Sampling two-dimensional isometric tensor network states

Alec Dektor; Chao Yang; Eugene Dumitrescu

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Sampling two-dimensional isometric tensor network states

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces the first practical sampling algorithms for two-dimensional isometric tensor network states, extending one-dimensional matrix-product-state sampling to 2D lattices.

desk verdict First practical sampling algorithms for 2D isoTNS, with clean row-wise QR sweeps and public code; the main gap is an under-specified normalization step in the truncated regime that makes the stored probabilities not true probabilities. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.02245 v2 pith:FMG3GVZB submitted 2026-02-02 quant-ph physics.comp-ph

Alec Dektor , Eugene Dumitrescu , Chao Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.comp-ph

keywords tensornetworksisometricnetworkstatessamplingBorndistributionmatrixproductgreedysearchMPO-MPScontractionquantumsimulation

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

This paper introduces the first practical sampling algorithms for two-dimensional isometric tensor network states (isoTNS), extending the well-established one-dimensional matrix-product-state sampling to 2D lattices. The first algorithm draws an independent spin configuration from the Born distribution together with its exact probability; the second greedily finds K high-probability configurations. Both run in time polynomial in system size and bond dimension, with the dominant cost O(L^2 d^2 χ^6) per sample or O(L^2 K^2 d^2 χ^6) for the top-K variant. When the intermediate row contractions are performed without truncation, sampling is exact; when truncation is used, the paper shows that errors propagate linearly from the wavefunction into the sampled probabilities. This matters because sampling is a core subroutine in quantum Monte Carlo methods, distribution estimation, and verification of quantum devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the isometric tensor network state (isoTNS) in canonical form: a 2D tensor network in which every tensor except the orthogonality center is an isometry, so that norms and marginals become trivial to compute. The algorithm's workhorse is a row-sampling routine that reads the marginal from the center tensor, projects out the sampled index, and uses a QR decomposition to move the center one step to the right along the row, keeping the row's bond dimension under control. Between rows, an MPO-MPS contraction reforms the next row with a capped bond dimension; this is the only step that can introduce error. This machinery turns the global Born distribution into a product of lo

What would settle it

On a small random state (e.g., 4×4), compute the exact Born distribution by direct state-vector simulation, then run the independent sampler with a truncated bond dimension. If the empirical distribution does not converge to the exact distribution as the number of samples grows—or if the average of the returned probabilities p_LL differs systematically from 1—the truncation step is biasing the sampler. This directly tests whether the heuristic Frobenius bound translates into an accurate sampling distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 2D isoTNS can be sampled by sweeping rows from top to bottom, conditioning on the indices already drawn. Because all tensors except the orthogonality center are isometries, each marginal distribution at the current site is just the diagonal of the center tensor contracted with itself; a sampled index is projected out, and a QR decomposition shifts the orthogonality center to the next site in the row. After a row is fully sampled, the row is contracted into the next row using an approximate MPO-MPS multiplication (zip-up) with bond dimension capped at χ, which is the only approximation in the whole procedure. The paper proves the cost bounds and demonstrates numeri

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm's correctness depends on the assumption that after truncating each row contraction, the resulting row tensor still gives a faithful, properly normalized conditional distribution for the remaining sites; the paper bounds this only heuristically in the Frobenius norm and does not include a renormalization step, so in the truncated regime the stored probabilities can be subnormalized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Independent samples from a 2D isoTNS can be drawn in O(L^2 d^2 χ^6) time, polynomial in the system size—previously no such algorithm existed.
The greedy top-K variant returns K high-probability bitstrings in O(L^2 K^2 d^2 χ^6) time, enabling identification of the most likely measurement outcomes.
If row contractions are performed exactly, both algorithms are perfect samplers, meaning the empirical distribution converges to the true Born distribution at the usual Monte Carlo rate.
When truncation is used, the error in the sampled probability distribution is first-order in the truncation error, so small truncation errors do not blow up.
The algorithms apply to any isoTNS, including states prepared by unitary circuits, and generalize directly to three-dimensional lattices.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial: Because the independent sampler is exact when contractions are exact, it could serve as a drop-in sampling subroutine for thermal and Monte Carlo tensor-network algorithms on 2D lattices, where no comparable exact sampler existed.
Editorial: The top-K search's greedy nature means it can miss probability mass concentrated in multiple well-separated regions; a beam-search variant that keeps diverse partial strings might recover more of the distribution at modest extra cost.
Editorial: A simple internal-consistency check for the truncated algorithm is to sum the stored probabilities p_LL over many independent samples; a systematic shortfall would directly reveal the subnormalization introduced by truncation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the row-wise QR sweep that moves the orthogonality center across a 2D isoTNS row, plus the top-K extension that propagates a K-index through rows. That combination is not in the MPS/TT or PEPS sampling literature, and the cost bound O(L^2 d^2 chi^6) is real and better than generic PEPS sampling. The exact zero-truncation regime is properly validated: GHZ, W, and random 3x3 states match analytic or state-vector distributions, and the code is public. No constants are fitted to the target distribution, and the self-citations are used only for input-state preparation. This deserves credit.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test flags, and I think it is real. In Algorithm 4, after sampling a row, the next row is produced by approximate MPO-MPS contraction (zip-up) with no stated renormalization. Algorithm 3 then computes conditionals as Tr[B^sigma B^sigma*], which is only a probability distribution if the row has unit norm. Zip-up truncation does not preserve that norm, so under truncation the conditionals are subnormalized and the stored p_LL is not the probability of the sample—neither under the exact state nor under the truncated T_chi. The global Frobenius bound in Section 3.2 does not resolve this; it bounds closeness of states, not normalization of sequential conditionals. The same issue carries into Algorithm 6. This is not a fatal flaw in the exact regime, but it is a load-bearing gap for the paper's general claim.

A few smaller things: the error analysis is heuristic, as the authors admit, and the truncated-regime experiments (Figure 2, Figure 4) do not separate bias from lack of normalization versus ordinary truncation error. Also, the text says “sampling one isoTNS column” where it means row, a minor typo. The core construction is sound and the fix looks straightforward: renormalize each contracted row, or explicitly sample from the normalized conditional distribution, and report repeated-trial error statistics in the truncated regime.

Who gets value from this: anyone working on isoTNS algorithms, METTS, uncertainty quantification, or classical verification of near-term quantum experiments. It is a solid extension rather than a conceptual leap, but it is the first sampling algorithm for this tensor-network class and should go to peer review. A serious referee should ask for the normalization fix and for truncated-regime error statistics, not for a rewrite.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces two sampling algorithms for two-dimensional isometric tensor network states (isoTNS). Algorithm 4 draws an independent configuration by conditioning row-by-row, using QR moves within each row and an approximate MPO-MPS (zip-up) contraction between rows; Algorithm 6 is the corresponding top-K greedy variant. The authors claim polynomial costs O(L^2 d^2 chi^6) and O(L^2 K^2 d^2 chi^6), exactness when row contractions are performed without truncation, and validate on GHZ, W, and random states.

Significance. If the algorithms are correct, they provide the first efficient classical sampling and top-K search for 2D isoTNS, a class relevant to simulation of 2D quantum systems. Strengths: the zero-truncation limit is exact; numerical benchmarks compare against analytic GHZ/W distributions and state-vector calculations; code is publicly available; no constants are fitted. The main risk is in the truncated regime: the paper's approximation control is heuristic and, as detailed below, the algorithm as written does not state a normalization step that is required for the returned probabilities to be probabilities.

major comments (2)

[§3.1, Algorithm 3 step 2; Algorithm 4 step 5] After the approximate MPO-MPS contraction in step 5 of Algorithm 4, the row R_{i+1} is not renormalized. Algorithm 3 then uses p(σ_ij|...) = Tr[B^{σ_ij}(B^{σ_ij})*] as a conditional distribution. This is only a normalized distribution if the row has unit norm; otherwise the probabilities sum to ||R_{i+1}||^2, not 1. Thus the stored p_LL is not the Born probability of the sampled configuration under either T or T_χ. The Frobenius bound in §3.2 does not repair this: even if T_χ is close to T, sequential sampling from subnormalized conditionals is biased. The authors should explicitly normalize R_{i+1} (or otherwise define the conditioning step) and state how the returned probability is computed.
[§3.2] The error analysis treats the algorithm as sampling from a fixed approximate tensor T_χ with ||T_χ - T||_F ≤ ε. But step 5 of Algorithms 4 and 6 compresses the contraction of the already sampled row with the next row; the compressed row depends on the sample history. The procedure therefore does not, in general, correspond to sampling from a single global T_χ, and a global Frobenius bound on T_χ does not control the distance between the algorithm's output distribution and |T|^2. Either a definition of T_χ compatible with the sequential procedure (e.g., fixed compression applied before conditioning) or a separate analysis of the history-dependent approximation is needed for the claimed 'associated probability' to be meaningful.

minor comments (4)

[Algorithm 3 / Algorithm 5] The pseudocode applies the QR/contract step at j=L even though Q_{i(L+1)} does not exist. The surrounding text suggests the final site should be left as S_{iL}; the loop condition should be j<L inside the i<L block.
[Fig. 2] Caption says '10000 samples' but the text in §4.2 says 10^5 samples for the χ=8 empirical distribution. Please make these consistent.
[§4.2] The text refers to 'the blue line' for the median KL divergence; specifying the color in the caption or text would improve readability.
[Abstract] 'generalize existing 1D tensor networks sampling algorithms' appears twice with slightly different wording; one occurrence should be edited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the isoTNS sampling derivation is self-contained and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The sampling derivation is not circular. Conditional probabilities in Algorithms 3 and 5 are computed from the orthogonality-center tensors via p = Tr[B^σ(B^σ)*], and the chain-rule factorization in Eq. (21) is the ordinary product rule for probabilities, not an equality that presupposes the target distribution. The only approximation is the row-to-row MPO-MPS contraction (zip-up) in step 5 of Algorithms 4 and 6; the paper reports these truncation errors explicitly as (e1,...,e_{L-1}) and analyzes their effect in Section 3.2, stating that if all row contractions are performed without truncation error (ϵ_i=0), the isoTNS sampling procedure is exact. No parameter is fitted to the target distribution: GHZ and W benchmarks use analytically known distributions, and the random-state benchmark compares against an independent state-vector calculation. Self-citations (e.g., [17] for disentangler optimization) are used only to prepare input isoTNS representations, not to define or justify the sampling output; the Moses Move [16] is an external citation. There is no imported uniqueness theorem and no ansatz smuggled in through the authors' own prior work. The renormalization concern under truncation raised by the skeptic is a correctness/error-analysis limitation—the paper itself admits MPO-MPS truncation errors are 'not, in general, rigorously controlled'—but it does not make the sampling claim reduce to an input or to a self-citation by construction. The central derivation is therefore self-contained.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; χ and K are user-chosen truncation/search parameters. The central claim rests on the isoTNS canonical form, standard linear algebra for moving the orthogonality center, and the unproven fidelity of the approximate row contraction. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

standard math Born rule: probability of a configuration equals the squared modulus of the amplitude.
Used throughout §2-§3 to define p(σ)=|T(σ)|^2.
domain assumption An isoTNS can be brought to a form with orthogonality center at the top-left corner, and all non-center tensors are isometries so that marginals are obtained from the center tensor alone.
Introduced in §3 (Eq. 19), following Zaletel & Pollmann [16]; the algorithms require this canonical form.
standard math The QR decomposition with the vertical bond as rows and the horizontal bond as columns moves the orthogonality center one site to the right within a row while preserving isometric structure.
Used in §3.1 (Eqs. 26-30); no proof given, but it is a standard linear-algebra manipulation.
ad hoc to paper The zip-up MPO-MPS contraction with maximum bond dimension χ yields a sufficient approximation of the exact row-to-row transfer, and the resulting row is (or can be treated as) a normalized conditional state.
Step 5 of Algorithms 4/6; §3.2 only gives a heuristic Frobenius error bound and does not address normalization of the contracted row.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sampling two-dimensional isometric tensor network states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMG3GVZB

@misc{pith2026260202245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sampling two-dimensional isometric tensor network states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMG3GVZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.02245}
}

abstract

Sampling a quantum system's underlying probability distributions is an important computational task, e.g., for quantum advantage experiments and quantum Monte Carlo algorithms. Tensor networks are an invaluable tool for efficiently representing states of large quantum systems with limited entanglement. Algorithms for sampling one-dimensional (1D) tensor networks are well-established and utilized in several 1D tensor network methods. In this paper we introduce two novel sampling algorithms for two-dimensional (2D) isometric tensor network states (isoTNS) that generalize existing 1D tensor networks sampling algorithms. Our first proposed algorithm performs independent sampling and yields a single configuration together with its associated probability. The second algorithm employs a greedy search strategy to identify $K$ high-probability configurations and their corresponding probabilities. Numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness of these algorithms across quantum states with varying entanglement and system size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02245 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Left: Empirical distribution of random state from 10000 samples using the proposed isoTNS algorithm compared with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The KL divergence between the exact and the computed probability distribution of the GHZ-states (left) and W-states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: top-K isoTNS algorithm applied to random state. With isoTNS bond-dimension 16, 12, 8 the truncation error is machine precision, 5.6 × 10−2 , 1.5 × 10−1 , respectively. Top: Comparison of exact probabilities of the top 20 high probability states and the computed probabi…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: top-K isoTNS algorithm applied to random state. With isoTNS bond-dimension 1, 2, . . . , 16. We plot the sum of the column truncation errors and the sum of the L1 errors in the K probabilities found by the isoTNS algorithm. [9] A. Batsheva, A. Chertkov, G. Ryzhakov, I.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

[1]

M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, D. J. Shepherd, Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 467 (2126) (2011) 459–472

2011
[2]

Arute, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574 (7779) (2019) 505–510

F. Arute, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574 (7779) (2019) 505–510

2019
[3]

S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical quantum states at finite temperature, Physical review letters 102 (19) (2009) 190601

2009
[4]

Stoudenmire, S

E. Stoudenmire, S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical thermal state algorithms, New Journal of Physics 12 (5) (2010) 055026

2010
[5]

Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326 (1) (2011) 96–192

U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326 (1) (2011) 96–192. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012

doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012 2011
[6]

G. Lami, M. Collura, Quantum magic via perfect pauli sampling of matrix product states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05536 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[7]

Dolgov, K

S. Dolgov, K. Anaya-Izquierdo, C. Fox, R. Scheichl, Approximation and sampling of multivariate probability distributions in the tensor train decomposition, Statistics and Computing 30 (3) (2020) 603–625

2020
[8]

Chertkov, G

A. Chertkov, G. Ryzhakov, G. Novikov, I. Oseledets, Optimization of functions given in the tensor train format, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14808 (2022). 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 max bond-dimension 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 sum of errors probability error truncation error Figure 5: top-KisoTNS algorithm applied to random state. With isoTNS bond-dimension1,...

arXiv 2022

Show all 36 references

[9]

Batsheva, A

A. Batsheva, A. Chertkov, G. Ryzhakov, I. Oseledets, Protes: probabilistic optimization with tensor sampling, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023) 808–823

2023
[10]

G. S. Novikov, M. E. Panov, I. V . Oseledets, Tensor-train density estimation, in: C. de Campos, M. H. Maathuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli- gence, V ol. 161 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2021, ...

2021
[11]

A. J. Ferris, G. Vidal, Perfect sampling with unitary tensor networks, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85 (16) (2012) 165146

2012
[12]

Verstraete, J

F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv preprint cond-mat/0407066 (2004)

2004 arXiv
[13]

Vieijra, J

T. Vieijra, J. Haegeman, F. Verstraete, L. Vanderstraeten, Direct sampling of projected entangled-pair states, Physical Review B 104 (23) (2021) 235141

2021
[14]

Haghshenas, M

R. Haghshenas, M. J. O’Rourke, G. K.-L. Chan, Conversion of projected entangled pair states into a canonical form, Phys. Rev. B 100 (5) (2019) 054404

2019
[15]

Hyatt, E

K. Hyatt, E. M. Stoudenmire, DMRG approach to optimizing two-dimensional tensor networks (2020)

2020
[16]

M. P. Zaletel, F. Pollmann, Isometric tensor network states in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (3) (2020) 037201

2020
[17]

J. Wei, A. Dektor, C. Shen, Z. Wen, C. Yang, Numerical optimization for tensor disentanglement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19409 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[18]

S.-H. Lin, M. P. Zaletel, F. Pollmann, Efficient simulation of dynamics in two-dimensional quantum spin systems with isometric tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 106 (2022) 245102

2022
[19]

Dektor, R

A. Dektor, R. Chi, R. Van Beeumen, C. Yang, Computing excited states with isometric tensor networks in two-dimensions, arXiv:2502.19578 (2025)

2025
[20]

Z. Dai, Y . Wu, T. Wang, M. P. Zaletel, Fermionic isometric tensor network states in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2) (2025) 026502

2025
[21]

Y . Wu, Z. Dai, S. Anand, S.-H. Lin, Q. Yang, L. Wang, F. Pollmann, M. P. Zaletel, Alternating and gaussian fermionic isometric tensor network states, arXiv:2502.10695 (2025)

2025
[22]

Kadow, F

W. Kadow, F. Pollmann, M. Knap, Isometric tensor network representations of two-dimensional ther- mal states, Phys. Rev. B 107 (20) (2023) 205106. 23

2023
[23]

Soejima, K

T. Soejima, K. Siva, N. Bultinck, S. Chatterjee, F. Pollmann, M. P. Zaletel, Isometric tensor network representation of string-net liquids, Phys. Rev. B 101 (8) (2020) 085117

2020
[24]

Sappler, M

B. Sappler, M. Kawano, M. P. Zaletel, F. Pollmann, Diagonal isometric form for tensor product states in two dimensions, arXiv:2507.08080 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[25]

Perez-Garcia, F

D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Information and Computation 7 (5-6) (2007) 401–430. arXiv:0608197, doi:10.26421/qic7.5-6-1

2007 doi
[26]

P. M. Djuric, Y . Huang, T. Ghirmai, Perfect sampling: a review and applications to signal processing, IEEE Transactions on Signal processing 50 (2) (2002) 345–356

2002
[27]

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

R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349 (2014) 117–158

2014
[28]

Gray, quimb: a python library for quantum information and many-body calculations, Journal of Open Source Software 3 (29) (2018) 819

J. Gray, quimb: a python library for quantum information and many-body calculations, Journal of Open Source Software 3 (29) (2018) 819. doi:10.21105/joss.00819

2018 doi
[29]

Dektor, isoTNS_sampling,https://github.com/adektor/isoTNS_sampling, ac- cessed: 2026-02-01 (2026)

A. Dektor, isoTNS_sampling,https://github.com/adektor/isoTNS_sampling, ac- cessed: 2026-02-01 (2026)

2026
[30]

Gräfe, R

M. Gräfe, R. Heilmann, A. Perez-Leija, R. Keil, F. Dreisow, M. Heinrich, H. Moya-Cessa, S. Nolte, D. N. Christodoulides, A. Szameit, On-chip generation of high-order single-photon w-states, Nat. Photonics 8 (10) (2014) 791–795

2014
[31]

E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, T. Papenbrock, R. C. Pooser, D. J. Dean, P. Lougovski, Cloud quantum computing of an atomic nucleus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 210501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.210501

2018 doi
[32]

Diker, Deterministic construction of arbitraryWstates with quadratically increasing number of two- qubit gates, AIP Adv

F. Diker, Deterministic construction of arbitraryWstates with quadratically increasing number of two- qubit gates, AIP Adv. 15 (7) (Jul. 2025)

2025
[33]

Khaneja, S

N. Khaneja, S. J. Glaser, Cartan decomposition of su (2n) and control of spin systems, Chemical Physics 267 (1-3) (2001) 11–23

2001
[34]

C. E. Porter, R. G. Thomas, Fluctuations of nuclear reaction widths, Phys. Rev. 104 (2) (1956) 483– 491

1956
[35]

Boixo, S

S. Boixo, S. V . Isakov, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, H. Neven, Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices, Nat. Phys. 14 (6) (2018) 595–600

2018
[36]

M. S. Tepaske, D. J. Luitz, Three-dimensional isometric tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Research 3 (2) (2021) 023236. 24

2021

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, D. J. Shepherd, Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 467 (2126) (2011) 459–472

2011

[2] [2]

Arute, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574 (7779) (2019) 505–510

F. Arute, et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574 (7779) (2019) 505–510

2019

[3] [3]

S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical quantum states at finite temperature, Physical review letters 102 (19) (2009) 190601

2009

[4] [4]

Stoudenmire, S

E. Stoudenmire, S. R. White, Minimally entangled typical thermal state algorithms, New Journal of Physics 12 (5) (2010) 055026

2010

[5] [5]

Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326 (1) (2011) 96–192

U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326 (1) (2011) 96–192. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012

doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012 2011

[6] [6]

G. Lami, M. Collura, Quantum magic via perfect pauli sampling of matrix product states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05536 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Dolgov, K

S. Dolgov, K. Anaya-Izquierdo, C. Fox, R. Scheichl, Approximation and sampling of multivariate probability distributions in the tensor train decomposition, Statistics and Computing 30 (3) (2020) 603–625

2020

[8] [8]

Chertkov, G

A. Chertkov, G. Ryzhakov, G. Novikov, I. Oseledets, Optimization of functions given in the tensor train format, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14808 (2022). 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 max bond-dimension 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 sum of errors probability error truncation error Figure 5: top-KisoTNS algorithm applied to random state. With isoTNS bond-dimension1,...

arXiv 2022