Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Clifford Circuits Augmented Grassmann Matrix Product States

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Local Clifford disentanglers in Grassmann MPS reduce entanglement and improve energy accuracy; parity plus entangling-action equivalence cuts the two-site Clifford search from 11,520 to 12 gates.

desk verdict A useful native-fermion extension of Clifford-augmented DMRG with a plausible but under-supported 12-gate reduction claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.04164 v3 pith:J7UI7CBO submitted 2025-10-05 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-lat

Atis Yosprakob , Wei-Lin Tu , Tsuyoshi Okubo , Kouichi Okunishi , Donghoon Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-lat
keywords GrassmanntensornetworksCliffordcircuitsfermionicsystemsmatrixproductstatesdensityrenormalizationgroupentanglementreductiongatefermionparity
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 proposes a new variational tensor-network ansatz, the Clifford-augmented Grassmann matrix product state (CAGMPS), in which local Clifford disentanglers are embedded directly into the Grassmann-tensor language. This preserves fermionic locality and parity without Jordan-Wigner strings. Running a two-site DMRG that searches for the optimal two-site Clifford gate at each bond, the authors find that the ansatz systematically lowers entanglement and improves ground-state energy accuracy at fixed bond dimension on the tight-binding, t-V, and t-V-V' models. They also show that the constraints of Grassmann-evenness and equivalence under entangling action reduce the two-site Clifford gate search from 11,520 to 12 inequivalent gates, making the method more efficient. If correct, CAGMPS-DMRG offers a scalable variational tool for strongly correlated fermionic systems.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the Grassmann tensor network (GTN), which encodes fermionic antisymmetry algebraically via Grassmann variables, combined with a two-site DMRG that performs a disentangling search. For each two-site wavefunction, the algorithm evaluates the entanglement after applying each candidate two-site Grassmann Clifford circuit, picks the circuit that minimizes the entanglement, applies it to both the state and the Hamiltonian via the Clifford conjugation rule, and then performs an SVD to obtain updated site tensors. The efficiency of the search rests on a group-theoretic reduction: sign-positivity, Grassmann-evenness, and equivalence up to left single-site unitaries cut the two-si

What would settle it

Run CAGMPS-DMRG on a small fermionic chain (e.g., t-V model with L=8) with three disentangling searches — the 12-gate set, the 32-gate Grassmann-even set, and the full 11,520-gate Clifford group. If the 12-gate search yields a strictly higher converged ground-state energy, or a strictly higher minimal bond entanglement, than the larger searches, the reduction is lossy and the central efficiency claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that classically simulable entanglement can be excised from fermionic tensor network states by embedding local Clifford circuits in the Grassmann representation, and that doing so within a two-site DMRG framework systematically outperforms plain Grassmann MPS at all bond dimensions tested. The paper further claims that imposing Grassmann-evenness and quotienting by left single-site unitaries and sign-positivity collapses the two-qubit Clifford group to 12 inequivalent two-site gates, a set it lists explicitly in the end matter. The benchmarked models include the tight-binding, t-V, and t-V-V' chains, and show lower energy errors, lower entanglement entropy, and unchanged

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency claim rests on the assumption that the 12 Clifford gates obtained by imposing sign-positivity, Grassmann-evenness, and left single-site unitary equivalence are sufficient to reproduce the disentangling power of the full two-qubit Clifford group for any two-site fermionic state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed bond dimension, CAGMPS yields lower ground-state energy errors than plain GMPS on the benchmarked models, so a target accuracy can be reached with a smaller bond dimension and lower computational cost.
  • The Clifford augmentation reduces entanglement entropy across every bipartition in the t-V chain, alleviating the bond-dimension bottleneck for longer systems.
  • For the tight-binding chain, the extracted central charge remains c=1, indicating that Clifford disentangling does not distort universal critical scaling.
  • Because the construction preserves locality, the same Clifford-augmentation scheme can be extended to higher-dimensional fermionic tensor networks such as fermionic PEPS.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The completeness of the 12-gate set is asserted but not proven; a direct benchmark against the 32-gate Grassmann-even set and the full 11,520-gate Clifford group on the same small system would test whether a discarded gate can ever yield a strictly better disentangled state.
  • The paper leaves open whether quotienting additionally by right single-site unitaries, or by matchgate equivalence, could shrink the set below 12 gates or reveal that the current equivalence classes are not the most natural.
  • The discussion connects the method's power to the non-Clifford ('magic') content of the state; a natural testable extension is to measure the nonstabilizerness (fermionic magic) of the disentangled state and correlate it with the achieved entanglement reduction.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Clifford-augmented Grassmann matrix product state (CAGMPS) ansatz and a two-site DMRG algorithm in which local Clifford disentanglers are chosen to minimize the bipartite entanglement of the two-site wavefunction before SVD. The fermionic structure is handled natively through Grassmann tensor networks, avoiding Jordan-Wigner strings. The authors further claim that Grassmann-evenness and an equivalence under entangling action reduce the two-site Clifford search from 11,520 gates to 12. Benchmarks are presented for the tight-binding model and the t-V model, showing lower energy errors at fixed bond dimension, lower entanglement entropy profiles, and a central-charge-consistent entropy scaling. The abstract also lists a t-V-V' benchmark that does not appear in the main text.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a useful fermionic extension of the Clifford-augmented DMRG idea, preserving locality through the Grassmann formalism and potentially making the disentangling search much cheaper by restricting to 12 gates. The paper is clearly written, gives explicit Grassmann tensor definitions and contraction rules, and builds on the openly available GrassmannTN package, which aids reproducibility. The benchmark trends are plausible and consistent with earlier qubit-based Clifford-DMRG studies. However, the main efficiency claim rests on an unproven reduction of the Clifford gate set, and several benchmark details are not fully specified. These issues need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (11) and End Matter] The reduction from 11,520 to 12 two-qubit Clifford gates is asserted, not proven. The conditions 'sign-positivity' and 'equivalence under entangling action' are not formalized as a well-defined equivalence relation, and no counting argument or exhaustive verification is given. More importantly, the paper provides no benchmark comparing the results obtained by searching over the 12 gates with those obtained from the 32-gate or full 11,520-gate set. If the quotient discards a genuinely more entangling representative, then the 'only 12' cost advantage is not cost-free and the variational results could be suboptimal. This is an internal, checkable combinatorial claim and should be either proved or supported by numerical evidence on the actual two-site states encountered during DMRG sweeps.
  2. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract lists the t-V-V' model among the benchmark systems, but Section V presents results only for the tight-binding model (V=0) and the t-V model. The statement 'In all cases, Clifford augmentation systematically suppresses...' overclaims if the t-V-V' case is not shown. Either add the missing t-V-V' benchmark or remove it from the abstract.
  3. [Section IV(c) and Fig. 2] The algorithm does not spell out how the physical ground-state energy E0 and the energy error E-E0 are computed after a sequence of Clifford rotations. Since a different two-site Clifford circuit is applied at each DMRG update, the Hamiltonian must be transformed consistently with the accumulated rotations, and the MPS tensors must be interpreted in the same rotated frame. The paper states that the Hamiltonian is transformed by Eq. (14) but does not describe the bookkeeping over sweeps or how the final energy is evaluated. A careful explanation, or pseudocode, is needed to make the reported energy-error curves reproducible and to confirm that the plotted quantity is the physical energy and not a frame-dependent expectation value.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 4] The central-charge check fixes the logarithmic coefficient to 1/6 in the fitting function f(L) = 1/6 log L + a + b/L. The text then says the fits 'give the central charge consistent with c=1', but this is not a free fit for c; it only tests consistency with a fixed slope. If the intent is to extract or verify c, c should be allowed to vary (or the fixed-slope procedure should be clearly stated as a consistency check, not a determination of c). This is a supporting benchmark, but as written it overstates the result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V and Fig. 4] The acronym is inconsistent: the text and figures use GMPS, CAGMPS, CGMPS, and CAMPS. Please standardize to 'GMPS' and 'CAGMPS' throughout, including figure captions.
  2. [End Matter] The list of 12 gates is hard to read because notation like 'C/01S1C/01' lacks separators. Use explicit composition symbols, e.g., CNOT01 · S1 · CNOT01, and fix the typo 'Grassamnn'.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (11)] The sign-positivity condition is stated only for four Pauli operators. Since the Pauli group is generated by these operators (up to global factors), this may be sufficient, but the argument should be made explicit, including how y-type Pauli operators are accounted for under the Clifford action.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 2] No error bars or run-to-run variations are reported for the energy errors or entanglement entropies. If the DMRG sweeps are deterministic, this should be stated; otherwise, some uncertainty measure is needed to support the claim that CAGMPS 'systematically' outperforms GMPS at all bond dimensions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are benchmarked against independent GMPS and CFT behavior, and the 12-gate reduction is an internal group-theoretic count rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked. CAGMPS-DMRG is compared with conventional GMPS at fixed bond dimensions (Figs. 2–3) and with CFT scaling predictions (Fig. 4); the reported energy and entanglement improvements are numerical observations, not quantities reconstructed from fitted parameters that are then relabeled as predictions. The reduction from 11,520 two-qubit Clifford gates to 12 is presented as a quotient by sign-positivity, Grassmann-evenness, and left single-site unitaries (Sec. III, Eq. (11)); whether or not that count or equivalence proof is complete, it is an internal combinatorial claim and is not fitted to the benchmark data. The only self-referential element is the use of the authors' open-source GrassmannTN package [36] for tensor operations; this is implementation infrastructure, and no load-bearing theorem is imported from it. The c=1 check in Sec. V fixes the log coefficient to 1/6 in the fitting function, so it should be read as a consistency check of the expected form rather than an extracted value; even if that phrasing is loose, it is peripheral and does not make the central variational comparison circular. The unproven sufficiency of the 12-gate set is a correctness/omitted-proof concern, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central algorithm introduces no fitted constants; the only fitted numbers are peripheral entropy-scaling offsets. The method relies on Grassmann calculus, algebra-splitting conventions, and the unproven sufficiency of the 12-gate reduction.

free parameters (2)
  • Entropy scaling offset a (GMPS and CAGMPS fits) = 0.286 (GMPS), 0.0938 (CAGMPS), Fig. 4 caption
    Fitted offset in S = 1/6 log L + a + b/L; used only for the central-charge consistency check, not as a parameter of the ansatz.
  • Entropy scaling finite-size coefficient b = -0.528/L (GMPS), +0.0765/L (CAGMPS)
    Finite-size correction fitted in the same central-charge check; peripheral to the main claim.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Grassmann Berezin integral orthogonality ∫ ψ^I ψ†^J = δ_IJ (Eq. 2), giving the Grassmann tensor contraction rule.
    Background from Grassmann calculus, used to define GMPS contractions; not independently proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption The algebra-splitting procedure (Appendix A.3 of Ref. [36]) maps 4x4 non-Grassmann gate matrices to valid 2x2x2x2 Grassmann tensors.
    The construction of the 12 Clifford gates depends on this mapping; sign factors from splitting require care (End Matter).
  • domain assumption Grassmann-even Clifford circuits commute with total parity P_f = ⊗ ς^z and are the physically relevant disentanglers.
    Used to reduce 720 to 32 gates; assumes physical fermionic evolution preserves parity and that parity-even Cliffords suffice for entanglement reduction.
  • ad hoc to paper Signed-positivity quotient by the Pauli group and left-operation of single-site unitaries preserve the entanglement-minimization outcome for a fixed two-site state.
    This is the load-bearing reduction to 12 gates; the paper states it but does not provide a proof or a benchmark against the full gate set.
  • ad hoc to paper DMRG convergence after 40 full sweeps, and the use of E0 from an unspecified reference, are sufficient for the reported energy-error curves.
    No convergence data or definition of E0 is given; the benchmark figures rest on this unstated assumption.
  • standard math CFT prediction S = (c/6) log L + S0 with c=1 for the free-fermion chain (Eq. 17).
    External theory used as a sanity check; in Fig. 4 the slope is fixed to 1/6, so the check is weaker than a free-parameter fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clifford Circuits Augmented Grassmann Matrix Product States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7UI7CBO

@misc{pith2026251004164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clifford Circuits Augmented Grassmann Matrix Product States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7UI7CBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.04164}
}
abstract

Recent progress in combining Clifford circuits with tensor-network (TN) methods has shown that local Clifford disentanglers can reduce bipartite entanglement across TN bonds prior to tensor compression, thereby improving the efficiency of TN simulations. In this work, we embed local Clifford disentanglers in the Grassmann-tensor language to define a Clifford-augmented Grassmann matrix product state (CAGMPS) ansatz, and develop a density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) framework based on this ansatz while preserving locality and fermion-parity structure. We benchmark the resulting CAGMPS--DMRG method on representative fermionic lattice systems, including the tight-binding, $t$-$V$, and $t$-$V$-$V'$ models. In all cases, Clifford augmentation systematically suppresses bipartite entanglement and improves the accuracy of the ground-state energy at a fixed bond dimension. We further show that the Grassmann-evenness condition, together with equivalence under entangling action, restricts the relevant two-site Clifford candidates to 12 inequivalent representatives, enabling a more economical disentangling search than approaches based on the standard two-qubit Clifford gate set. Our results suggest that the CAGMPS--DMRG method provides a scalable and efficient variational tool for strongly correlated fermionic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.04164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Overview of the Clifford circuits augmented Grassmann MPS algorithm. (a) As in conventional two-site DMRG, to update the MPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The systematic error of the energy of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The entanglement entropy of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Volume scaling of the entanglement entropy of the tight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Disentangling Haldane Phase by Generalized Clifford Circuits

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Optimized two-site Clifford disentanglers for the Haldane phase realize the generalized Kramers-Wannier map, proven optimal for the AKLT state and converting SPT order into Z2 spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P. W. Anderson, The resonating valence bond state in la2cuo4 and superconductivity, Science235, 1196 (1987)

    1987

  2. [2]

    Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature supercon- ductors, Rev

    E. Dagotto, Correlated electrons in high-temperature supercon- ductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.66, 763 (1994)

    1994

  3. [3]

    Georges, G

    A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Dy- namical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion sys- tems and the limit of infinite dimensions, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 13 (1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    M. Qin, T. Sch ¨afer, S. Andergassen, P. Corboz, and E. Gull, The hubbard model: A computational perspective, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 275 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, The hub- bard model, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 239 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  7. [7]

    Bazavov, D

    A. Bazavov, D. Toussaint, C. Bernard, J. Laiho, C. DeTar, L. Levkova, M. Oktay, S. Gottlieb, U. Heller, J. Hetrick,et al., Nonperturbative qcd simulations with 2+ 1 flavors of improved staggered quarks, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1349 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Gattringer and C

    C. Gattringer and C. Lang,Quantum chromodynamics on the lattice: an introductory presentation, V ol. 788 (Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2009)

    2009

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    H. J. Rothe,Lattice gauge theories: an introduction(World Sci- entific Publishing Company, 2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Berges and K

    J. Berges and K. Rajagopal, Color superconductivity and chiral symmetry restoration at non-zero baryon density and tempera- ture, Nucl. Phys. B538, 215 (1999)

    1999

  3. [11]

    Satz, Colour deconfinement in nuclear collisions, Rep

    H. Satz, Colour deconfinement in nuclear collisions, Rep. Prog. Phys.63, 1511 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complexity and fun- damental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simula- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    S. R. White, Strongly correlated electron systems and the den- sity matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rep.301, 187 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    Chandrasekharan and U.-J

    S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, Meron-cluster solution of fermion sign problems, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3116 (1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormal- ization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  8. [16]

    S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormal- ization groups, Phys. Rev. B48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Schollw ¨ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw ¨ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    ¨Ostlund and S

    S. ¨Ostlund and S. Rommer, Thermodynamic limit of density matrix renormalization, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3537 (1995)

    1995

  11. [19]

    Verstraete, V

    F. Verstraete, V . Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems, Adv. Phys.57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    J. I. Cirac and F. Verstraete, Renormalization and tensor product states in spin chains and lattices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42, 504004 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Schollw ¨ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann

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

    2011

  14. [22]

    Or ´us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann

    R. Or ´us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P ´erez-Garc´ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Ma- trix product states and projected entangled pair states: Con- cepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  17. [25]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain, Ann. Phys.16, 407 (1961)

    1961

  18. [26]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y . Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation, Ann. Phys.298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  19. [27]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Mapping local hamiltonians of fermions to local hamiltonians of spins, J. Stat. Mech.2005, P09012 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    Barthel, C

    T. Barthel, C. Pineda, and J. Eisert, Contraction of fermionic operator circuits and the simulation of strongly correlated fermions, Phys. Rev. A80, 042333 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Corboz and G

    P. Corboz and G. Vidal, Fermionic multiscale entanglement renormalization ansatz, Phys. Rev. B80, 165129 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Pineda, T

    C. Pineda, T. Barthel, and J. Eisert, Unitary circuits for strongly correlated fermions, Phys. Rev. A81, 050303 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    C. V . Kraus, N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Fermionic projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. A81, 052338 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Corboz, G

    P. Corboz, G. Evenbly, F. Verstraete, and G. Vidal, Simula- tion of interacting fermions with entanglement renormalization, Phys. Rev. A81, 010303 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Bruognolo, J.-W

    B. Bruognolo, J.-W. Li, J. von Delft, and A. Weichselbaum, A beginner’s guide to non-abelian ipeps for correlated fermions, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 025 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Z.-C. Gu, F. Verstraete, and X.-G. Wen, Grassmann tensor network states and its renormalization for strongly correlated fermionic and bosonic states, arXiv:1004.2563 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gu, Efficient simulation of grassmann tensor product states, Phys

    Z.-C. Gu, Efficient simulation of grassmann tensor product states, Phys. Rev. B88, 115139 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Yosprakob, Grassmanntn: A python package for grassmann tensor network computations, SciPost Physics Codebases , 020 (2023)

    A. Yosprakob, Grassmanntn: A python package for grassmann tensor network computations, SciPost Physics Codebases , 020 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters, arXiv quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quantum com- puters, arXiv quant-ph/9807006 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  30. [38]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Augmenting density matrix renormalization group with clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 190402 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Clifford circuits augmented time-dependent variational principle, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 150404 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    X. Qian, J. Huang, and M. Qin, Augmenting a finite- temperature tensor network with clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. B 7 112, 115150 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    C. Fan, X. Qian, H.-C. Zhang, R.-Z. Huang, M. Qin, and T. Xi- ang, Disentangling critical quantum spin chains with clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. B111, 085121 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Qian, and M. Qin, Nonstabilizerness entanglement entropy: A measure of hardness in the classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with tensor network states, Phys. Rev. A112, 012425 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Qian, and M. Qin, Clifford circuits augmented matrix product states for fermion systems, Phys. Rev. B112, 205106 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Huang, X

    J. Huang, X. Qian, Z. Li, and M. Qin, Augmenting density matrix renormalization group with matchgates and clifford cir- cuits, arXiv:2505.08635 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Tagliacozzo and G

    L. Tagliacozzo and G. Vidal, Entanglement renormalization and gauge symmetry, Phys. Rev. B83, 115127 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    A. F. Mello, A. Santini, and M. Collura, Hybrid stabilizer ma- trix product operator, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 150604 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    A. F. Mello, A. Santini, G. Lami, J. De Nardis, and M. Collura, Clifford dressed time-dependent variational principle, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 150403 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, E. Tirrito, and M. Dal- monte, Stabilizer disentangling of conformal field theories, Sci- Post Phys.18, 165 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    A. F. Mello, A. Santini, and M. Collura, Clifford-dressed vari- ational principles for precise loschmidt echoes, Phys. Rev. A 111, 052401 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Masot-Llima and A

    S. Masot-Llima and A. Garcia-Saez, Stabilizer tensor networks: Universal quantum simulator on a basis of stabilizer states, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 230601 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    A. C. Nakhl, B. Harper, M. West, N. Dowling, M. Sevior, T. Quella, and M. Usman, Stabilizer tensor networks with magic state injection, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 190602 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Collura, G

    M. Collura, G. Lami, N. Ranabhat, and A. Santini, Tensor net- work techniques for quantum computation (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    G. E. Fux, B. B ´eri, R. Fazio, and E. Tirrito, Disentangling unitary dynamics with classically simulable quantum circuits, arXiv:2410.09001 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Harper, A

    B. Harper, A. C. Nakhl, T. Quella, M. Sevior, and M. Us- man, Gcamps: A scalable classical simulator for qudit systems, arXiv:2511.06672 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Hoshino and Y

    M. Hoshino and Y . Ashida, Stabilizer r ´enyi entropy en- codes fusion rules of topological defects and boundaries, arXiv:2507.10656 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Collura, J

    M. Collura, J. De Nardis, V . Alba, and G. Lami, The quantum magic of fermionic gaussian states, arXiv:2412.05367 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Sierant, P

    P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic magic re- sources of quantum many-body systems, arXiv:2506.00116 (2025). END MA TTER The 12 independent Clifford gates are listed as follows: •I•C/ 01S 1C/01 •C/10C/01C/10 •S 0C/01H0C/01 •H 0C/01C/10H1 •S 0C/10H1C/10 •C/10S 1...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.