Encoding of Matrix Product States into Quantum Circuits of One- and Two-Qubit Gates

Shi-Ju Ran

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 60 references

Encoding of Matrix Product States into Quantum Circuits of One- and Two-Qubit Gates

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that matrix product states with large internal dimension can be accurately prepared by deep circuits of one- and two-qubit gates, and tests this on strongly correlated spin-chain ground states.

desk verdict A clean exact construction with an overstated deep-layer claim: the D-layer fidelity is just the product of chi=2 truncation fidelities, so 'accurate and efficient' holds only when those truncations are good. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07958 v2 pith:NSI6MNAE submitted 2019-08-21 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Shi-Ju Ran This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el

keywords matrixproductstatedisentanglerquantumcircuitcompilationone-andtwo-qubitgatesnear-termdevicesentanglementDMRGgroundstatesspinchains

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 claims that a matrix product state (MPS) with physical qubits but a much larger internal 'virtual' dimension, the kind produced by DMRG calculations, can be rewritten as a quantum circuit made only of one- and two-qubit gates, with the number of gates growing linearly with system size and with the number of circuit layers. The construction works by building unitary 'matrix product disentanglers' (MPDs) that peel entanglement off the target state layer by layer until what remains is close to a product state; reading those layers backward gives the circuit that creates the target from a product state. Benchmarks on ground states of the transverse Ising, Heisenberg, and XY spin chains show the per-site error decreases steadily with each added layer, even for chains of 150 sites and internal dimensions of 64. If the claim is right, classical tensor-network simulations of strongly correlated quantum systems become directly usable as programs for near-term quantum hardware, with a large compression in the number of coefficients per site.

What carries the argument

The central object is the matrix product disentangler (MPD): a unitary matrix product operator whose local tensors are two-qubit unitary gates assembled from an MPS in left-orthogonal form, the canonical gauge in which each local tensor acts as an isometry. For an interior site, the tensor of the MPS sits in one block of the gate, and the remaining rows are filled with orthonormal vectors from the kernel of that block; the same construction with adjusted boundary blocks makes every local tensor a unitary gate and the whole MPD a unitary operator. Acting on the target MPS, each MPD is designed to remove as much entanglement as a bond-dimension-two MPS can carry, and iterating the truncate-then-build step produces a deep circuit. The construction carries the argument because it converts the problem of preparing a high-entanglement state into a sequence of standard, polynomial-cost MPS truncations.

What would settle it

Apply the encoding to a generic non-ground-state matrix product state with N=50 and virtual dimension chi=64 whose Schmidt values are all equal, so the entanglement spectrum is flat. If the per-site negative-log fidelity F_D stops improving after the first few disentangler layers, then the load-bearing premise — that a bond-dimension-two truncation preserves enough entanglement for the next layer to help — fails for states with evenly distributed entanglement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a left-orthogonal matrix product state with d=2 and chi much larger than d is not inherently hard to realize on a qubit machine: there exists a sequence of local unitary gates, each acting on one or two qubits, that maps |0...0> to a state very close to the target MPS. The gates are obtained by a greedy iterative algorithm: truncate the current MPS to internal dimension two, build from that truncated state a unitary matrix product operator that (by construction) sends it to a product state, apply it to the full state, and repeat. After D layers the accumulated MPDs form the circuit. The paper's numerical evidence is that on DMRG ground states of critical and gapless spin chains this reduces the negative-log fidelity per site by roughly two orders of magnitude with the first layer and continues to drop with additional layers, while the gate count and the number of qubits needed scale linearly in N and D.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the empirical premise that after each disentangling layer, the residual state's essential entanglement can still be captured by keeping only its two-dimensional internal index, so another layer keeps reducing the distance to a product state; the paper demonstrates this on spin-chain ground states but gives no guarantee for arbitrary matrix product states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A circuit with D layers contains O(ND) one- and two-qubit gates, so the preparation cost stays linear in system size for fixed D.
When combined with the qubit-efficient scheme, the circuit needs only D+2 physical qubits regardless of N, because the last qubit is measured and reused, and the first D+1 qubits carry the entanglement.
The number of variational coefficients per site falls from d chi^2 to D d^4; for chi=64 and D=8 this is a compression from 8192 to 128 parameters per site.
For classical simulations of the algorithm, errors stay controlled only while D is at most log_d chi_tilde, where chi_tilde is the truncation bound; beyond that, avoiding error growth requires keeping the simulation bond dimension exponential in D.
Because the first disentangling layer already removes most of the global entanglement, even one or two layers give a usable approximation of the target MPS, with additional layers refining it.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer that the same greedy disentangler layers could initialize a variational circuit: the classically computed gates give a good starting point, and the parameters could then be refined by direct optimization on quantum hardware, which the paper does not discuss.
We infer that reading the circuit in the opposite direction realizes an entanglement-renormalization flow similar in spirit to hierarchical tensor-network circuits, so the construction might extend to two-dimensional tensor-network states, although only one-dimensional MPSs are treated here.
We infer that the efficiency boundary can be mapped by testing states with flat Schmidt spectra, where all entanglement eigenvalues are equal; for such states the truncation premise should break down, which would define the class of MPSs for which the method is useful.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Alex,

The paper is worth a look, but keep your expectations in check. The exact chi=d construction in the single-layer case is just the Schön et al. sequential-generation scheme with a clean unitarity proof. What's genuinely new is the iterative deep disentangling loop: truncate the current MPS to bond dimension d, build the disentangler, apply it to the full state, repeat. That's a natural extension and it's well defined.

The algebra behind the deep layers is the crux, and the stress-test note is right on the money. Since U_t^†|0> = |\tilde ψ_k>, the overlap after one layer is exactly <0|U_t|ψ_k> = <\tilde ψ_k|ψ_k>, i.e., the chi=2 truncation fidelity of that layer. So the D-layer fidelity to the original state is the product of the truncation fidelities of the successive residual states. Deep layers help if and only if those truncations stay close to 1. That's an empirical property of the states, not a guarantee of the construction. The paper's own data show F9/F1 ≈ 0.87 on critical Ising; so nine layers buy about 13% improvement in NLF over one layer. For a generic large-chi MPS, there is no argument that this product stays high.

What the paper does well: the exact construction is rigorous, the benchmarks cover physically relevant gapless spin chains, and the qubit-efficient scheme reduces the qubit count to D+2, which is a real practical advantage for NISQ. The numerical results are consistent with the expected behavior, and the error analysis in Section IV honestly identifies the exponential classical cost for D > log_d chi_tilde.

Soft spots beyond the core algebraic gap: no absolute fidelities are reported, only log-fidelity per site; there are no comparisons to existing compilation methods or variational circuits; no code or data is provided; and the qubit-efficient scheme is imported verbatim from Huggins et al. without re-validation in this context. The central claim of efficient accurate encoding for arbitrary MPS with chi >> d is therefore not supported as stated. It's supported for the tested ground states with modest depth.

Who it's for: researchers compiling tensor-network states to concrete gate sequences for near-term hardware. They'll get a useful starting point and a clear caveat. It deserves a serious referee—the exact part is sound, and the deep-loop idea is worth publishing with honest limitations.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but ask for absolute fidelities, a baseline comparison, and a discussion of the truncation-fidelity product bound. My own verdict would be conditional acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an algorithm for encoding a matrix product state (MPS) with physical dimension d=2 and possibly large virtual dimension χ into a quantum circuit composed only of one- and two-qubit gates. For χ=d, the construction exactly converts a left-orthogonal MPS into a unitary matrix product operator by completing the MPS tensors with kernel basis vectors; the Appendix proves unitarity. For χ≫d, the algorithm iteratively truncates the current state to bond dimension d, builds a disentangler from the truncated state, and applies it to the full state, repeating to form a deep circuit. Benchmarks are reported for ground-state MPSs of the transverse Ising, Heisenberg, and XY models, and a qubit-efficient measurement-based scheme is invoked to reduce the required qubit count. The central claim is that the resulting deep circuit accurately and efficiently prepares the targeted MPS.

Significance. If fully established, the algorithm would provide a practical bridge from DMRG tensor outputs to low-depth circuits on near-term hardware, with per-site parameters compressed from O(dχ^2) to O(D d^4). The exact χ=d construction is clean and the unitarity proof in the Appendix is correct; the paper also provides reproducible numerical benchmarks with falsifiable predictions. However, the significance of the multi-layer extension depends on an iterative disentangling property that is not proven and only partially supported by the data. The single-layer construction is essentially the sequential-generation scheme of Schön et al. [Ref. 43], so the novelty rests on the deep-layer behavior and on the accuracy/efficiency claims for χ≫d.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Step 3 and Eq. (12)] The deep-extension step is the load-bearing part of the paper, but it is not justified as a general construction. Since U_t is built from the rank-2 truncated state |ψ~_t>, the overlap after applying one layer is exactly |<0|U_t|ψ_t>| = |<ψ~_t|ψ_t>|, so the fidelity gain of every layer is controlled by the χ=2 truncation fidelity of that specific residual state. Nothing in the algorithm guarantees that these truncation fidelities approach 1 for general MPS. The paper's own benchmark in Fig. 3(c) inset shows F9/F1 saturating at about 0.87 for critical Ising, meaning that eight additional layers reduce the per-site negative-log fidelity by only 13%. Thus the claim that the deep circuit "accurately and efficiently" encodes arbitrary MPS with χ≫d is unsupported; the method is demonstrated only for particular low-lying ground states and its convergence is an empirical property of those states.
[Sec. IV and Fig. 4] The efficiency claim is incomplete because the algorithm must compute the MPDs classically. As stated in Section IV, applying U_t to |ψ_k> increases the virtual dimension as χ d^k, and for D > log_d χ~ the numerical error "suddenly soars" unless the simulation bond dimension is kept exponentially large, χ~ ~ d^D. Consequently the end-to-end classical preprocessing cost is exponential in D outside a limited window, and the statement that the classical cost scales linearly with D is only valid for D ≤ log_d χ~. Since the paper presents the method as an efficient encoder for deep circuits, this exponential-in-depth classical overhead is a central qualification that needs to be addressed or explicitly bounded in the main claims.
[Sec. II/III numerical benchmarks] No absolute fidelities are reported. The paper presents only the per-site negative-log fidelity F_D and the ratio F9/F1. Because a per-site error ε gives a total fidelity that decays as e^{-Nε}, a claim of "high fidelity" requires reporting F_D (or the total fidelity) for the system sizes and layer counts actually used. Without these values, the reader cannot judge whether the achieved accuracy is useful for, e.g., N=150 or whether the 20-40% reduction quoted for D=9 is meaningful; the inset of Fig. 3(c) even shows only a 13% reduction in F_D for critical Ising. Please report absolute fidelities and distinguish the behavior for different N models.

minor comments (3)

[Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: "critical potin" should read "critical point."
[Sec. III, text near Fig. 3] The main text states that with D=9, F_D is reduced by about 20-40% compared to F1, while Fig. 3(c) inset shows F9/F1 converging to about 0.87 for critical Ising. Please reconcile these numbers and specify which models and sizes correspond to the 20-40% statement.
[Sec. V, qubit-efficient scheme] The sentence "Such an efficient circuit in fact does not gives N entangled qubits" is ungrammatical; more importantly, please clarify that the qubit-efficient circuit reproduces measurement outcome statistics via mid-circuit measurement and reset, rather than preparing the full N-qubit state, so the abstract's phrase "much fewer qubits than the sizes of the MPS's themselves" is not equivalent to full state preparation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the single-layer fidelity metric is the optimal χ=2 truncation fidelity by construction, but the deep-circuit benchmarks are empirical and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

self definitional [Section II, single-layer scheme, Eqs. (6)-(11)]
"First, find the optimal MPS |ψ~> with χ=d that maximizes the fidelity |<ψ|ψ~>|. This can be done by reducing the virtual dimensions of |ψ> to d with the standard truncation algorithm of MPS... Then, U can be obtained from |ψ~> following the standard procedure. ... F1 = −ln|<ψ|U†|0>|/N."

Since U is constructed from the truncated state |ψ~>, unitarity gives U†|0>=|ψ~> (U|ψ~>=|0> by construction). Hence Eq. (11) reduces to F1 = −ln|<ψ|ψ~>|/N, exactly the χ=2 truncation fidelity used as the input to build the circuit. The paper then uses F1≪F0 as evidence that the circuit 'fairly evolves |0> to the targeted MPS'; this gap is guaranteed by optimal truncation (χ=2 cannot have lower fidelity than χ=1) and does not independently test the circuit. The single-layer encoding accuracy is therefore the fit by construction.

full rationale

The paper's construction chain is otherwise self-contained and not circular. For χ=d, the MPD is built by completing the orthogonal MPS tensors to unitaries, and the Appendix gives a direct diagrammatic unitarity proof; this part is exact. For χ>d, the paper explicitly fits the best χ=2 MPS and then constructs the circuit from that fit, so the single-layer fidelity F1 is identical to the truncation fidelity used to define the circuit. This is a genuine self-definitional reduction of the F1 metric, but it is a minor component rather than the central claim. The central claim of the paper is the multi-layer extension: F_D decays with D because repeated truncation of the residuals improves the overlap with a product state. That decay is an empirical property of the tested ground states and is not forced by the construction; the paper's own Section IV reports a sudden error increase for D>log_d(χ~) and an exponential classical simulation cost, which is an honest limitation rather than a circular move. The qubit-efficient scheme is imported from the external Ref. [28] and is not re-derived, but it is independent support rather than a self-citation chain. The only self-citations ([13], [29]) are contextual examples and do not carry any load-bearing argument. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Overall, the central derivation has independent empirical content; the only notable circularity is the self-definitional single-layer fidelity, so the score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction relies on standard MPS gauge and truncation facts, plus the imported qubit-efficient scheme. The free parameters are user-chosen layer count and simulation bond dimension cutoff. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

D (number of MPD layers) = up to 9 in benchmarks
Accuracy metric F_D is defined for a chosen D; the claim that O(10) layers suffice is based on D=9 for the tested models, not a derived bound.
chi_tilde (virtual dimension cutoff for classical simulation) = not specified
The encoding algorithm and F_D calculation require truncating virtual dimensions to chi_tilde; the paper states errors are controlled only for D <= log_d(chi_tilde), so practical accuracy depends on this user-set cutoff.

assumptions (4)

standard math The target MPS is provided in, or can be transformed to, left-orthogonal canonical form.
Section II, Eqs. (2)-(4); standard gauge fixing that is always possible.
standard math Optimal truncation of an MPS to bond dimension d is obtained by discarding the smallest singular values, and the resulting truncated state is the best approximation.
Step 1 of Section III; standard MPS truncation based on singular value decomposition.
domain assumption The qubit-efficient scheme of Ref. [28] reproduces the probability distribution of the N-qubit MPS using D+2 qubits.
Section III, Fig. 1(c); the 'much fewer qubits' claim rests entirely on this cited scheme, which is not re-derived or benchmarked in this paper.
ad hoc to paper For the tested critical and near-critical models, a fixed chi_tilde remains sufficient to control truncation errors for the chosen D.
Section IV and Fig. 4; this is demonstrated numerically for specific models, not proven for general MPS. The sudden error rise at D = log_d(chi_tilde) is the paper's own observation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Encoding of Matrix Product States into Quantum Circuits of One- and Two-Qubit Gates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSI6MNAE

@misc{pith2026190807958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Encoding of Matrix Product States into Quantum Circuits of One- and Two-Qubit Gates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSI6MNAE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07958}
}

abstract

The matrix product state (MPS) belongs to the most important mathematical models in, for example, condensed matter physics and quantum information sciences. However, to realize an $N$-qubit MPS with large $N$ and large entanglement on a quantum platform is extremely challenging, since it requires high-level qudits or multi-body gates of two-level qubits to carry the entanglement. In this work, an efficient method that accurately encodes a given MPS into a quantum circuit with only one- and two-qubit gates is proposed. The idea is to construct the unitary matrix product operators that optimally disentangle the MPS to a product state. These matrix product operators form the quantum circuit that evolves a product state to the targeted MPS with a high fidelity. Our benchmark on the ground-state MPS's of the strongly-correlated spin models show that the constructed quantum circuits can encode the MPS's with much fewer qubits than the sizes of the MPS's themselves. This method paves a feasible and efficient path to realizing quantum many-body states and other MPS-based models as quantum circuits on the near-term quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07958 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) Semi-log plot of the NLF’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (Color online) The NLF per site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

For the MPS |ψk⟩ in the k-th iteration (initialized as |ψ0⟩ =|ψ⟩), compute the MPS| ˜ψk⟩ ofχ =d by opti- mally truncating the virtual dimensions of|ψk⟩

work page
[2]

Compute the MPD ˆUt witht =D− k, which disentan- gles| ˜ψk⟩ to|0⟩, using the method introduced above

work page
[3]

Disentangle|ψk⟩ to|ψk+1⟩ as|ψk+1⟩ = ˆUt|ψk⟩

work page
[4]

We testify the encoding algorithm on the ground states of 1D transverse Ising, Heisenberg, and XY models

Return the MPD’s { ˆUt} (t = 1, 2,··· ,D) when the preset number of layers in the circuit is reached, or go back to Step 1 with|ψk+1⟩. We testify the encoding algorithm on the ground states of 1D transverse Ising, Heisenberg, and XY models. For the the Heisenberg and XY models, the Hamiltonians are ˆH =∑ n( ˆSx n ˆSx n+1+ ˆSy n ˆSy n+1+ ˆSz n ˆSz n+1) and...

work page
[5]

Transfer-matrix density-matrix renormalization-group theory for thermodynamics of one- dimensional quantum systems,

Xiaoqun Wang and Tao Xiang, “Transfer-matrix density-matrix renormalization-group theory for thermodynamics of one- dimensional quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. B 56, 5061–5064 (1997)

work page 1997
[6]

Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups,

Steven R. White, “Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863–2866 (1992)

work page 1992
[7]

Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups,

Steven R. White, “Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups,” Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345–10356 (1993)

work page 1993
[8]

Equivalence of the variational matrix product method and the density matrix renormalization group applied to spin chains,

Jorge Dukelsky, Miguel A. Mart ´ın-Del´gado, Tomotoshi Nishino, and Germ ´an Sierra, “Equivalence of the variational matrix product method and the density matrix renormalization group applied to spin chains,” Europhys. Lett. 43, 457 (1998)

work page 1998

Show all 60 references

[9]

Thermodynamic density matrix renormalization group study of the magnetic susceptibility of half-integer quantum spin chains,

S. Moukouri and L. G. Caron, “Thermodynamic density matrix renormalization group study of the magnetic susceptibility of half-integer quantum spin chains,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4640– 4643 (1996)

1996
[10]

Matrix Product Density Operators: Simulation of Finite- Temperature and Dissipative Systems,

Frank Verstraete, Juan J. Garc ´ıa-Ripoll, and J. Ignacio Cirac, “Matrix Product Density Operators: Simulation of Finite- Temperature and Dissipative Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004)

2004
[11]

Excitations of anisotropic spin-1 chains with matrix product ground state,

E. Bartel, A. Schadschneider, and J. Zittartz, “Excitations of anisotropic spin-1 chains with matrix product ground state,” J. Eur. Phys. J. B 31, 209–216 (2003)

2003
[12]

Entanglement perturba- tion theory for the elementary excitation in one dimension,

Sung Gong Chung and Lihua Wang, “Entanglement perturba- tion theory for the elementary excitation in one dimension,” Phys. Lett. A 373, 2277 – 2280 (2009). 6

2009
[13]

Variational matrix product ansatz for dispersion relations,

Jutho Haegeman, Bogdan Pirvu, David J. Weir, J. Ignacio Cirac, Tobias J. Osborne, Henri Verschelde, and Frank Verstraete, “Variational matrix product ansatz for dispersion relations,” Phys. Rev. B 85, 100408(R) (2012)

2012
[14]

Efﬁcient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems,

Guifr ´e Vidal, “Efﬁcient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040502 (2004)

2004
[15]

Matrix product simula- tions of non-equilibrium steady states of quantum spin chains,

Toma ˇz Prosen and Marko ˇZnidariˇc, “Matrix product simula- tions of non-equilibrium steady states of quantum spin chains,” J. Stat. Mech. 2009, P02035 (2009)

2009
[16]

Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully,

F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, “Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully,” Phys. Rev. B73, 094423 (2006)

2006
[17]

Classical simulation of inﬁnite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension,

G. Vidal, “Classical simulation of inﬁnite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007)

2007
[18]

Linearized tensor renormalization group algorithm for the calculation of thermodynamic properties of quantum lattice models,

Wei Li, Shi-Ju Ran, Shou-Shu Gong, Yang Zhao, Bin Xi, Fei Ye, and Gang Su, “Linearized tensor renormalization group algorithm for the calculation of thermodynamic properties of quantum lattice models,” Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 127202 (2011)

2011
[19]

Dynamical sim- ulations of classical stochastic systems using matrix product states,

T. H. Johnson, S. R. Clark, and D. Jaksch, “Dynamical sim- ulations of classical stochastic systems using matrix product states,” Phys. Rev. E82, 036702 (2010)

2010
[20]

Continuous matrix product states for quantum ﬁelds,

F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, “Continuous matrix product states for quantum ﬁelds,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 190405 (2010)

2010
[21]

Solving nonequilibrium dynamical mean-ﬁeld theory using matrix product states,

F. Alexander Wolf, Ian P. McCulloch, and Ulrich Schollw ¨ock, “Solving nonequilibrium dynamical mean-ﬁeld theory using matrix product states,” Phys. Rev. B90, 235131 (2014)

2014
[22]

Simulating open quantum dynamics with time-dependent variational ma- trix product states: Towards microscopic correlation of envi- ronment dynamics and reduced system evolution,

Florian A. Y . N. Schr ¨oder and Alex W. Chin, “Simulating open quantum dynamics with time-dependent variational ma- trix product states: Towards microscopic correlation of envi- ronment dynamics and reduced system evolution,” Phys. Rev. B 93, 075105 (2016)

2016
[23]

One-dimensional many-body entangled open quantum sys- tems with tensor network methods,

Daniel Jaschke, Simone Montangero, and Lincoln D. Carr, “One-dimensional many-body entangled open quantum sys- tems with tensor network methods,” Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 013001 (2018)

2018
[24]

Inﬁnite matrix product states, conformal ﬁeld theory, and the haldane-shastry model,

J. Ignacio Cirac and Germ ´an Sierra, “Inﬁnite matrix product states, conformal ﬁeld theory, and the haldane-shastry model,” Phys. Rev. B 81, 104431 (2010)

2010
[25]

Supervised learning with tensor networks,

Edwin Stoudenmire and David J Schwab, “Supervised learning with tensor networks,” in Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 29 , edited by D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. V . Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Inc.,
[26]

Calculus of continuous matrix product states,

Jutho Haegeman, J. Ignacio Cirac, Tobias J. Osborne, and Frank Verstraete, “Calculus of continuous matrix product states,” Phys. Rev. B88, 085118 (2013)

2013
[27]

Ma- trix product states and variational methods applied to critical quantum ﬁeld theory,

Ashley Milsted, Jutho Haegeman, and Tobias J. Osborne, “Ma- trix product states and variational methods applied to critical quantum ﬁeld theory,” Phys. Rev. D88, 085030 (2013)

2013
[28]

Quantum ﬁeld tomography,

A. Steffens, C. A. Riofr´ıo, R. H¨ubener, and J. Eisert, “Quantum ﬁeld tomography,” New J. Phys.16, 123010 (2014)

2014
[29]

Lieb-liniger model with exponentially decaying interactions: A continuous matrix product state study,

Juli ´an Rinc´on, Martin Ganahl, and Guifre Vidal, “Lieb-liniger model with exponentially decaying interactions: A continuous matrix product state study,” Phys. Rev. B92, 115107 (2015)

2015
[30]

Density Matrix Renormalization Group and Periodic Boundary Condi- tions: A Quantum Information Perspective,

Frank Verstraete, Diego Porras, and J. Ignacio Cirac, “Density Matrix Renormalization Group and Periodic Boundary Condi- tions: A Quantum Information Perspective,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 227205 (2004)

2004
[31]

Unsupervised generative modeling using matrix prod- uct states,

Zhao-Yu Han, Jun Wang, Heng Fan, Lei Wang, and Pan Zhang, “Unsupervised generative modeling using matrix prod- uct states,” Phys. Rev. X8, 031012 (2018)

2018
[32]

Equivalence of restricted boltzmann machines and tensor network states,

Jing Chen, Song Cheng, Haidong Xie, Lei Wang, and Tao Xi- ang, “Equivalence of restricted boltzmann machines and tensor network states,” Phys. Rev. B97, 085104 (2018)

2018
[33]

Towards quantum ma- chine learning with tensor networks,

William Huggins, Piyush Patil, Bradley Mitchell, K Birgitta Whaley, and E Miles Stoudenmire, “Towards quantum ma- chine learning with tensor networks,” Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 024001 (2019)

2019
[34]

Generative tensor network classiﬁcation model for super- vised machine learning,

Zheng-Zhi Sun, Cheng Peng, Ding Liu, Shi-Ju Ran, and Gang Su, “Generative tensor network classiﬁcation model for super- vised machine learning,” (2019), arXiv:1903.10742

2019 arXiv
[35]

Rigorous results on valence-bond ground states in antiferro- magnets,

Ian Afﬂeck, Tom Kennedy, Elliott H. Lieb, and Hal Tasaki, “Rigorous results on valence-bond ground states in antiferro- magnets,” Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 799–802 (1987)

1987
[36]

Measurement-based quantum computation beyond the one- way model,

D. Gross, J. Eisert, N. Schuch, and D. Perez-Garcia, “Measurement-based quantum computation beyond the one- way model,” Phys. Rev. A76, 052315 (2007)

2007
[37]

Quan- tum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dis- sipation,

Frank Verstraete, Michael M Wolf, and J Ignacio Cirac, “Quan- tum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dis- sipation,” Nat. phys. 5, 633 (2009)

2009
[38]

Op- timising matrix product state simulations of shors algorithm,

Aidan Dang, Charles D Hill, and Lloyd CL Hollenberg, “Op- timising matrix product state simulations of shors algorithm,” Quantum 3, 116 (2019)

2019
[39]

Simula- tion of matrix product state on a quantum computer,

Amandeep Singh Bhatia and Mandeep Kaur Saggi, “Simula- tion of matrix product state on a quantum computer,” (2018), arXiv:1811.09833

2018 arXiv
[40]

Symmetry-protected phases for measurement-based quantum computation,

Dominic V . Else, Ilai Schwarz, Stephen D. Bartlett, and Andrew C. Doherty, “Symmetry-protected phases for measurement-based quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240505 (2012)

2012
[41]

Matrix Product State Representations,

David P ´erez-Garc´ıa, Frank Verstraete, Michael M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, “Matrix Product State Representations,” Quan- tum Inf. Comput. 7, 401–430 (2007)

2007
[42]

Diverging entanglement length in gapped quantum spin systems,

F. Verstraete, M. A. Mart´ın-Delgado, and J. I. Cirac, “Diverging entanglement length in gapped quantum spin systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 087201 (2004)

2004
[43]

The correspondence of the indexes of the tensors in the MPD and the gates in the circuit is shown at the bottom

is also illustrated. The correspondence of the indexes of the tensors in the MPD and the gates in the circuit is shown at the bottom. (b) illustrates the deep quantum circuit consisting ofD = 2 layers of matrix product disentanglers. Note we take a small number of sites (N = 8...
[44]

Novel schemes for measurement-based quantum computation,

D. Gross and J. Eisert, “Novel schemes for measurement-based quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 220503 (2007)

2007
[45]

Afﬂeck-kennedy-lieb-tasaki state on a honeycomb lattice is a universal quantum computational resource,

Tzu-Chieh Wei, Ian Afﬂeck, and Robert Raussendorf, “Afﬂeck-kennedy-lieb-tasaki state on a honeycomb lattice is a universal quantum computational resource,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 070501 (2011)

2011
[46]

Generation of multicomponent atomic schr ¨odinger cat states of up to 20 qubits,

Chao Song, Kai Xu, Hekang Li, Yu-Ran Zhang, Xu Zhang, Wuxin Liu, Qiujiang Guo, Zhen Wang, Wenhui Ren, Jie Hao, et al. , “Generation of multicomponent atomic schr ¨odinger cat states of up to 20 qubits,” Science 365, 574–577 (2019)

2019
[47]

Generation and manipulation of schr¨odinger cat states in rydberg atom arrays,

A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi, J. Cui, M. Rossignolo, P. Rembold, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, M. En- dres, M. Greiner, V . Vuleti´c, and M. D. Lukin, “Generation and manipulation of schr¨oding...

2019
[48]

Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states,

C. Sch ¨on, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, “Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110503 (2005)

2005
[49]

Efﬁcient quantum state tomography,

Marcus Cramer, Martin B Plenio, Steven T Flammia, Rolando Somma, David Gross, Stephen D Bartlett, Olivier Landon- Cardinal, David Poulin, and Yi-Kai Liu, “Efﬁcient quantum state tomography,” Nat. Comm.1, 149 (2010)

2010
[50]

Elementary gates for quantum computation,

Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P. DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Tycho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Weinfurter, “Elementary gates for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A52, 3457–3467 (1995)

1995
[51]

Programming languages and compiler design for realistic quantum hardware,

Frederic T Chong, Diana Franklin, and Margaret Martonosi, 7 “Programming languages and compiler design for realistic quantum hardware,” Nature 549, 180 (2017)

2017
[52]

Vari- ational quantum eigensolver with fewer qubits,

Jin-Guo Liu, Yi-Hong Zhang, Yuan Wan, and Lei Wang, “Vari- ational quantum eigensolver with fewer qubits,” Phys. Rev. Re- search 1, 023025 (2019)

2019
[53]

Decompositions of general quantum gates,

M. Mottonen and J. J. Vartiainen, “Decompositions of general quantum gates,” in Trends in Quantum Computing Research , edited by Susan Shannon (NOV A Publishers, New York, 2006) p. Chapter 7

2006
[54]

Matrix product unitaries: structure, symme- tries, and topological invariants,

J Ignacio Cirac, David Perez-Garcia, Norbert Schuch, and Frank Verstraete, “Matrix product unitaries: structure, symme- tries, and topological invariants,” J. Stat. Mech. 2017, 083105 (2017)

2017
[55]

Matrix product representation of locality preserving unitaries,

M. Burak S ¸ahino˘glu, Sujeet K. Shukla, Feng Bi, and Xie Chen, “Matrix product representation of locality preserving unitaries,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 245122 (2018)

2018
[56]

Entanglement in Quantum Critical Phenomena,

Guifr ´e Vidal, Jos ´e I. Latorre, Enrique Rico, and Alexei Ki- taev, “Entanglement in Quantum Critical Phenomena,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003)

2003
[57]

Scaling of entanglement support for matrix product states,

Luca Tagliacozzo, Thiago R. de Oliveira, Sofyan Iblisdir, and Jos´e I. Latorre, “Scaling of entanglement support for matrix product states,” Phys. Rev. B78, 024410 (2008)

2008
[58]

The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,

Ulrich Schollw ¨ock, “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states,” Ann. Phys. 326, 96–192 (2011)

2011
[59]

See the Appendix for the proof of ˆU being unitary
[60]

Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states,

Tzu-Chieh Wei and Paul M. Goldbart, “Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states,” Phys. Rev. A68, 042307 (2003)

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

For the MPS |ψk⟩ in the k-th iteration (initialized as |ψ0⟩ =|ψ⟩), compute the MPS| ˜ψk⟩ ofχ =d by opti- mally truncating the virtual dimensions of|ψk⟩

work page

[2] [2]

Compute the MPD ˆUt witht =D− k, which disentan- gles| ˜ψk⟩ to|0⟩, using the method introduced above

work page

[3] [3]

Disentangle|ψk⟩ to|ψk+1⟩ as|ψk+1⟩ = ˆUt|ψk⟩

work page

[4] [4]

We testify the encoding algorithm on the ground states of 1D transverse Ising, Heisenberg, and XY models

Return the MPD’s { ˆUt} (t = 1, 2,··· ,D) when the preset number of layers in the circuit is reached, or go back to Step 1 with|ψk+1⟩. We testify the encoding algorithm on the ground states of 1D transverse Ising, Heisenberg, and XY models. For the the Heisenberg and XY models, the Hamiltonians are ˆH =∑ n( ˆSx n ˆSx n+1+ ˆSy n ˆSy n+1+ ˆSz n ˆSz n+1) and...

work page

[5] [5]

Transfer-matrix density-matrix renormalization-group theory for thermodynamics of one- dimensional quantum systems,

Xiaoqun Wang and Tao Xiang, “Transfer-matrix density-matrix renormalization-group theory for thermodynamics of one- dimensional quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. B 56, 5061–5064 (1997)

work page 1997

[6] [6]

Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups,

Steven R. White, “Density matrix formulation for quan- tum renormalization groups,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863–2866 (1992)

work page 1992

[7] [7]

Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups,

Steven R. White, “Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups,” Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345–10356 (1993)

work page 1993

[8] [8]

Equivalence of the variational matrix product method and the density matrix renormalization group applied to spin chains,

Jorge Dukelsky, Miguel A. Mart ´ın-Del´gado, Tomotoshi Nishino, and Germ ´an Sierra, “Equivalence of the variational matrix product method and the density matrix renormalization group applied to spin chains,” Europhys. Lett. 43, 457 (1998)

work page 1998