arxiv: 2605.07621 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el· physics.comp-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Entanglement-informed distributed wavefunction approach to scalable quantum many-body systems

Adriano Amaricci

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph

keywords entanglementquantum many-body systemsdistributed wavefunctionKrylov subspace methodsentanglement spectrumscalable simulationwavefunction decomposition

0 comments

The pith

Entanglement structure defines a natural distributed representation for scalable quantum many-body simulations.

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

The paper argues that the entanglement structure of quantum many-body states provides a built-in way to decompose their wavefunctions into parts that can be distributed efficiently across processors. An arbitrary cut through the entanglement creates a bipartite split whose sizes follow the entanglement spectrum, so that applying the Hamiltonian—the main computational step in Krylov methods—requires only local operations and minimal data exchange. Benchmarks across models and methods show this yields near-linear scaling once systems are large enough, with the degree of fragmentation in the entanglement spectrum acting as the main control on cost. A sympathetic reader cares because conventional simulations face exponential barriers with size, and this supplies a single organizing principle that works across different numerical techniques rather than requiring method-specific tricks.

Core claim

The entanglement structure of quantum many-body states defines a natural and optimal distributed representation for their simulation. An arbitrary entanglement cut induces a bipartite decomposition of the wavefunction, mapping its distribution onto that of the entanglement spectrum. In this representation the Hamiltonian application, the core of Krylov-subspace methods, reduces to local contractions and communication-optimal operations. Using benchmarks from different methods and models, near-linear scaling is demonstrated for sufficiently large systems and entanglement spectrum fragmentation is identified as a key factor controlling computational cost. This establishes entanglement as an an

What carries the argument

The bipartite decomposition of the wavefunction induced by an arbitrary entanglement cut and sized according to the entanglement spectrum, which converts Hamiltonian applications into local contractions plus communication-optimal steps.

Load-bearing premise

That an arbitrary entanglement cut will produce a bipartite wavefunction decomposition distributed according to the entanglement spectrum and thereby deliver communication-optimal operations with near-linear scaling for large systems.

What would settle it

A benchmark run on a sufficiently large system in which the observed scaling deviates strongly from linear or in which communication volume exceeds the local computation time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07621 by Adriano Amaricci.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (f) the process-resolved inverse participation ratio WP = P q∈Qp W2 q of the entanglement weight distribution, where Qp is the set of symmetry-sectors assigned to process p and Wq = P i e −ξq,i / P q,i e −ξq,i . WP remains largely sub-extensive over the number of processes, indicating partial but non-trivial scrambling of the entanglement spectrum. This determines how efficiently the 20 40 60 q 2 4 P (a… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Setup and scaling of the entanglement-informed wavefunction distribution. (a-c) Examples of system bi-partition. The blue line indicates the EC C separating the system in L and R partitions for a 2d spin model (a), a 1d Hubbard model with hopping t, local U and non-local interaction V (b) and a quantum impurity model (c) featuring a cut in the spin symmetry group space. (d) Representation of the distribute… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Asymptotic scaling of the QMBs solution. Top panel: parallel speed-up T(P)/T(1) as a function of the number of processes P. Data are from the DMRG solution of the 1d SM with S = 20. The dashed line indicates the Amdahl’s law fit (f = 0.95). The dotted line indicates power-law fit (k = 0.93). Bottom panel: parallel efficiency ϵ = T (1) P T (P ) (left y-axis) and data share per CPU (right y-axis) as a func… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Symmetry fragmentation and communication overhead. (a) Wavefunction symmetry-blocks bond dimensions χq distribution as a function of the sector index q. Data from DMRG solution with S = 20 sites, P = 64, χ = 4000 of the SM J = 1 (top), the HM U = 2t and attractive HM |U| >> t (bottom). The dashed lines are fit with exponential distributions: α = 0.95 (SM), 0.15 (HM) and 1.11 (attractive HM). (b) Communi… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Complementary cumulative distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We show that the entanglement structure of quantum many-body states defines a natural and optimal distributed representation for their simulation. An arbitrary entanglement cut induces a bipartite decomposition of the wavefunction, mapping its distribution onto that of the entanglement spectrum. In this representation the Hamiltonian application, the core of Krylov-subspace methods, reduces to local contractions and communication-optimal operations. Using benchmarks from different methods and models, we demonstrate near-linear scaling for sufficiently large systems and identify entanglement spectrum fragmentation as a key factor controlling computational cost. This establishes entanglement as an organizing principle and unified, method-independent, route for scaling up quantum many-body simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Entanglement cuts for wavefunction distribution give a coherent way to reduce communication in Krylov methods, but the scaling evidence is still thin.

read the letter

The paper's central move is to take an arbitrary entanglement cut on a many-body state, decompose the wavefunction accordingly, and align its processor distribution with the entanglement spectrum. Once that is done, the Hamiltonian-vector multiplication that drives Krylov methods reduces to local contractions plus a small amount of communication. The authors claim this yields near-linear scaling once the spectrum fragments, and they present it as a method-independent organizing principle rather than a fix for one algorithm.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an entanglement-informed distributed wavefunction approach for scalable quantum many-body simulations. It claims that an arbitrary entanglement cut induces a bipartite decomposition of the wavefunction, mapping its distribution onto the entanglement spectrum. In this representation, Hamiltonian application (core to Krylov-subspace methods) reduces to local contractions and communication-optimal operations. Benchmarks from different methods and models are stated to demonstrate near-linear scaling for sufficiently large systems, with entanglement spectrum fragmentation identified as the controlling factor for computational cost. The work positions entanglement structure as a natural, optimal, and method-independent organizing principle for scaling simulations.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated with quantitative evidence, the approach could provide a unified framework for distributing quantum many-body calculations by exploiting intrinsic entanglement properties. This has potential to improve scalability across tensor-network, Monte Carlo, and other methods without method-specific redesigns, enabling larger-system simulations in quantum many-body physics.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'benchmarks from different methods and models... demonstrate near-linear scaling' and identify 'entanglement spectrum fragmentation as a key factor controlling computational cost' is presented without any quantitative data, error analysis, scaling plots, or baseline comparisons. This evidence is load-bearing for the central scalability assertion and cannot be assessed from the manuscript as described.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for clearer substantiation of the central claims. We address the major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the supporting evidence.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'benchmarks from different methods and models... demonstrate near-linear scaling' and identify 'entanglement spectrum fragmentation as a key factor controlling computational cost' is presented without any quantitative data, error analysis, scaling plots, or baseline comparisons. This evidence is load-bearing for the central scalability assertion and cannot be assessed from the manuscript as described.

Authors: We agree that the abstract provides only a high-level summary and that the quantitative support for the scalability claims must be clearly accessible. The full manuscript includes dedicated benchmark sections with scaling plots, error analyses, baseline comparisons across methods (e.g., tensor-network and Monte Carlo approaches), and explicit identification of entanglement spectrum fragmentation as the cost-controlling factor for multiple models and system sizes. To address the concern, we have revised the abstract to include a brief, specific reference to the observed near-linear scaling regime and the fragmentation metric, while adding explicit cross-references to the relevant figures and tables. We have also expanded the main-text discussion to ensure all quantitative details, including error bars and direct comparisons, are prominently featured. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation follows directly from standard bipartite entanglement cuts

full rationale

The paper constructs its distributed representation by applying an arbitrary entanglement cut to induce a bipartite decomposition of the wavefunction, then mapping the distribution onto the entanglement spectrum. This step is definitional and follows from the standard Schmidt decomposition without any fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The subsequent reduction of Hamiltonian application to local contractions is a direct algebraic consequence of the bipartite structure and does not rename or smuggle in prior results by the same authors. Benchmarks are presented as empirical validation rather than as the source of the core claim. No equation or premise reduces to its own inputs by construction; the argument remains self-contained against external quantum information principles.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-information assumptions about bipartite entanglement cuts and the existence of an entanglement spectrum; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption An arbitrary entanglement cut induces a bipartite decomposition of the wavefunction that maps its distribution onto the entanglement spectrum.
Stated directly in the abstract as the starting point for the distributed representation.
domain assumption Hamiltonian application in Krylov-subspace methods reduces to local contractions plus communication-optimal operations under this decomposition.
Core computational claim of the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5392 in / 1247 out tokens · 28748 ms · 2026-05-11T02:15:05.419782+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

An arbitrary entanglement cut induces a bipartite decomposition of the wavefunction, mapping its distribution onto that of the entanglement spectrum... Hamiltonian application... reduces to local contractions and communication-optimal operations.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Kotliar and D

G. Kotliar and D. Vollhardt, Strongly correlated materi- als: Insights from dynamical mean-field theory, Physics Today57, 53 (2004)

work page 2004
[2]

Amico, R

L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

work page 2008
[3]

Bradlyn, L

B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Topological quantum chemistry, Nature547, 298 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Tokura, M

Y. Tokura, M. Kawasaki, and N. Nagaosa, Emergent functions of quantum materials, Nat. Phys.13, 1056 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

J. Q. Fang, F.-H. Wang, and X. Y. Xu, Two-point stabi- lizer rényi entropy: a computable magic proxy of inter- actingfermions,arXiv10.48550/arxiv.2601.13314(2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[6]

Kuramoto,Quantum Many-Body Physics(Springer Tokyo, 2020)

Y. Kuramoto,Quantum Many-Body Physics(Springer Tokyo, 2020)

work page 2020
[7]

Z.-H. Cui, H. Zhai, X. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Sys- tematic electronic structure in the cuprate parent state fromquantummany-bodysimulations,Science377,1192 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, G. Torlai, V. V. Albert, and J. Preskill, Provably efficient machine learning for quan- tummany-bodyproblems,Science377, eabk3333(2022)

work page 2022
[9]

D. Wu, R. Rossi, F. Vicentini, N. Astrakhantsev, F. Becca, X. Cao, J. Carrasquilla, F. Ferrari, A. Georges, M. Hibat-Allah, M. Imada, A. M. Läuchli, G. Mazzola, A. Mezzacapo, A. Millis, J. R. Moreno, T. Neupert, Y. Nomura, J. Nys, O. Parcollet, R. Pohle, I. Romero, M. Schmid, J. M. Silvester, S. Sorella, L. F. Tocchio, L. Wang, S. R. White, A. Wietek, Q. ...

work page 2024
[10]

Bellomia, C

G. Bellomia, C. Mejuto-Zaera, M. Capone, and A. Amar- icci, Quasilocal entanglement across the mott-hubbard transition, Phys. Rev. B109, 115104 (2024)

work page 2024
[11]

F.Tafuri, C.A.Perroni,andG.D.Filippis,Lecturenotes on quantum many-body theory: A pedagogical introduc- tion (2026), arXiv:2507.09229

work page arXiv 2026
[12]

Gunnarsson, Superconductivity in fullerides, Rev

O. Gunnarsson, Superconductivity in fullerides, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 575 (1997)

work page 1997
[13]

Capone, M

M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, C. Castellani, and E. Tosatti, Strongly correlated superconductivity, Science296, 2364 (2002)

work page 2002
[14]

P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a mott in- sulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 17 (2006)

work page 2006
[15]

P. W. Anderson, Is there glue in cuprate superconduc- tors?, Science316, 1705 (2007)

work page 2007
[16]

Capone, M

M. Capone, M. Fabrizio, C. Castellani, and E. Tosatti, Colloquium: Modeling the unconventional superconduct- ing properties of expandedA 3c60 fullerides, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 943 (2009)

work page 2009
[17]

S. E. Sebastian, N. Harrison, F. F. Balakirev, M. M. Al- tarawneh, P. A. Goddard, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, and G. G. Lonzarich, Normal-state nodal elec- tronicstructureinunderdopedhigh-tccopperoxides,Na- ture511, 61 (2014)

work page 2014
[18]

de’ Medici, G

L. de’ Medici, G. Giovannetti, and M. Capone, Selective mottphysicsasakeytoironsuperconductors,Phys.Rev. Lett.112, 177001 (2014)

work page 2014
[19]

Keimer, S

B. Keimer, S. A. Kivelson, M. R. Norman, S. Uchida, and J. Zaanen, From quantum matter to high-temperature superconductivity in copper oxides, Nature518, 179 (2015)

work page 2015
[20]

Jiang, Z

H.-C. Jiang, Z. Wang, and L. Balents, Identifying topo- logical order by entanglement entropy, Nature Physics8, 902 (2012)

work page 2012
[21]

Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev

X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041004 (2017)

work page 2017
[22]

Wen, Choreographed entanglement dances: Topo- logical states of quantum matter, Science363, 10.1126/science.aal3099 (2019)

X.-G. Wen, Choreographed entanglement dances: Topo- logical states of quantum matter, Science363, 10.1126/science.aal3099 (2019)

work page doi:10.1126/science.aal3099 2019
[23]

J. A. Hertz, Quantum critical phenomena, Phys. Rev. B 14, 1165 (1976)

work page 1976
[24]

Senthil, A

T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined Quantum Critical Points, Science303, 1490 (2004)

work page 2004
[25]

Sachdev and B

S. Sachdev and B. Keimer, Quantum criticality, Phys. Today64, 29 (2011)

work page 2011
[26]

M.Dalmonte, B.Vermersch,andP.Zoller,Quantumsim- ulation and spectroscopy of entanglement hamiltonians, Nature Physics14, 10.1038/s41567-018-0151-7 (2018)

work page doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0151-7 2018
[27]

Lukin, M

A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, M. E. Tai, A. M. Kauf- man, S. Choi, V. Khemani, J. Léonard, and M. Greiner, Probing entanglement in a many-body–localized system, Science364, 10.1126/science.aau0818 (2019)

work page doi:10.1126/science.aau0818 2019
[28]

J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

work page 2021
[29]

M. K. Joshi, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, F. Kranzl, T. V. Zache, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Exploring large-scale entanglement in quantum simulation, Nature 624, 10.1038/s41586-023-06768-0 (2023)

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06768-0 2023
[30]

Q. Zhao, Y. Zhou, and A. M. Childs, Entanglement ac- celerates quantum simulation, Nature Physics21, 1338 (2025)

work page 2025
[31]

Bauer, L

B. Bauer, L. D. Carr, H. G. Evertz, A. Feiguin, J. Freire, S. Fuchs, L. Gamper, J. Gukelberger, E. Gull, S. Guertler, A. Hehn, R. Igarashi, S. V. Isakov, D. Koop, P. N. Ma, P. Mates, H. Matsuo, O. Parcol- let, G. Pawlowski, J. D. Picon, L. Pollet, E. Santos, V. W. Scarola, U. Schollwöck, C. Silva, B. Surer, S. Todo, S. Trebst, M. Troyer, M. L. Wall, P. We...

work page 2011
[32]

J. P. F. LeBlanc, A. E. Antipov, F. Becca, I. W. Bulik, G. K.-L. Chan, C.-M. Chung, Y. Deng, M. Ferrero, T. M. Henderson, C. A. Jiménez-Hoyos, E. Kozik, X.-W. Liu, A. J. Millis, N. V. Prokof’ev, M. Qin, G. E. Scuseria, H. Shi, B. V. Svistunov, L. F. Tocchio, I. S. Tupitsyn, S. R. White, S. Zhang, B.-X. Zheng, Z. Zhu, and E. Gull (Simons Collaboration on t...

work page 2015
[33]

Carleo and M

G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many- body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017). 6

work page 2017
[34]

Orús, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nature Reviews Physics1, 538 (2019)

R. Orús, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nature Reviews Physics1, 538 (2019)

work page 2019
[35]

Stoudenmire and S

E. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Studying two- dimensional systems with the density matrix renormal- ization group, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3, 111 (2012)

work page 2012
[36]

Mortier, L

Q. Mortier, L. Devos, L. Burgelman, B. Vanhecke, N. Bultinck, F. Verstraete, J. Haegeman, and L. Van- derstraeten, Fermionic tensor network methods, SciPost Physics18, 10.21468/scipostphys.18.1.012 (2025)

work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.18.1.012 2025
[37]

S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalizationgroups,Phys.Rev.Lett.69,2863(1992)

work page 1992
[38]

Peschel, X

I. Peschel, X. Wang, M. Kaulke, and K. Hallberg,Density Matrix Renormalization(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999)

work page 1999
[39]

D. J. García, K. Hallberg, and M. J. Rozenberg, Dynam- ical mean field theory with the density matrix renormal- ization group, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 246403 (2004)

work page 2004
[40]

Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

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

work page 2005
[41]

U.Schollwöck,Thedensity-matrixrenormalizationgroup in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

work page 2011
[42]

Amaricci, G

A. Amaricci, G. Sordi, and M. J. Rozenberg, Non-fermi- liquid behavior in the periodic anderson model, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 146403 (2008)

work page 2008
[43]

Di Dio, S

M. Di Dio, S. De Palo, E. Orignac, R. Citro, and M.-L. Chiofalo, Persisting meissner state and incommensurate phases of hard-core boson ladders in a flux, Phys. Rev. B92, 060506(R) (2015)

work page 2015
[44]

G. K.-L. Chan, A. Keselman, N. Nakatani, Z. Li, and S. R. White, Matrix product operators, matrix prod- uct states, andab initiodensity matrix renormalization group algorithms, The Journal of Chemical Physics145, 10.1063/1.4955108 (2016)

work page doi:10.1063/1.4955108 2016
[45]

Orignac, R

E. Orignac, R. Citro, M. Di Dio, and S. De Palo, Vortex lattice melting in a boson ladder in an artificial gauge field, Phys. Rev. B96, 014518 (2017)

work page 2017
[46]

2021 , issn =

H. Zhai and G. K.-L. Chan, Low communication high performanceab initiodensity matrix renormalization group algorithms, The Journal of Chemical Physics154, 10.1063/5.0050902 (2021)

work page doi:10.1063/5.0050902 2021
[47]

Huang, F

C. Huang, F. Zhang, M. Newman, X. Ni, D. Ding, J. Cai, X. Gao, T. Wang, F. Wu, G. Zhang, H.-S. Ku, Z. Tian, J. Wu, H. Xu, H. Yu, B. Yuan, M. Szegedy, Y. Shi, H.-H. Zhao, C. Deng, and J. Chen, Efficient par- allelization of tensor network contraction for simulating quantum computation, Nature Computational Science1, 10.1038/s43588-021-00119-7 (2021)

work page doi:10.1038/s43588-021-00119-7 2021
[48]

Sehlstedt, J

P. Sehlstedt, J. Brandejs, P. Bientinesi, and L. Karls- son, The software landscape for the density matrix renor- malization group, arXiv 10.48550/ARXIV.2506.12629 (2025)

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12629 2025
[49]

Dolfen,Massively parallel exact diagonaliza- tion of strongly correlated systems, Master’s thesis, Forschungszentrum Juelich (2006)

A. Dolfen,Massively parallel exact diagonaliza- tion of strongly correlated systems, Master’s thesis, Forschungszentrum Juelich (2006)

work page 2006
[50]

Rincón, D

J. Rincón, D. García, and K. Hallberg, Improved par- allelization techniques for the density matrix renormal- ization group, Computer Physics Communications181, 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.03.018 (2010)

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2010.03.018 2010
[51]

E. M. Stoudenmire and S. R. White, Real-space parallel density matrix renormalization group, Physical Review B87, 10.1103/physrevb.87.155137 (2013)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.155137 2013
[52]

Sharma and M

M. Sharma and M. Ahsan, Organization of the hilbert space for exact diagonalization of hubbard model, Com- puter Physics Communications193, 19 (2015)

work page 2015
[53]

Siro and A

T. Siro and A. Harju, Exact diagonalization of quantum lattice models on coprocessors, Computer Physics Com- munications207, 274 (2016)

work page 2016
[54]

Sotiris, L.Örs, and L.Veis, Massively parallel quantum chemical density ma- trix renormalization group method, Journal of Compu- tational Chemistry42, 10.1002/jcc.26476 (2020)

J.Brabec, J.Brandejs, K.Karol, X. Sotiris, L.Örs, and L.Veis, Massively parallel quantum chemical density ma- trix renormalization group method, Journal of Compu- tational Chemistry42, 10.1002/jcc.26476 (2020)

work page doi:10.1002/jcc.26476 2020
[55]

R. Levy, E. Solomonik, and B. K. Clark, Distributed- memory dmrg via sparse and dense parallel tensor con- tractions, SC20: International Conference for High Per- formance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis 10.1109/sc41405.2020.00028 (2020)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1109/sc41405.2020.00028 2020
[56]

Amaricci, L

A. Amaricci, L. Crippa, A. Scazzola, F. Petocchi, G. Mazza, L. de Medici, and M. Capone, Edipack: A parallelexactdiagonalizationpackageforquantumimpu- rity problems, Computer Physics Communications273, 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108261 (2022)

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108261 2021
[57]

Menczer, M

A. Menczer, M. van Damme, A. Rask, L. Hunting- ton, J. Hammond, S. S. Xantheas, M. Ganahl, and Ö. Legeza, Parallel implementation of the density ma- trix renormalization group method achieving a quar- ter petaflops performance on a single dgx-h100 gpu node, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation20, 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00903 (2024)

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00903 2024
[58]

Goldstein and E

M. Goldstein and E. Sela, Symmetry-resolved entangle- ment in many-body systems, Physical Review Letters 120, 10.1103/physrevlett.120.200602 (2018)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.200602 2018
[59]

Bonsignori, P

R. Bonsignori, P. Ruggiero, and P. Calabrese, Symmetry resolved entanglement in free fermionic systems, Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 10.1088/1751-8121/ab4b77 (2019)

work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab4b77 2019
[60]

Bellomia, A

G. Bellomia, A. Amaricci, and M. Capone, Local clas- sical correlations between physical electrons in hubbard systems, Phys. Rev. B113, 155158 (2026)

work page 2026
[61]

Crippa, I

L. Crippa, I. Krivenko, S. Giuli, G. Bellomia, A. Kowal- ski, F. Petocchi, A. Scazzola, M. Wallerberger, G. Mazza, L. de Medici, G. Sangiovanni, M. Capone, and A. Amar- icci, Next-generation EDIpack: A Lanczos-based package for quantum impurity models featuring general broken- symmetry phases, flexible bath topologies and multi- platform interoperability,...

work page 2025
[62]

Giudici, T

G. Giudici, T. Mendes-Santos, P. Calabrese, and M. Dal- monte, Entanglement hamiltonians of lattice models via thebisognano-wichmanntheorem,PhysicalReviewB98, 10.1103/physrevb.98.134403 (2018)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.98.134403 2018
[63]

Message Passing Interface Forum,MPI: A Message- Passing Interface Standard, Version 2.2(High Perfor- mance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS), 2009)

work page 2009
[64]

J. L. Gustafson, Reevaluating amdahl’s law, Commun. ACM31, 532 (1988)

work page 1988
[65]

J. L. Gustafson, Amdahl’s law, inEncyclopedia of Paral- lel Computing, edited by D. Padua (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2011) pp. 53–60

work page 2011
[66]

END MA TTER Effective description of symmetry fragmentation

See end matter. END MA TTER Effective description of symmetry fragmentation. The distribution of symmetry-sector dimensions plays a central role in determining computational load balancing 7 100 101 102 103 104 x 10□1 100 P(χq > x) Power-law ﬁt Figure 5. Complementary cumulative distribution function of the symmetry-sectors bond dimensionχq for the Hubbar...

work page