Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Locally Purified Maximally Mixed States At Scale: Entanglement Pruning and Symmetries

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Depolarized quantum states can be compressed exactly to their minimal tensor representation.

desk verdict A useful empirical pruning result for the maximally mixed LPDO that misses a short proof it could easily have included, and overclaims on κ and the depolarization interpolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.16439 v3 pith:UJUSZOJN submitted 2025-09-19 quant-ph

Amit Jamadagni , Eugene Dumitrescu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords locallypurifieddensityoperatormaximallymixedstateentanglementpruningfidelity-preservingtruncationRiemannianoptimizationweakinjectivitytensornetworkgaugefreedomdepolarizingnoise
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

The paper resolves the sub-optimality of Locally Purified Density Operator (LPDO) representations of the maximally mixed state, a fixed point reached by noise in near-term quantum computations. It shows that a representation whose coherent bond dimension is inherited from an initial random pure state can be mapped to the optimal form with unit bond dimension and purity index two, both numerically and analytically. If correct, fully depolarized LPDO simulations compress to the minimal memory cost of 2N coefficients, and the same gauge-fixing logic can guide simulations of states close to infinite temperature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Locally Purified Density Operator (LPDO), a tensor network for mixed states in which each site carries a mixture (κ) index and a coherent (χ) bond. The load-bearing identity is A(i)=1/√2 for the optimal tensor at every site, so U A(i)=A(i) U and the disentangling isometry in the κ-subspace is V=$e^{{-iφ}}$U; equivalently V† U=$e^{{iφ}}$1. This identity turns unitary action on physical indices into an isometry action on mixture indices, proving that spurious χ-correlations can be pruned exactly. Numerically, the mechanism is fidelity-preserving truncation with a large cutoff, which works because renormalization in the χ-subspace restores the separable state.

What would settle it

Run the fidelity-preserving truncation sweeps on many random initial MPS instances at N=100, χmax=16, with Λ=0.5, and measure fidelity to the ideal maximally mixed state; visible infidelity beyond machine precision on any instance, or growth of χmean that does not flatten with sweeps, would falsify the pure-gauge assumption and the exponential pruning scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a sub-optimal LPDO representation of the maximally mixed state, whose coherent bond dimension χ is inherited from an initial random pure state, is equivalent to the optimal representation with χ=1 and κ=2 at every site. This is demonstrated numerically through fidelity-preserving truncation with a large cutoff Λ and through Riemannian optimization over isometries in the mixture subspace, and analytically through the identity A(i)=1/√2, which commutes with any unitary. Because the noise-depolarized state is separable, the discarded χ singular values are pure gauge, so renormalization restores the exact physical state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated around the truncation protocol, is that the discarded singular values in the χ-subspace of a maximally mixed LPDO are pure gauge, so a large cutoff plus renormalization recovers the exact state; this is demonstrated on single random instances without an analytic proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A fully depolarized LPDO simulated from a random initial state can be stored with 2N coefficients rather than a bond dimension that grows with χmax, an exponential memory saving.
  • Choosing a large truncation cutoff Λ does not damage fidelity for the separable maximally mixed state, contradicting the usual MPS intuition that error grows with cutoff.
  • Riemannian optimization over isometries in the κ-subspace achieves χ pruning, with objective functions based on second Renyi or von Neumann entropy, and is most useful when Λ is too small to prune alone.
  • The analytic disentangler V=e^{-iφ}U shows that unitaries acting on the optimal state induce exactly invertible gauge freedom, so representational entanglement can be removed without physical approximation.
  • Away from full depolarization, the truncation threshold interpolates between matrix product operator results and the maximally mixed results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pure-gauge premise survives disorder averaging and larger system sizes, the same pruning strategy should apply to states near the fixed point, ρ=(1-ε)ρ1+εσ, with a smooth crossover in truncation threshold.
  • The analytic disentangler suggests a constructive recipe: for any unitary layer applied to a locally purified state, one can attempt to invert it in the mixture subspace rather than the physical space, which may speed up classical simulation of noisy circuits.
  • The connection between weak symmetry and weak injectivity implies that symmetry-protected mixed-state phases with weakly symmetric LPDOs may admit similar closed-form disentanglers, a direction the paper's methods make testable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies locally purified density operator (LPDO) representations of the maximally mixed state (which the authors call LPMM). It constructs a sub-optimal LPMM representation by applying bitflip and dephasing noise to a random pure MPS, leaving the coherent bond dimension χ unchanged while inflating the mixture dimension κ. The central claim is that this sub-optimal representation can be mapped to the optimal χ=1, κ=2 representation by three tools: fidelity-preserving truncation with a large cutoff Λ, Riemannian optimization in the κ-subspace with entropy-based objectives, and an analytic disentangler derived from weak injectivity and the special form A(i)=1/√2. The analytic derivation in Eqs. (10)-(11) is simple and parameter-free. The numerical sections report that truncation preserves fidelity to machine precision, that χ can be pruned to one, and that χ_mean follows an exponential scaling in sweeps and cutoff, with fit parameters in App. C. The paper concludes that the problem of re-optimizing and pruning the LPMM representation is 'completely solved.'

Significance. If the central claim is fully supported, the paper would give a practical prescription for compressing LPDO representations of depolarized states, with direct relevance for classical simulation of noisy quantum circuits and for error-mitigation workflows. The analytic disentangler in Eqs. (10)-(11) is a genuine strength: it is derived, not fitted, and it explicitly identifies the κ-isometry that inverts a physical unitary on the optimal LPMM. The numerical work also has strong internal checks: norm conservation and machine-precision fidelity are reported for the truncation protocol, and App. B documents the behavior of the optimization variants. However, the significance is currently limited by three gaps: the exactness of fidelity-preserving truncation is only asserted empirically, the claimed mapping to the optimal κ=2 representation is not demonstrated numerically, and the abstract promises a depolarization interpolation that does not appear in the body.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III A, Figs. 3-4, 12(a,b)] The central claim that large-cutoff SVD truncation in the χ-subspace is fidelity-preserving for the LPMM rests on an empirical assertion ('more forgiving', 'empirical results presented will show') rather than on a proof. This is load-bearing because the pruning results in Fig. 4 and the exponential fits in App. C assume that the truncated state is still exactly ρ = I/2^N. For γ_d = γ_b = 0.5 the local channel is the full depolarizing channel, so the proof is elementary: if the initial purification has Schmidt decomposition |ψ⟩=Σ_α λ_α |L_α⟩|R_α⟩, then after the channel the reduced physical state of each Schmidt component is δ_{αβ} I/2^N, and every cross term vanishes; hence any χ-truncation followed by renormalization preserves ρ exactly. Please include this argument, and state clearly whether or not it extends to the finite-depolarization regime mentioned in the abstract.
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. III C; Fig. 2; Eqs. (10)-(11)] The paper promises to map the sub-optimal representation to the optimal χ=1, κ=2 representation, but the numerical protocols only prune χ. The κ dimension remains at its post-noise value (4 for the product of bitflip and dephasing channels), and no numerical or analytical compression of κ is demonstrated. The analytic disentangler in Eqs. (10)-(11) is derived for the optimal tensor A(i)=1/√2 with κ=2 and does not apply directly to the κ=4 tensors generated by the noise protocol in Fig. 2. Consequently, the conclusion in Sec. IV that the problem is 'completely solved' overstates what is shown; at present the paper solves χ-pruning in the fully depolarized case and identifies the disentangler only for a restricted starting representation.
  3. [Abstract vs. Sec. IV] The abstract states that 'away from the maximally mixed state, our simulations highlight how the truncation threshold smoothly interpolate, as a function of depolarization, between established matrix product results and our new results.' No such simulation or interpolation appears in the body; Sec. IV explicitly defers the near-maximally-mixed regime, ρ=(1-ε)ρ_1+εσ, to future work. Please add the missing data or remove this claim from the abstract. As written, the abstract promises a result the manuscript does not deliver.
  4. [Sec. III B, Fig. 12(c,e); App. B] The Riemannian optimization protocol is presented as a tool to prune χ while preserving the state, but App. B reports that its infidelity is three to four orders of magnitude larger than that of fidelity-preserving truncation for Λ≤0.3, reaching roughly 10^-5 in the worst case. This is not a negligible effect if the goal is an exact or near-exact representation of the LPMM, and it is not discussed in the main text beyond a brief remark. The paper should quantify the accuracy-versus-complexity trade-off of the optimizer, state whether the reported χ=1 endpoint is obtained at the cost of controlled approximation error, and reconcile this with the claim that the re-optimization problem is 'completely solved.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A] The phrase 'the approximation error (using fidelity as a metric) scaling is more forgiving' is vague; please define the fidelity metric explicitly and state the observed scaling (e.g., infidelity versus Λ) before discussing the numerical results.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors: 'intution' in Sec. III A, 'emperical' in Sec. IV, 'guage' in the caption of Fig. 11, 'distenanglers' in Sec. IV, and 'the the' in Sec. II A. These should be corrected before publication.
  3. [Figs. 4 and 13] The numerical scaling results appear to be based on single random-MPS instances, but this is not stated explicitly. Please specify the number of instances used, and, if error bars in Fig. 13 reflect only fit covariance rather than instance-to-instance variability, say so.
  4. [Sec. III C, Eq. (9)] The step in the weak-injectivity discussion where the χ-space isometry M is set to the identity is asserted rather than justified; because the optimal LPMM has χ=1 this is plausible, but the reasoning should be stated explicitly for readers working with sub-optimal χ>1 representations.
  5. [Fig. 12] The caption says 'fidelity' without specifying the definition; Eq. (B1) defines F_P, but the main text and figure caption should connect them, especially because panels (c) and (e) show deviations of order 10^-5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic disentangler is solved from the explicit A(i)=1/sqrt(2) definition, and all numerical protocols are benchmarked against an independently constructed LPMM target.

full rationale

The paper's central analytic result (Eqs. 10-11) is not circular: starting from A(i)=1/sqrt(2) defined by the SVD of the single-site identity in Eq. 5, the relation U A(i) = e^{i phi} A(i) V is solved for V = e^{-i phi} U, giving V-dagger U = e^{i phi} 1. This is a direct algebraic consequence of the definition of A, not a fitted parameter or an assumed conclusion. The numerical fidelity-preserving truncation and Riemannian optimization protocols are validated by comparing the optimized representation with the known exact target rho_1 = I/2^N, which is constructed independently in Sec. II; no quantity is fitted to the outcome being predicted. The only author self-citation, Ref. [18], is used for background, noise-action conventions, and a renormalization prescription; the sub-optimal LPMM is regenerated and verified in the present paper (fidelity with rho_1 is unity up to machine precision), so the citation is not load-bearing. The weak-injectivity existence result is cited from the external Ref. [3], not from the authors' own work. Some claims are broader than what is demonstrated (e.g., kappa is not numerically pruned to the optimal value 2, and the abstract's interpolation in depolarization strength is not presented in the body), but those are completeness/correctness concerns rather than instances where a prediction reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The analytic disentangler is parameter-free: given A(i) = 1/√2 (Eq. 5), V = e^{-iφ}U is determined by direct algebra in Eqs. 10-11. The numerical protocols depend on hand-chosen hyperparameters (cutoff Λ, number of sweeps, optimizer iterations, noise rates γ_d = γ_b = 0.5), and the exponential scaling law in App. C is fitted to single-instance simulation data rather than derived. The main external load-bearing input is the weak-injectivity theorem of Ref. 3, which is cited but not proved here.

free parameters (4)
  • χ-truncation cutoff Λ = scanned over 0.025 to 0.5
    Hand-chosen SVD cutoff in the χ-subspace; pruning efficiency of both numerical protocols depends on it and no principled selection rule is derived.
  • exponential scaling fit coefficients (α, β, γ) = reported in Fig. 13 (e.g., α ≈ 2.5 to 7.5 for the sweeps fits)
    Fitted to the simulation data for χ_mean(sweeps) and χ_mean(Λ); they characterize the numerics rather than predict them, and are single-instance fits.
  • noise rates γ_d and γ_b = 0.5 each
    Chosen by hand to maximize depolarization; the entire analysis targets the fully depolarized fixed point, so the central claim does not cover weaker noise.
  • optimization hyperparameters (sweeps M, iteration limit n_iter) = M = 20 sweeps; n_iter not precisely specified
    Convergence and speed comparisons between the S_sr and S_vn objectives depend on these hand-set values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Weak symmetry of an LPDO implies weak injectivity of its local tensors (theorem of Ref. 3, Guo et al. 2025)
    Invoked in Sec. III C to assert that a physical unitary acting on the LPMM can be exactly represented by an isometry acting in the κ-subspace; the theorem is cited, not proved, and the paper does not verify injectivity explicitly for its tensors.
  • domain assumption The fidelity measure in Eq. B1, F(ρf, ρi) = Tr[ρf ρi] / max(P(ρf), P(ρi)), adequately captures compression error
    Non-standard metric, identically 1 for two maximally mixed states, so it verifies only that the optimized state remains maximally mixed, not the quality of the representation in general.
  • domain assumption Repeated single-qubit bit-flip and dephasing channels at γ_d = γ_b = 0.5 drive any initial LPDO to the maximally mixed state to machine precision
    Standard CPTP fixed-point fact used to generate the sub-optimal LPMM in Sec. II A; verified numerically by the authors (fidelity unity with the ideal LPMM).
  • standard math SVD truncation with L1 renormalization in the κ-subspace and L2 renormalization in the χ-subspace preserves the LPDO canonical form
    Background tensor-network algebra assumed throughout Sec. III A and App. A without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Locally Purified Maximally Mixed States At Scale: Entanglement Pruning and Symmetries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJUSZOJN

@misc{pith2026250916439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Locally Purified Maximally Mixed States At Scale: Entanglement Pruning and Symmetries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJUSZOJN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.16439}
}
read the original abstract

Locally Purified Density Operators (LPDOs) are state-of-the-art tensor network ansatze candidates that efficiently represent mixed quantum states at scale. However, given their non-uniqueness, their representational complexity is generally sub-optimal in practical computations. In this work we perform a comprehensive numerical and analytical analysis and resolve this issue in the experimentally relevant limit where noise depolarizes the density operator into a maximally mixed state. To resolve the sub-optimality issue, we analyze two numerical tools, one analytic method, and detail the relations between them. The numerical tools used are fidelity-preserving truncations and isometric gauge transformations leveraging Riemannian optimizations over entropic objective functions. In addition, by invoking the injectivity and symmetry constraints of the maximally mixed LPDO, we also present analytical closed-form expressions for the disentangler and discuss their relation to numerical optimizers. Further, away from the maximally mixed state, our simulations highlight how the truncation threshold smoothly interpolate, as a function of depolarization, between established matrix product results and our new results. Our work shows how, by minimizing the resources required to represent key states of practical interest in experiment, the efficiency of tensor network algorithms can be substantially increased. This paves the path for uncovering tensor network's fundamental scalability limits and latent potential in representing the wide locus of mixed quantum states that are accessible on near-term quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.16439 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Sub-optimal representation of LPMM𝜌. (a) Initial￾izing a pure random MPS of 𝑁 sites with 𝜒𝑖’s bounded by 𝜒max by employing the randomMPS function call in ITen￾sors.jl. We decorate the above with the mixture indices, 𝜅𝑖 = 1 (denoted by dashed orange line) at each 𝑖 as the state remains pure. (b) The action of bitflip and dephasing single qubit noise channels at each of the sites, for a more detailed description of th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fidelity-preserving truncation protocol. (a) Choose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) To regauge into optimal representation we sweep multiple times across the LPMM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Riemannian manifold based optimization protocol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Entropy based objective functionals. The Riemannian optimization protocol involves optimizing for an isometry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Averaged bond dimension across the chain, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Representating an LPDO by decorating each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Application of (a) single qubit unitary, (b) two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Action of the noise channel on an input density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a, c, e) Infidelity of the initial sub-optimal LPMM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Exponential fit parameters: (𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾) for (a) 𝜒mean as an exponential function of 𝑛sweeps for an LPMM𝜌 of size 𝑁 = 100 characterized by 𝜒max = 16 for different cutoffs Λ. (b) 𝜒mean as an exponential function of cutoff Λ for an LPMM𝜌 of size 𝑁 = 100 for different 𝜒. (c…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    To this extent, we begin by fixing the orthogonality center to the site on which we wish to apply the unitary

    Unitary application We present the application of single and two-qubit uni- taries on an LPDO. To this extent, we begin by fixing the orthogonality center to the site on which we wish to apply the unitary. In the case of two-qubit unitary we choose either one of the sites. The single qubit unitary application leads to the update in the tensor at site𝑖 fro...

    work page

  2. [2]

    First, we briefly discuss the con- struction of the single-body noise channel followed by its application on an LPDO

    Channel application We discuss the application of the single-body noise channel on an LPDO. First, we briefly discuss the con- struction of the single-body noise channel followed by its application on an LPDO. A noise channel is a completely positive trace preserving (CPTP) map obtained by evolv- ing the system and the environment followed by tracing out ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This is due to the fact that given a representation, one could generate multiple equivalent representations by in- serting isometries into the virtual𝜒-indices

    Isometric gauge freedom in the𝜅-subspace In the context of MPSs, it is well established that there exists multiple representations for a given quantum state. This is due to the fact that given a representation, one could generate multiple equivalent representations by in- serting isometries into the virtual𝜒-indices. In a similar spirit, for a given densi...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Chen and T

    Y.-H. Chen and T. Grover, Unconventional topological mixed-state transition and critical phase induced by self- dualcoherenterrors(2024),arXiv:2403.06553[quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    T. D. Ellison and M. Cheng, Toward a classification of mixed-state topological orders in two dimensions, PRX Quantum6, 10.1103/prxquantum.6.010315 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010315 2025

  6. [6]

    Guo, J.-H

    Y. Guo, J.-H. Zhang, H.-R. Zhang, S. Yang, and Z. Bi, Locally purified density operators for symmetry- protected topological phases in mixed states, Physical Review X15, 10.1103/physrevx.15.021060 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.15.021060 2025

  7. [7]

    Moharramipour, L

    A. Moharramipour, L. A. Lessa, C. Wang, T. H. Hsieh, and S. Sahu, Symmetry-enforced entanglement in maxi- mally mixed states, PRX Quantum5, 10.1103/prxquan- tum.5.040336 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/prxquan- 2024

  8. [8]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error miti- gation for short-depth quantum circuits, Physical Review Letters119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509 (2017)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.180509 2017

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Phys- ical Review X7, 10.1103/physrevx.7.021050 (2017)

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Córcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation ex- tends the computational reach of a noisy quantum pro- cessor, Nature567, 491 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cai, Multi-exponential error extrapolation and com- bining error mitigation techniques for nisq applications, npj Quantum Information7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00404- 3 (2021)

    Z. Cai, Multi-exponential error extrapolation and com- bining error mitigation techniques for nisq applications, npj Quantum Information7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00404- 3 (2021)

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Frey and S

    P. Frey and S. Rachel, Realization of a discrete time crystal on 57 qubits of a quantum com- puter, Science Advances8, eabm7652 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abm7652

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Perez-Garcia, F

    D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0608197 [quant-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Vidal, Entanglement renormalization, Physical Re- view Letters99, 10.1103/physrevlett.99.220405 (2007)

    G. Vidal, Entanglement renormalization, Physical Re- view Letters99, 10.1103/physrevlett.99.220405 (2007)

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization al- gorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Ma- trix product density operators: Simulation of finite- temperature and dissipative systems, Physical Review Letters93, 10.1103/physrevlett.93.207204 (2004)

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    Müller, T

    A. Müller, T. Ayral, and C. Bertrand, Enabling large- depth simulation of noisy quantum circuits with positive tensor networks (2024), arXiv:2403.00152 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wanisch, N

    D. Wanisch, N. Reinić, D. Jaschke, S. Montangero, and P. Silvi, Entanglement transitions in a boundary- driven open quantum many-body system (2025), arXiv:2502.18372 [quant-ph]

    2025

  11. [19]

    Harada, Y

    H. Harada, Y. Suzuki, B. Yang, Y. Tokunaga, and S. Endo, Density matrix representation of hybrid tensor networks for noisy quantum devices, Quantum9, 1823 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    A. H. Werner, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, M. Kliesch, T. Calarco, J. Eisert, and S. Montangero, Positive tensor network approach for simulating open quan- tum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters116, 10.1103/physrevlett.116.237201 (2016)

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Jamadagni and E

    A. Jamadagni and E. Dumitrescu, Gauge-fixing quan- tum density operators at scale (2024), arXiv:2411.03548 [quant-ph]

    2024

  14. [22]

    Slagle, Fast tensor disentangling algorithm, SciPost Phys.11, 056 (2021)

    K. Slagle, Fast tensor disentangling algorithm, SciPost Phys.11, 056 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Cichy, P

    S. Cichy, P. K. Faehrmann, L. Bittel, J. Eisert, and H. Pashayan, Classical simulation of noisy quantum circuits via locally entanglement-optimal unravelings (2025), arXiv:2508.05745 [quant-ph]

    2025

  16. [24]

    I. N. M. Le, S. Sun, and C. B. Mendl, Riemannian quan- tum circuit optimization based on matrix product oper- ators (2025), arXiv:2501.08872 [quant-ph]

    2025

  17. [25]

    Rogerson and A

    D. Rogerson and A. Roy, Quantum circuit optimization usingdifferentiableprogrammingoftensornetworkstates (2024), arXiv:2408.12583 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Godinez-Ramirez, R

    E. Godinez-Ramirez, R. Milbradt, and C. B. Mendl, A riemannian approach to the lindbladian dynamics of a 15 locally purified tensor network (2024), arXiv:2409.08127 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hauru, M

    M. Hauru, M. Van Damme, and J. Haegeman, Rieman- nian optimization of isometric tensor networks, SciPost Physics10, 10.21468/scipostphys.10.2.040 (2021)

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Evenbly and G

    G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Algorithms for entanglement renormalization, Physical Review B79, 10.1103/phys- revb.79.144108 (2009)

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    Innes, Don’t unroll adjoint: Differentiating ssa- form programs, CoRRabs/1810.07951(2018), arXiv:1810.07951

    M. Innes, Don’t unroll adjoint: Differentiating ssa- form programs, CoRRabs/1810.07951(2018), arXiv:1810.07951

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bergmann, Manopt.jl: Optimization on manifolds in Julia, Journal of Open Source Software7, 3866 (2022)

    R. Bergmann, Manopt.jl: Optimization on manifolds in Julia, Journal of Open Source Software7, 3866 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    S. D. Axen, M. Baran, R. Bergmann, and K. Rzecki, Manifolds.jl: Anextensiblejuliaframeworkfordataanal- ysis on manifolds, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software49, 10.1145/3618296 (2023)

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Hauschild, E

    J. Hauschild, E. Leviatan, J. H. Bardarson, E. Alt- man, M. P. Zaletel, and F. Pollmann, Finding purifica- tions with minimal entanglement, Physical Review B98, 10.1103/physrevb.98.235163 (2018)

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon,et al., Quan- tum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature574, 505–510 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    A. P. Thompson, A. Soeteman, C. Cade, and I. Niesen, Non-zero noise extrapolation: accurately simulating noisy quantum circuits with tensor networks (2025), arXiv:2501.13237 [quant-ph]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.