Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Gaussian-augmented bosonic matrix-product states: theory and applications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces Gaussian-augmented bosonic matrix-product states, a single ansatz that contains all pure Gaussian states and all finite-dimensional matrix-product states, with closed-form transfer matrices and exact parent Hamiltonians

desk verdict The GA-BMPS ansatz and parent Hamiltonians are worth taking seriously, but the transfer-matrix calculus misses complex conjugation and thus fails for the complex parameters the paper allows. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28753 v1 pith:HXCAPXSB submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph cond-mat.str-elhep-th

Erickson Tjoa , J. Ignacio Cirac This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-elhep-th
keywords bosonicmatrix-productstatesGaussianparentHamiltoniantransfermatrixphotonicFockspacevariationalmethodstensornetworksphoton-addedsqueezed
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 defines a family of bosonic many-body states—Gaussian-augmented bosonic matrix-product states—in which the virtual matrices of an MPS are interleaved with exponential factors that act like matrix-valued squeezing and displacement. It claims three things: the family contains every pure Gaussian state and every finite-dimensional matrix-product state as special cases; expectation values can be computed from closed-form transfer matrices, so variational calculations need no local Fock-space cutoff; and every state in the family is the exact ground state of a frustration-free parent Hamiltonian written as simple functions of the bosonic ladder operators. If these claims hold, this is a practical and conceptual unification of two of the main variational frameworks for one-dimensional quantum systems.

What carries the argument

The GA-BMPS ansatz (Definition 1): a matrix-product state over the infinite Fock space whose auxiliary-space matrices sandwich exponentials K⊗(a†)^2 and L⊗a†, with an optional passive linear-optical unitary across all modes. Its two workhorses are the closed-form transfer matrix E, which turns contraction of an infinite-dimensional tensor network into a finite matrix calculation, and the Wronskian-based single-mode operators Q and F_j: Q annihilates exactly the local basis {|e_j⟩}, and F_j sends |e_k⟩ to δ_{jk}|0⟩. Together these construct the parent Hamiltonian h0+hR with kernel equal to the desired local MPS subspace.

What would settle it

Pick a single-mode family of photon-added squeezed coherent states with degenerate squeezing parameters so that the Wronskian Δ(z) has zeros, construct Q by Lemma 3, and compute dim ker Q on the Fock-space domain. If for any parameter choice dim ker Q exceeds the number n of local states, ker(h0+hR) is larger than the target subspace W and the parent-Hamiltonian construction is not exact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a bosonic MPS generated by exponentials of matrix-valued quadratic and linear terms—V e^{K⊗(a†)^2} e^{L⊗a†}|0⟩, followed by a passive linear-optical unitary—forms a self-contained framework. For commuting K and L, the transfer matrix collapses to a closed-form Gaussian integral, E = (V⊗V) Δ^{1/2} exp(Δ(K⊗L^2 + L⊗L + L^2⊗K)) with Δ = (1−4K⊗K)^{-1}, so norms and local observables are evaluated exactly without truncating Fock space. The same family admits exact parent Hamiltonians: Wronskian-built annihilation-operator polynomials Q and interpolation operators F_j give a positive local term whose kernel is exactly the local subspace of the state. Numerical tests show t

Load-bearing premise

The exact parent-Hamiltonian construction relies on the chosen local photon-added squeezed states being linearly independent and on the Wronskian-built operator Q having kernel exactly their span on the whole relevant Fock-space domain; if that kernel is larger, the parent Hamiltonian acquires extra ground states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every pure Gaussian state and every finite-dimensional MPS is a subfamily, so the ansatz interpolates between the two standard variational tools for bosons.
  • Norm, local polynomial observables, and Gaussian-unitary operators have closed-form transfer matrices, allowing variational optimization in the full Fock space without a hard occupation cutoff.
  • Every BMPS—and every GA-BMPS obtained by a passive unitary—is the exact ground state of a frustration-free parent Hamiltonian whose terms are simple functions of a and a†; locality survives when the passive unitary is a finite-depth local Gaussian circuit.
  • Numerical results show on-site squeezing lowers the variational energy in the lattice φ^4_2 model and that the parent-Hamiltonian construction is practical, recovering a target D=2 MPS to numerical precision.
  • The same tensor-network structure extends to multiple boson species per site, mixed spin-boson chains, and—formally—higher-dimensional bosonic tensor networks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The closed-form transfer matrix should make the ansatz compatible with gradient-based time-evolution methods, such as a time-dependent variational principle, giving a truncation-free route to dynamics that the paper leaves as future work.
  • The linear-independence and kernel assumptions behind the Wronskian construction could be monitored numerically as a conditioning diagnostic; singular Wronskians would signal parameter regions where the parent Hamiltonian may acquire extra ground states.
  • The coexistence of Gaussian and MPS subfamilies suggests the ansatz could support a bosonic analogue of injectivity-based phase classification, where the overlap matrix of photon-added squeezed states plays the role of the physical inner product.
  • A concrete testable extension is to benchmark GA-BMPS against standard truncated-tensor-network calculations for Bose-Hubbard chains at high filling, where truncation artifacts are most severe and the advantage of exact expectation values should be largest.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a variational family for one-dimensional bosonic systems, the Gaussian-augmented bosonic matrix-product states (GA-BMPS). A GA-BMPS is built from a finite-dimensional auxiliary space and site operators of the form V e^{K\otimes(a^\dagger)^2} e^{L\otimes a^\dagger} applied to the Fock vacuum, optionally followed by a passive Gaussian unitary. The authors claim three properties: (i) the family contains all pure Gaussian states and finite-dimensional MPS; (ii) expectation values can be computed efficiently through a closed-form transfer-matrix calculus (Propositions 1-3); and (iii) exact parent Hamiltonians can be constructed as simple functions of the canonical operators (Section IV). They also present variational tests for the lattice phi^4 model and a parent-Hamiltonian recovery example (Section V). The paper is clearly written, the algebraic framework is appealing, and the parent-Hamiltonian construction is systematic and independent of the transfer-matrix calculus.

Significance. If correct, the GA-BMPS ansatz would be a useful truncation-free variational family that unifies Gaussian states and finite-dimensional MPS, with a rare combination of closed-form contractions and exact parent Hamiltonians. The parent-Hamiltonian construction via ambient annihilators and check operators is particularly interesting and goes beyond the standard finite-dimensional projector construction. However, the central computational claim (ii) is not supported as written because the transfer-matrix formulas omit the complex conjugation on the bra side. This error affects Propositions 1-3 and therefore the numerical section, although the Appendix C algebra is repairable by conjugating the left tensor factor. The claimed variational results in Section V appear to require the corrected (conjugated) transfer matrices, which are not stated in the text. The contribution is potentially valuable, but the manuscript needs a substantial, focused revision of the transfer-matrix calculus before the main claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C, Eqs. (33)-(34), Propositions 1-3] Equation (33) defines E = \sum_n A_n \otimes A_n and Eq. (34) evaluates it as V \otimes V E(L\otimes 1, K\otimes 1, 1\otimes K, 1\otimes L). For complex tensors, this is the bilinear transfer matrix, not the quantum one: the bra tensor must be the entrywise conjugate \overline{A_n}. For |\Psi\rangle = \sum_n Tr(BA_n)|n\rangle, the norm is \sum_n |Tr(BA_n)|^2, whereas the paper computes \sum_n Tr(BA_n)^2. The failure is already visible for D=1, K=0, L=1+i: Eq. (34) gives e^{\ell^2}=e^{2i}, while the correct norm is e^{|\ell|^2}=e^2, as stated in Eq. (9). Propositions 2 and 3 inherit the same defect. The Appendix C calculus can be repaired by setting P=\overline{L}\otimes 1, Q=\overline{K}\otimes 1, R=1\otimes K, S=1\otimes L, with conjugate sources; nevertheless, claim (ii) is unsupported as written.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 1 and Table I] The numerical results are described as being obtained from 'the dominant fixed points of the transfer operator' defined in Section III.C. If that operator is the unconjugated one of Eq. (33), the minimized functional is not the physical energy; it can be complex and is not bounded below, so the reported variational energies and parameter recovery do not follow from the paper's formulas. Either the implementation used the corrected conjugated transfer matrices, in which case those formulas must be given in the main text, or the numerics are not evidence for the physical variational claim. The text should also reconcile this with Eq. (9), which explicitly gives the correct conjugated norm for the D=1 case.
  3. [Section II.B and Eq. (17)] The finite-MPS transfer-matrix review also writes E = \sum_i A^i \otimes A^i without conjugation. Unless the tensors are assumed real, the standard expression is E = \sum_i \overline{A^i} \otimes A^i. This notational omission is the root cause of the error in Propositions 1-3. Please correct the convention throughout the manuscript and state it explicitly, since Definition 1 and Example 5 use complex V,K,L.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix E, Lemma 3] The step 'Consequently, dim ker Q \le n' deserves one clarifying sentence: an entire Bargmann-space function is determined by its germ at z_0 by the identity theorem, so local ODE uniqueness at a regular point bounds the global kernel even when the Wronskian has zeros. The claim itself appears sound.
  2. [Section III.C, Eq. (35)] The O-transfer matrix should also be written with a conjugated bra: E_O = \sum_{i,j} \langle i|O|j\rangle \overline{A_i} \otimes A_j, and the source-derivative identities in Proposition 2 should be updated accordingly.
  3. [Section III.F, Eq. (52)] For the multimode factorization E = E_1 \cdots E_M, please specify that after the conjugation fix each E_\nu is built from \overline{V}, \overline{K}_\nu, \overline{L}_\nu on the bra side. The current notation is ambiguous about the ordering of bra and ket factors.
  4. [Section V] The target V in Example 5 is complex, but L-BFGS-B is a real-variable solver. Please state how the complex parameters were encoded (e.g., real and imaginary parts) and how automatic differentiation through the fixed-point calculation handles complex variables, so the numerical procedure is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivations are self-contained calculations from Definition 1, and the numerical benchmarks are either external or explicit self-consistency tests.

full rationale

The paper's main claims (transfer-matrix formulas, parent-Hamiltonian construction, representation equivalences) are derived directly from Definition 1 using the CCR algebra, coherent-state resolutions of the identity, and explicit Wronskian/ODE arguments in Appendices C and E. These are computations from stated assumptions, not predictions that secretly coincide with fitted inputs. The parent Hamiltonian construction is an existence result: given a target BMPS, the operators Q and F_j are constructed so that ker h = W by proof (Lemmas 3, 4 and Proposition 6), not by fitting a parameter to data and then calling it a prediction. The numerical recovery in Section V B is explicitly framed as a self-consistency test on a Hamiltonian built from the target state ('It is therefore expected that if one starts from such a parent Hamiltonian H, the BMPS should be able to variationally find the ground state of H'), so it is not a circular derivation. The phi^4 benchmark is an external Hamiltonian whose energies are minimized variationally, providing independent content. Citations to prior work, including works by the authors, are contextual (standard MPS theory, Gaussian states) and are not used as a uniqueness theorem to force the ansatz. The skeptic's objection about the missing complex conjugation in E = sum A_n ⊗ A_n (Sec. III C) is a mathematical correctness concern for complex tensors, not a circularity: the formula still derives from the stated definition rather than assuming the conclusion. Hence no load-bearing circular step is present.

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

The central claims rest on standard quantum-mechanical background and on structural conditions of the ansatz (linear independence of the local basis, convergence of transfer series, existence of a common dense domain). No new particles, mediators, or forces are introduced; the only 'new object' is the state family itself, which is the content of the paper rather than a postulated entity.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bosonic Fock space representation and canonical commutation relations [a_i,a†_j]=δ_ij 1
    The backbone of the ansatz and transfers; introduced in Sec. II.
  • standard math Bloch–Messiah decomposition of Gaussian unitaries
    Used to show D=1 GA-BMPS gives all pure Gaussian states; proved in Appendix A via symplectic SVD.
  • domain assumption Linear independence of the local photon-added squeezed states and Wronskian construction of the ambient annihilator Q
    Required for the parent Hamiltonian construction (Lemmas 3–4, App. E); paper gives only a local ODE argument and leaves global domain issues implicit.
  • domain assumption Convergence condition ρ(K)<1/2 for absolute convergence of the transfer-matrix series
    Appendix B proves the series converges under this condition; it restricts the allowable squeezing matrices.
  • domain assumption Existence of a common dense domain for the unbounded operators appearing in parent Hamiltonians
    Stated in Sec. IV B ('understood on a suitable common dense domain'); the formal manipulations assume it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaussian-augmented bosonic matrix-product states: theory and applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXCAPXSB

@misc{pith2026260728753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaussian-augmented bosonic matrix-product states: theory and applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXCAPXSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28753}
}
read the original abstract

We propose and analyze the structure of a family of bosonic quantum many-body states that have the following features: (i) they include all pure Gaussian states and finite-dimensional matrix-product states as subclasses; (ii) their expectation values can be efficiently computed, allowing them to be used, among other things, for variational calculations; (iii) they admit exact parent Hamiltonians expressed as simple functions of the bosonic creation and annihilation operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Thermodynamic-limit BMPS results for the lattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Single-mode Gaussian states Two particularly important families of single-mode Gaussian states arecoherent statesandsqueezed states, |α⟩=D(α)|0⟩, D(α) =e αa†−α∗a, |ζ⟩=S(ζ)|0⟩, S(ζ) =e 1 2(ζ∗a2−ζ(a†)2), (5) defined forα,ζ∈C. Up to a global phase, any single- mode Gaussian unitary can be written as UG =D(α)S(ζ)e −iθa†a (6) and hence any pure Gaussian state,...

  2. [2]

    andℓ=α− 2κα∗. The unnormalized squeezed coherent state|κ,ℓ⟩ has squared norm ⟨κ,ℓ|κ,ℓ⟩= 1√ 1−4|κ| 2 exp ( |ℓ|2 +κℓ 2 +κℓ2 1−4|κ| 2 ) .(9) Given single-mode Gaussian states, we can define the so-calledphoton-addedGaussian states |n,κ,ℓ⟩ := (a†)neκ(a†)2+ℓa† |0⟩,(10) where the photon addition is also unnormalized for con- venience. For fixedκandℓ, states wit...

  3. [3]

    Multimode Gaussian states A pure multimode Gaussian state is likewise ob- tained by applying a Gaussian unitary to the multi- mode vacuum. By the Bloch-Messiah decomposition (Appendix A), every such state can be written, up to a global phase, as |ΨN G⟩=U N⨂ j=1 [ Dj(αj)Sj(ζj)|0⟩j ] ,(11) whereUis a passive linear-optical unitary of the form U :=e i ∑ j,k ...

  4. [4]

    (34) Here∆ 1/2 denotes the principal matrix square root

    Then the transfer matrixEis given by E= V⊗VE( L,K,K,L), E≡E( L,K,K,L) = ∆ 1 2e∆ ( K⊗L 2+L⊗L+L 2 ⊗K ) , ∆ = ( 1⊗1−4 K⊗K )−1 . (34) Here∆ 1/2 denotes the principal matrix square root. The proof involves straightforward but somewhat tedious algebraic manipulation involving the CCR algebra (Ap- pendix C). Next, the expectation value of local observables in st...

  5. [5]

    Writingc j :=V jj, we obtain |ψ⟩= D∑ j=1 cj|ℓj⟩,|ℓ j⟩ :=e ℓja† |0⟩,(75) where the coherent states are unnormalized

    Single mode After absorbing the boundary matrix intoV, the single-mode state is |ψ⟩= TrD [ VeK⊗(a†)2 eL⊗a†] |0⟩.(73) Example 2(Superposition of coherent states).LetK= 0 and L= diag(ℓ 1,...,ℓ D), V∈M D(C),(74) where theℓ j are distinct. Writingc j :=V jj, we obtain |ψ⟩= D∑ j=1 cj|ℓj⟩,|ℓ j⟩ :=e ℓja† |0⟩,(75) where the coherent states are unnormalized. The a...

  6. [6]

    For this, we first set up the notation to make the pre- scription manifest

    Multimode BMPS The extension from single-mode to full BMPS overN sites is straightforward with some minor modifications. For this, we first set up the notation to make the pre- scription manifest. Write the BMPS in the photon-added form |ψN⟩= d∑ I1,...,IN=1 Tr ( BAI1···A IN ) |I1···I N⟩,(96) where the one-site states{|I⟩} d I=1 are linearly indepen- dent....

  7. [7]

    Hartmann, F

    M. Hartmann, F. Brand˜ ao, and M. Plenio, Quantum many-body phenomena in coupled cavity arrays, Laser & Photonics Reviews2, 527 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Cold bosonic atoms in optical lattices, Physical Review Letters81, 3108 (1998), arXiv:cond- mat/9805329

    1998

  2. [10]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Physical Review B40, 546 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and M. Rigol, One dimensional bosons: From condensed mat- ter systems to ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1405 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V. Ahufinger,Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices: Simulating quantum many- body systems(OUP Oxford, 2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Fabre and N

    C. Fabre and N. Treps, Modes and states in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 035005 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    E. P. Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)20, 454 (1961)

    1955

  7. [15]

    Glimm and A

    J. Glimm and A. Jaffe, Aλϕ 4 quantum field theory with- out cutoffs. i, Phys. Rev.176, 1945 (1968)

    1945

  8. [16]

    D. M. Ceperley, Path integrals in the theory of condensed helium, Rev. Mod. Phys.67, 279 (1995). 15

    1995

  9. [17]

    J. L. DuBois and H. R. Glyde, Bose-einstein condensation in trapped bosons: A variational monte carlo analysis, Phys. Rev. A63, 023602 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Flottat, F

    T. Flottat, F. H´ ebert, V. G. Rousseau, R. T. Scalet- tar, and G. G. Batrouni, Bosonic kondo-hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B92, 035101 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Bosetti, B

    P. Bosetti, B. De Palma, and M. Guagnelli, Monte carlo determination of the critical coupling inϕ 4 2 theory, Phys. Rev. D92, 034509 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Bronzin, B

    S. Bronzin, B. De Palma, and M. Guagnelli, New monte carlo determination of the critical coupling inϕ 4 2 theory, Phys. Rev. D99, 034508 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Hackl, T

    L. Hackl, T. Guaita, T. Shi, J. Haegeman, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Geometry of variational methods: dy- namics of closed quantum systems, SciPost Physics9, 048 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    L. P. Pitaevskii, Vortex lines in an imperfect bose gas, Sov. Phys. JETP13, 451 (1961)

    1961

  15. [23]

    Dalfovo, S

    F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Theory of bose-einstein condensation in trapped gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 463 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    Pethick and H

    C. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases(Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    D. S. Rokhsar and B. G. Kotliar, Gutzwiller projection for bosons, Phys. Rev. B44, 10328 (1991)

    1991

  18. [26]

    T. Shi, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Variational study of fermionic and bosonic systems with non-Gaussian states: Theory and applications, Annals of Physics390, 245 (2018), 1707.05902

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Guaita, L

    T. Guaita, L. Hackl, T. Shi, C. Hubig, E. Demler, and J. I. Cirac, Gaussian time-dependent variational principle for the bose-hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B100, 094529 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    J. C. Bridgeman and C. T. Chubb, Hand-waving and in- terpretive dance: An introductory course on tensor net- works, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical50, 223001 (2017), arXiv:1603.03039 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T. Qian, J. J. Fernandez-Melgarejo, D. Zueco, and J. Molina-Vilaplana, Non-gaussian variational wavefunc- tions for interacting bosons on the lattice, Physical Re- view B107, 035121 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

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

    2021

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    Verstraete, V

    F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix prod- uct states, projected entangled pair states, and varia- tional renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems, Advances in Physics57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Brockt, F

    C. Brockt, F. Dorfner, L. Vidmar, F. Heidrich-Meisner, and E. Jeckelmann, Matrix-product-state method with a dynamical local basis optimization for bosonic systems out of equilibrium, Physical Review B92, 241106 (2015), arXiv:1508.00694 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Physical Review Letters69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    Verstraete, D

    F. Verstraete, D. Porras, and J. I. Cirac, Density matrix renormalization group and periodic boundary conditions: A quantum information perspective, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 227205 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), arXiv:1008.3477 [cond-mat.str-el]

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), arXiv:1008.3477 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters93, 040502 (2004)

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    variational method for speed or performance and focus primarily on the physical results that can be extracted from the ansatz

    were restricted to small bond dimensionsD. variational method for speed or performance and focus primarily on the physical results that can be extracted from the ansatz. The results shown here should be viewed as the baseline that is expected to improve with better schemes. Be...

  33. [41]

    Jeckelmann and S

    E. Jeckelmann and S. R. White, Density-matrix renormalization-group study of the polaron problem in the Holstein model, Physical Review B57, 6376 (1998), arXiv:cond-mat/9710058

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zhang, E

    C. Zhang, E. Jeckelmann, and S. R. White, Density ma- trix approach to local hilbert space reduction, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2661 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    Stolpp, T

    J. Stolpp, T. K¨ ohler, E. Jeckelmann, S. Paeckel, and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Comparative study of state-of-the- art matrix-product-state methods for lattice bosons, Computer Physics Communications269, 108106 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    C. Guo, A. Weichselbaum, J. von Delft, and M. Vojta, Critical and strong-coupling phases in one- and two-bath spin-boson models, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 160401 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Iblisdir, R

    S. Iblisdir, R. Or´ us, and J. I. Latorre, Matrix product states algorithms and continuous systems, Phys. Rev. B 75, 104305 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Schuch, M

    N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Gaussian matrix product states, inQuantum Information and Many Body Quantum Systems, edited by M. Ericsson and S. Mon- tangero (Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 2008) pp. 129–142, arXiv:1201.3945 [quant-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. F. Frenzel and M. B. Plenio, Matrix product state rep- resentation without explicit local hilbert space truncation with applications to the sub-ohmic spin-boson model, New Journal of Physics15, 073046 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    A. B. Michelsen, F. K. Marqversen, and M. Kasto- ryano, Functional matrix product state simulation of continuous variable quantum circuits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05860 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    R. A. Janik, Exact bosonic matrix product states (and holography), Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 1 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Complete classifi- cation of one-dimensional gapped quantum phases in in- teracting spin systems, Physical Review B84, 235128 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac, Classify- ing quantum phases using matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Physical Review B84, 165139 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Pollmann, E

    F. Pollmann, E. Berg, A. M. Turner, and M. Os- hikawa, Symmetry protection of topological phases in one-dimensional quantum spin systems, Physical Review B85, 075125 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Fannes, B

    M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics144, 443 (1992). 16

    1992

  46. [54]

    Ohata, Monte carlo study of schwinger model without the sign problem, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 7 (2023)

    H. Ohata, Monte carlo study of schwinger model without the sign problem, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 7 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Glimm and A

    J. Glimm and A. Jaffe, Theλϕ 4 quantum field theory without cutoffs: Ii. the field operators and the approxi- mate vacuum, Annals of Mathematics91, 362 (1970)

    1970

  48. [56]

    Glimm, A

    J. Glimm, A. Jaffe, and T. Spencer, Phase transitions forϕ 4 2 quantum fields, Communications in Mathematical Physics45, 203 (1975)

    1975

  49. [57]

    Rychkov and L

    S. Rychkov and L. G. Vitale, Hamiltonian truncation study of theφ 4 theory in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. D91, 085011 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Vanhecke, J

    B. Vanhecke, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, L. Vander- straeten, and F. Verstraete, Scaling hypothesis for matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250604 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Milsted, J

    A. Milsted, J. Haegeman, and T. J. Osborne, Matrix product states and variational methods applied to critical quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D88, 085030 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Delcamp and A

    C. Delcamp and A. Tilloy, Computing the renormaliza- tion group flow of two-dimensionalϕ 4 theory with tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033278 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Tilloy, Some progress on the use of the varia- tional method in quantum field theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10284 (2026)

    A. Tilloy, Some progress on the use of the varia- tional method in quantum field theory, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10284 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Br¨ auer and K

    ˇS. Br¨ auer and K. Mølmer, Symmetry-resolved parent hamiltonians for entangled bosonic cat resources, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02997 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  55. [63]

    S. L. Braunstein, Squeezing as an irreducible resource, Phys. Rev. A71, 055801 (2005)

    2005

  56. [64]

    B. C. Hall,Quantum Theory for Mathematicians, Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics No. 267 (Springer New York)

  57. [65]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix Analysis(Cam- bridge University Press, 1985). Appendix A: F rom the symplectic Bloch-Messiah decomposition to Gaussian unitaries Here we review the decomposition of Gaussian uni- taries used in Sec. II from the symplectic Bloch-Messiah decom...

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.