Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 47 references

Structure of matrix product locally purifiable density operators

T0 review · 1 major / 3 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 This paper proves that for sequentially generated locally purifiable density operators, two representations generating the same density matrices for every system size are related by a matrix product isometry on the purification bonds—and…

desk verdict Solid step toward an LPDO fundamental theorem, but the cyclic-tensor theorem needs a minimality assumption before it can be published as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02724 v1 pith:DFIG4I4D submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Yale Yauk , Yuhan Liu , Ignacio Cirac This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el
keywords matrixproductdensityoperatorslocallypurifiablesequentiallygeneratedLPDOsisometryfundamentaltheoremmixed-statesymmetry-protectedtopologicalphasesweaksymmetrytensornetworks
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

Tensor networks describe mixed quantum states efficiently, but unlike matrix product states, the mixed-state case has had no fundamental theorem saying when two local tensors are the same state in disguise. This paper initiates that theorem for sequentially generated locally purifiable density operators (sLPDOs), states built by repeatedly applying a quantum channel to a small memory system. It proves that, if the generating tensor is step-injective, any two representations producing the same density operator for every system size are connected by a matrix product isometry acting on the purification bonds; if the pair is cyclic, the connecting object collapses to an on-site isometry on the ancilla index. The result matters because it is the mixed-state analogue of the MPS fundamental theorem that underlies symmetry-protected phase classification, and because a local description of representation freedom is what lets numerical algorithms drop redundant parameters. The paper also gives a periodic-boundary counterexample showing that without such conditions no general local equivalence theorem can hold.

What carries the argument

The central object is the sLPDO purification tensor $A^{{ia}}$_{αβ}, a rank-four tensor whose indices are a physical index i, an ancilla index a, and two virtual bonds α,β, together with its sequential channel E_A(ρ)=Σ_{i,j}(Σ_a $A^{{ia}}$ρ($A^{{ja}}$)†)⊗|i⟩⟨j|. Two regularity conditions drive the argument: step-injectivity, meaning A is injective as a map C^p⊗C^D→C^d⊗C^D and therefore has a left inverse $A^{{-1}}$; and cyclicity, meaning the reachable space R(A,ω)=span{E^w_A(ω)} over all words w equals the full memory matrix algebra M_D. The proof engine is Lemma II.1, which converts equality of density operators into the existence of a unique global partial isometry between purifications; the two conditions are what force that global isometry to factor through a matrix product isometry—an MPO that is isometric for every system size—of fixed bond dimension.

What would settle it

Take a candidate step-injective pair (A,ω) and (B,ω') that generate the same sLPDO for sizes up to some large N, and compute the Schmidt rank of the unique purification isometry across a half-chain bipartition. Theorem III.2 predicts this rank is bounded by a system-size-independent power (the MPI bond dimension $D^{2}$), so observing Schmidt rank growing exponentially with N for a step-injective pair would directly refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for sLPDOs the gauge freedom of the purification tensor is controlled by a matrix product isometry. Two purifications of the same density operator are always related by a unique global partial isometry (Lemma II.1); the question is when that global isometry is itself a tensor network. The paper answers: if A is step-injective—injective as a map from virtual-plus-ancilla space to physical-plus-virtual space, so that a left inverse $A^{{-1}}$ exists—then the purification is minimal, the left inverse is a matrix product operator, and the isometry inherits a matrix product isometry form of bond dimension $D^{2}$, built from B, $A^{{-1}}$, and boundary inverses (Theorem III.2). If instead (A,ω) is cyclic, meaning the reachable space span{E^w_A(ω)} generated by all compositions of the channel components equals the full memory algebra M_D, then equality of states forces the channel components $E^{{ij}}$_A and $E^{{ij}}$_B to coincide, and the Kraus freedom theorem yields an on-site isometry U with $B^{{ia}}$=Σ_b U_{ab} $A^{{ib}}$ (Theorem III.4). Cyclicity is representation-independent: all representations of the same state share the same reachable space. Together with the trivial converse—an isometry relating purifications preserves the traced-out state—these give if-and-only-if characterizations under the stated conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that if one purification tensor has a left inverse or fills the whole memory space, the isometry between purifications can be chosen locally rather than growing in complexity with system size; should a pair satisfying either condition force the isometry to grow with system size, the theorem would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any step-injective sLPDO, the equivalence class of a purification tensor is exactly its orbit under matrix product isometries on the purification bonds, with bond dimension D^2, giving a finite, size-independent parametrization of the representation freedom.
  • For cyclic sLPDOs, equivalence becomes much more rigid: any two tensors generating the same state are equal up to an on-site isometry on the ancilla index, and cyclicity itself is a property of the state rather than of the particular tensor.
  • The sLPDO ansatz captures boundaries of D(G) topological order; for abelian G these boundaries appear as incoherent mixtures over neutral-charge strings, and the toric-code boundary has a non-injective, non-cyclic tensor that is nevertheless connected to the standard tensor by the MPI of Theorem III.2.
  • Mixed-state symmetry-protected phases can be nontrivial even when the density matrix has only a weak on-site symmetry: the purification symmetry may be an anomalous matrix product unitary, as in the Z2 example whose bare state is a thermal Ising state and whose dressed state has long-range correlations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A minimal-Kraus-rank hypothesis would make the cyclic theorem's statement cleaner: requiring the ancilla index of A and B to have full column rank rules out redundant Kraus operators while preserving cyclicity, and the standard Kraus-freedom theorem then applies directly.
  • The explicit MPI construction in Theorem III.2 can be read as a gauge-fixing algorithm: one could transform any equivalent representation into a canonical form by contracting the MPI and its inverse, and a numerical benchmark on random small-bond-dimension step-injective pairs would show whether the D^2 bond dimension is tight.
  • The PBC counterexample's exponential Schmidt rank at finite N does not survive the thermodynamic limit for |ε|≠1, so it is an obstruction for finite-size equivalence rather than a proof that all infinite-volume LPDO equivalence is non-local; an infinite-family version with uniformly super-polynomial Schmidt rank would be a stronger obstruction.
  • The weak-symmetry examples point toward classifying mixed-state phases by the relative anomaly between the physical on-site symmetry and the purification MPU, rather than by the cocycle of the physical symmetry alone; enumerating homogeneous solutions of the pulling-through condition with U_p≠U_a would be a concrete next step.
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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the equivalence problem for matrix product locally purifiable density operators (LPDOs), asking when two purification tensors generating the same mixed state for all system sizes are related by local unitary/isometric transformations. It introduces sequentially generated LPDOs (sLPDOs) and proves two fundamental theorems: Theorem III.2 shows that for step-injective tensors, equivalent sLPDO representations are connected by a matrix product isometry (MPI); Theorem III.4 claims that for cyclic pairs, the two tensors are related by an on-site isometry on the purification index. The paper also constructs a PBC LPDO counterexample where two minimal purifications of the same state are connected only by a unitary whose Schmidt rank is exponential in system size, obstructing an MPI representation, and it discusses implications for mixed-state symmetry-protected topological phases under weak symmetries.

Significance. If the central theorems were correct, this would be a valuable step toward a fundamental theorem for LPDOs, analogous to the MPS fundamental theorem, with consequences for the classification of mixed-state SPT phases. The paper is largely self-contained, gives explicit constructions (notably a tensor-network left inverse in Proposition III.1), and supports its PBC counterexample with a concrete Schmidt-rank computation. The step-injective theorem and the counterexample appear carefully argued. However, the cyclic theorem is overclaimed because its proof relies on a minimality property that cyclicity does not imply; this affects a headline result of the paper and requires correction before the claims as stated can be accepted.

major comments (1)
  1. [§III.B, Theorem III.4 and Eq. (29)] The theorem is false as stated. The proof passes from equality of the CP maps E_A = E_B to an on-site isometry U by invoking "the freedom in the Kraus representation." That freedom yields an isometry only when at least one of the two Kraus representations is minimal. Cyclicity (Definition 7) does not imply minimality: appending a zero Kraus operator to A leaves every E^w_A(ω), hence R(A,ω)=M_D, unchanged, and by Lemma III.3 it leaves the generated sLPDO unchanged. A concrete counterexample is D=2, d=3, M_0=I, M_1=X, M_2=Z, ω=I/2. Let B^{i1}=M_i (p_B=1) and A^{i1}=M_i, A^{i2}=0 (p_A=2). Both pairs are cyclic because R(A,ω)=span{M_iM_j^†: i,j=0,1,2}=M_2, and E_A=E_B, so they generate the same sLPDO. But Eq. (29) forces U=[1,0], for which U^†U=diag(1,0)≠1_2, so no isometry from C^2 to C^1 exists. The theorem needs an explicit minimality hypothesis on at least one representation, or the conclusion must be relaxed to a partial isometry/coisometry with the correct orientation (e.g., A=UB when B is minimal). This is load-bearing because the cyclic case is advertised as the stronger fundamental theorem.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (5)] The summation index in the MPV definition is garbled: "X_{iN,...,iN}" should be "X_{i_1,...,i_N}".
  2. [§II.C, Definition 5] The map E_A is called a completely positive map, but it is not trace-preserving in general; the text should state explicitly that E_A is a completely positive (not necessarily unital or trace-preserving) map to avoid confusion with standard quantum-channel notation.
  3. [§III.B, Theorem III.4] The term "isometry" is used in different senses across the paper: Theorem III.2 uses an isometry/coisometry satisfying U_NU_N^†=1, while Eq. (29) requires U^†U=1. The authors should clarify the intended orientation and whether rectangular partial isometries are allowed, particularly in the cyclic case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sLPDO fundamental theorems are derived from explicit constructions and standard external lemmas; the target results are not assumed as inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any claimed prediction to its own inputs. Lemma II.1, the purification-freedom fact that underlies both main theorems, is proved in Appendix A rather than assumed. Theorem III.2 is obtained by explicitly constructing the left inverse of the step-injective purification tensor (Proposition III.1) and then writing the unique isometry as a tensor network in Eq. (24); the second statement invokes the MPS fundamental theorem of Ref. [14], which is an established external theorem used as a lemma, not a self-citation carrying the central burden. Theorem III.4 uses equality of the generated sLPDO for all system sizes to derive equality of every channel word E^w_A(omega)=E^w_B(omega') (Lemma III.3, Eq. (28)), then uses cyclicity to lift equality from the reachable space to all of M_D, and finally applies the standard freedom of Kraus representations. None of these steps identifies the conclusion with the hypothesis by construction; the theorem is a genuine implication. A separate mathematical correctness concern, noted in the skeptical analysis, is that cyclicity does not by itself guarantee minimality of the Kraus representation, so the invoked Kraus-freedom step may need an extra hypothesis; that is a correctness gap, not a circularity, because the missing assumption is not secretly equal to the theorem's conclusion and adding it would repair the proof rather than collapse the derivation into its input. The counterexample of Section V is built from explicit tensors and a direct Schmidt-rank computation, with no fitted parameters. The later symmetry examples are explicit constructions whose intertwiners are verified algebraically in Appendix D. Self-citations to Refs. [14], [20], and [23] point to standard, externally established results (MPS fundamental theorem, finitely correlated states, and uniform MPS with boundary) and are not used as unverified premises. Overall, the paper contains no fitted-input-as-prediction, no self-definitional equivalence, and no load-bearing self-citation chain; the honest finding is zero circularity.

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

The central theorems rest on standard purification, CP-map, and MPS fundamental theorems, plus matrix factorization over C. The only definitional novelty is the sLPDO subclass; the listed free parameters are explicit tunable constants in examples, not fitted values. The missing minimality assumption in Theorem III.4 is tracked as an axiom gap and red flag.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon = arbitrary complex, |epsilon| != 1
    Parameter in the Section V counterexample; enters the purification as sigma(N)(A)=1+epsilon^N S. The exponential Schmidt rank conclusion holds for all such values and is not fitted to data.
  • mu = 0 < |mu| < 1
    Weighting in the weak-symmetry sLPDO example (Eq. (51)); controls the Ising correlation decay in the bare state. Chosen by hand as part of the construction.
  • alpha = real
    Dressing strength in Appendix D1; controls long-range correlations in the dressed state. Chosen by hand, not estimated from data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Any two purifications of a density matrix are related by a partial isometry (Lemma II.1).
    Proved in Appendix A; underpins the global-to-local isometry arguments in both main theorems.
  • standard math The OBC MPS fundamental theorem of Ref. [14] describes the gauge freedom of canonical matrix product states.
    Used in the second part of Theorem III.2 to obtain the Y and Z matrices of Eq. (22).
  • standard math Two minimal Kraus representations of the same completely positive map are related by an isometry on the Kraus index.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem III.4 without stating the minimality requirement; the paper's cyclicity definition does not imply it, which is the source of the flaw.
  • domain assumption Any matrix admits SVD or QR factorizations, allowing a PBC LPDO to be rewritten as an sLPDO with squared bond dimension.
    Procedure in Section IIC, Eqs. (12)-(15); relies on standard matrix factorization over the complex numbers.
  • standard math The cyclic shift operator S on (C^d)^otimes N has Schmidt rank d^{N/2-2} across the restricted half-chain subspaces defined in Eq. (39).
    Used in Section V to establish the exponential Schmidt rank lower bound for the connecting unitary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure of matrix product locally purifiable density operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFIG4I4D

@misc{pith2026260802724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure of matrix product locally purifiable density operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFIG4I4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02724}
}
read the original abstract

Tensor network methods provide powerful analytical and numerical tools for characterizing quantum phases of matter. While the mathematical structure of matrix product states (MPS) is well understood through the MPS fundamental theorem, an analogous understanding for mixed-state tensor networks remains largely absent: if two purification tensors generate the same density matrix, how are they related? In this work, we initiate the study of a fundamental theorem for matrix product locally purifiable density operators (LPDOs) and focus on sequentially generated LPDOs (sLPDOs), a broad subclass admitting an interpretation in terms of successive applications of quantum channels on an initial state. We prove that, under suitable invertibility or cyclic conditions, two sLPDO representations generate the same density matrix for arbitrary system sizes if and only if they are related by a matrix product isometry acting on the purification bonds. Beyond the sLPDO setting, we provide a counterexample that suggests an obstruction to a general fundamental theorem for LPDOs with periodic boundary conditions. Finally, we discuss implications for mixed-state symmetry-protected topological phases, including the possibility of nontrivial phases protected only by weak symmetry conditions.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A proof is provided in appendix A

    is an isometry ifA(B) has full column rank. A proof is provided in appendix A. We emphasize that this lemma is an existence state- ment, which picks a canonical unique solution toA= BU. The full freedom is given byU=U 0 +K, whereK is an arbitrary map satisfyingcol(K)⊆ker(B). Corollary II.1.Letρbe a density matrix onC d of rank r. Letσ:C r→C d be a minimal...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The condition on theN th tensor A[N] is that the overall state is normalized, trP i,aAia [N]Λ[N](Aia [N])† = 1

    P i,aAia [n]Λ[n](Aia [n])† = Λ [n+1] for1≤n≤ N−1. The condition on theN th tensor A[N] is that the overall state is normalized, trP i,aAia [N]Λ[N](Aia [N])† = 1. 3.Λ [n] >0is diagonal andtr Λ [n] = 1for1≤n≤N. In particular,Λ [1] =ωis diagonal. A limitation of the homogeneous sLPDO ansatz is that it is not closed under a CF transformation – that is, the CF...

    work page

  3. [3]

    P i,a(Aia [n])†Aia [n] =1 D[n] for1≤n≤N

    work page

  4. [4]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. Pérez-García, and I. Cirac, Classifying quantum phases using matrix product states and pro- jected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B84, 165139 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Take the canonical regular elementω∈A∗ and define a matrix b(ω)such thattr[b(ω)ϕ(x)] =ω(x)for anyx∈A

    Construction of the boundary state from PEPS Proposition C.1.Given aC∗-weak Hopf algebraAand two faithful∗-representationϕandψofAandA ∗. Take the canonical regular elementω∈A∗ and define a matrix b(ω)such thattr[b(ω)ϕ(x)] =ω(x)for anyx∈A. Then, the rank-4 tensor Mij αβ = dim(A)X a=1 [b(ω)ϕ(ea)]ij⊗[ψ(ea)]αβ (C1) generates a mixed state at the renormalizati...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We denote byC[G]the group algebra which is the vector space formally spanned by elements of the groupG

    Abelian groups have diagonal representation In this section, we outline the construction of a di- agonal density matrix representing the boundary mixed state ofD(G)topological order. We denote byC[G]the group algebra which is the vector space formally spanned by elements of the groupG. Here we will sometimes ex- plicitly label the space in which vectors l...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Fork= 1,...,N, we define the generators Gk =Z ik−1XcXik,satisfying[Z ⊗N+2,Gk] = 0

    MPO dressing In this appendix, we construct an invertible MPO which commutes with the physical symmetryU(N+2) p = Z⊗(N+2). Fork= 1,...,N, we define the generators Gk =Z ik−1XcXik,satisfying[Z ⊗N+2,Gk] = 0. (D10) Furthermore, the generators have the propertiesG2 k =1, {Gk,Gk+1}= 0and[G k,Gk′] = 0for|k−k ′|>1. We introduce the MPO operatorM(N) α as a produc...

    work page

  8. [8]

    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)

    2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

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

    2011

  2. [10]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B83, 035107 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, and D. Pérez-García, Topological order in the projected entangled-pair states formalism: Transfer operator and boundary hamiltoni- ans, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 090501 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Ma- trix product density operators: Simulation of finite- temperature and dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004). 17

    2004

  5. [13]

    Zwolak and G

    M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Mixed-state dynamics in one- dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 207205 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    Let Aia [n]∈M Dn+1,Dn be a purification tensor

    under the setting of sLPDO, which will be use- ful for the statement of the fundamental theorem. Let Aia [n]∈M Dn+1,Dn be a purification tensor. A purifica- tion of an sLPDO generated by({A[n]},√ω)is in CF if the following conditions are satisfied:

  7. [15]

    M. B. Hastings, Solving gapped hamiltonians locally, Phys. Rev. B73, 085115 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Molnar, N

    A. Molnar, N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Ap- proximating gibbs states of local hamiltonians efficiently with projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B91, 045138 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    C.-F. Chen, K. Kato, and F. G. Brandao, Matrix product density operators: When do they have a local parent Hamiltonian?, arXiv:2010.14682 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. I. Cirac, D. Poilblanc, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Entanglement spectrum and boundary theories with pro- jected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B83, 245134 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Molnar, A

    A. Molnar, A. R. de Alarcón, J. Garre-Rubio, N. Schuch, J. I. Cirac, and D. Pérez-García, Matrix product op- erator algebras i: representations of weak hopf alge- bras and projected entangled pair states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05940 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    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, Phys. Rev. X15, 021060 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Perez-Garcia, F

    D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Info. Comput.7, 401–430 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Ignacio Cirac, D

    J. Ignacio Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product unitaries: structure, symmetries, and topological invariants, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment2017, 083105 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Styliaris, R

    G. Styliaris, R. Trivedi, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. Igna- cio Cirac, Matrix-product unitaries: Beyond quantum cellular automata, Quantum9, 1645 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Kliesch, D

    M. Kliesch, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Matrix-product oper- ators and states: Np-hardness and undecidability, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 160503 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    De las Cuevas, T

    G. De las Cuevas, T. S. Cubitt, J. I. Cirac, M. M. Wolf, and D. Pérez-García, Fundamental limitations in the pu- rifications of tensor networks, Journal of Mathematical Physics57, 071902 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Cirac, D

    J. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product density operators: Renormalization fixed pointsand boundary theories,Annals ofPhysics378,100 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Fannes, B

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

    1992

  20. [28]

    Schön, E

    C. Schön, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, Sequential generation of entangled multi- qubit states, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 110503 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    De las Cuevas, J

    G. De las Cuevas, J. I. Cirac, N. Schuch, and D. Perez- Garcia, Irreducible forms of matrix product states: The- ory and applications, Journal of Mathematical Physics 58, 121901 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    M.Florido-Llinàs, ÁlvaroM.Alhambra, D.Pérez-García, and J. I. Cirac, Uniform matrix product states with a boundary (2025), arXiv:2512.11968 [quant-ph]

    2025

  23. [31]

    Molnar, Y

    A. Molnar, Y. Ge, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, A gen- eralization of the injectivity condition for projected en- tangled pair states, Journal of Mathematical Physics59, 021902 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Molnar, J

    A. Molnar, J. Garre-Rubio, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Normal projected entangled pair states generating the same state, New Journal of Physics20, 113017 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Pérez-García, F

    D. Pérez-García, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, PEPS as unique ground states of local hamilto- nians, Quantum Information & Computation8, 0650 (2008), arXiv:0707.2260 [quant-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045110 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Schuch, I

    N. Schuch, I. Cirac, and D. Pérez-García, Peps as ground states: Degeneracy and topology, Annals of Physics325, 2153 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    de Groot, A

    C. de Groot, A. Turzillo, and N. Schuch, Symmetry pro- tected topological order in open quantum systems, Quan- tum6, 856 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ma and C

    R. Ma and C. Wang, Average symmetry-protected topo- logical phases, Phys. Rev. X13, 031016 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    M. B. Şahinoğlu, D. Williamson, N. Bultinck, M. Mariën, J. Haegeman, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Character- izing topological order with matrix product operators, Annales Henri Poincaré22, 563 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Garre-Rubio, L

    J. Garre-Rubio, L. Lootens, and A. Molnár, Classifying phases protected by matrix product operator symmetries using matrix product states, Quantum7, 927 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    L. A. Lessa, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Mixed-state quan- tum anomaly and multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. X15, 011069 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Sun, Anomalous matrix product operator sym- metries and 1d mixed-state phases, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16985 (2025)

    X.-Q. Sun, Anomalous matrix product operator sym- metries and 1d mixed-state phases, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16985 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Y. Liu, A. Molnar, X.-Q. Sun, F. Verstraete, K. Kato, and L. Lootens, Trading mathematical for physical sim- plicity: Bialgebraicstructuresinmatrixproductoperator symmetries, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03600 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    McGinley and S

    M. McGinley and S. J. Garratt, Lower bounds on the complexity of preparing mixed states (2025), arXiv:2510.02275 [quant-ph]

    2025

  36. [44]

    M. B. Hastings, Topological order at nonzero tempera- ture, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 210501 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Chen and T

    Y.-H. Chen and T. Grover, Separability transitions in topological states induced by local decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 170602 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Chen and T

    Y.-H. Chen and T. Grover, Symmetry-enforced many- body separability transitions, PRX Quantum5, 030310 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    D. Malz, G. Styliaris, Z.-Y. Wei, and J. I. Cirac, Prepa- ration of matrix product states with log-depth quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 040404 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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