lu, Black and super p-branes in diverse dimensions , Nucl. Phys. B 416 (1994) 301 [ hep-th/9306052]

    1994 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Shin and K

    H. Shin and K. Yoshida, Thermodynamic behavior of fuzzy membranes in PP-wave matrix model, Phys. Lett. B 627 (2005) 188 [ hep-th/0507029]

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Asplund, D

    C. Asplund, D. Berenstein and D. Trancanelli, Evidence for fast thermalization in the plane-wave matrix model , Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 171602 [ 1104.5469]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Brady and V

    L. Brady and V. Sahakian, Scrambling with Matrix Black Holes , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 046003 [1306.5200]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Costa, L

    M.S. Costa, L. Greenspan, J. Penedones and J. Santos, Thermodynamics of the BMN matrix model at strong coupling , JHEP 03 (2015) 069 [ 1411.5541]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Pramodh and V

    S. Pramodh and V. Sahakian, From Black Hole to Qubits: Evidence of Fast Scrambling in BMN theory, JHEP 07 (2015) 067 [ 1412.2396]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Asano, V.G

    Y. Asano, V.G. Filev, S. Kov´ aˇ cik and D. O’Connor,The non-perturbative phase diagram of the BMN matrix model , JHEP 07 (2018) 152 [ 1805.05314]. – 32 –

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Asano, S

    Y. Asano, S. Kov´ aˇ cik and D. O’Connor,The Confining Transition in the Bosonic BMN Matrix Model, JHEP 06 (2020) 174 [ 2001.03749]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Axenides, E

    M. Axenides, E. Floratos and G. Linardopoulos, M2-brane Dynamics in the Classical Limit of the BMN Matrix Model , Phys. Lett. B 773 (2017) 265 [ 1707.02878]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    C. Gray, V. Sahakian and W. Warfield, Emergent geometry through quantum entanglement in Matrix theories , JHEP 21 (2020) 072 [ 2103.06941]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kim and J.-H

    N. Kim and J.-H. Park, Massive super Yang-Mills quantum mechanics: Classification and the relation to supermembrane, Nucl. Phys. B 759 (2006) 249 [ hep-th/0607005]

    2006 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Maldacena and A

    J. Maldacena and A. Milekhin, To gauge or not to gauge? , JHEP 04 (2018) 084 [1802.00428]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Berkowitz, M

    E. Berkowitz, M. Hanada, E. Rinaldi and P. Vranas, Gauged And Ungauged: A Nonperturbative Test, JHEP 06 (2018) 124 [ 1802.02985]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups , Physical review letters 69 (1992) 2863

    S.R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups , Physical review letters 69 (1992) 2863

    1992

  51. [59]

    Ba˜ nuls,Tensor Network Algorithms: A Route Map , Ann

    M.C. Ba˜ nuls,Tensor Network Algorithms: A Route Map , Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys. 14 (2023) 173 [ 2205.10345]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Perez-Garcia, F

    D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M.M. Wolf and J.I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0608197 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Schollw¨ ock,The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states , Annals of physics 326 (2011) 96

    U. Schollw¨ ock,The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states , Annals of physics 326 (2011) 96

    2011

  54. [62]

    Bridgeman and C.T

    J.C. Bridgeman and C.T. Chubb, Hand-waving and interpretive dance: an introductory course on tensor networks , Journal of physics A: Mathematical and theoretical 50 (2017) 223001

    2017

  55. [63]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. K¨ ohler, A. Swoboda, S.R. Manmana, U. Schollw¨ ock and C. Hubig, Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states , Annals of Physics 411 (2019) 167998

    2019

  56. [64]

    Hauschild and F

    J. Hauschild and F. Pollmann, Efficient numerical simulations with tensor networks: Tensor network python (tenpy) , SciPost Physics Lecture Notes (2018) 005

    2018

  57. [65]

    Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renormalization , Cambridge University Press (2023)

    T. Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renormalization , Cambridge University Press (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Pirvu, V

    B. Pirvu, V. Murg, J.I. Cirac and F. Verstraete, Matrix product operator representations, New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 025012

    2010

  59. [67]

    G.K. Chan, A. Keselman, N. Nakatani, Z. Li and S.R. White, Matrix product operators, matrix product states, and ab initio density matrix renormalization group algorithms , The Journal of chemical physics 145 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    ¨Ostlund and S

    S. ¨Ostlund and S. Rommer, Thermodynamic limit of density matrix renormalization , Physical review letters 75 (1995) 3537

    1995

  61. [69]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. White and E.M. Stoudenmire, The itensor software library for tensor network calculations, SciPost Physics Codebases (2022) 004

    2022

  62. [70]

    Li and F.D.M

    H. Li and F.D.M. Haldane, Entanglement spectrum as a generalization of entanglement entropy: Identification of topological order in non-abelian fractional quantum hall effect states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 010504. – 33 –

    2008

  63. [71]

    Zhang, E

    C. Zhang, E. Jeckelmann and S.R. White, Density matrix approach to local hilbert space reduction, Physical review letters 80 (1998) 2661

    1998

  64. [72]

    Iskin and C

    M. Iskin and C. S´ a de Melo, Bcs-bec crossover of collective excitations in two-band superfluids, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 72 (2005) 024512

    2005

  65. [73]

    Hubig, I.P

    C. Hubig, I.P. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ ock and F.A. Wolf,Strictly single-site dmrg algorithm with subspace expansion, Physical Review B 91 (2015) 155115

    2015

  66. [74]

    Gleis, J.-W

    A. Gleis, J.-W. Li and J. Von Delft, Controlled bond expansion for density matrix renormalization group ground state search at single-site costs , Physical Review Letters 130 (2023) 246402

    2023

  67. [75]

    Bossion and P

    D. Bossion and P. Huo, General Formulas of the Structure Constants in the su(N ) Lie Algebra, 2108.07219

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Gell-Mann, Symmetries of baryons and mesons , Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Symmetries of baryons and mesons , Phys. Rev. 125 (1962) 1067

    1962

  69. [77]

    Prosen and I

    T. Prosen and I. Piˇ zorn,Operator space entanglement entropy in a transverse ising chain , Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 76 (2007) 032316

    2007

  70. [78]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, T

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, T. Prosen and I. Piˇ zorn,Complexity of thermal states in quantum spin chains , Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 78 (2008) 022103. – 34 –

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.