Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A parallel Basis Update and Galerkin Integrator for Tree Tensor Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new integrator drives tree tensor networks forward with every factor updated in parallel, and its error bound ignores small singular values.

desk verdict Useful new parallel rank-adaptive TTN integrator with a solid Tucker-case analysis, but the central tree-network error bound is stated without proof and needs to be supplied before the paper is fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00858 v1 pith:PQFAA7SD submitted 2024-12-01 math.NA cs.NA

Gianluca Ceruti , Jonas Kusch , Christian Lubich , Dominik Sulz This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65L0565L2065L7015A69
keywords dynamicallow-rankapproximationtreetensornetworksparalleltimeintegrationbasisupdateandGalerkinsmallsingularvaluesrankadaptivityTuckertensorsradiativetransfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes, analyzes, and tests a time integrator for tensor differential equations whose solutions are approximated by tree tensor networks. Its goal is to update every basis matrix and connecting tensor simultaneously within each time step, while keeping the error bound independent of the small singular values that plague standard integrators. The authors prove a first-order robust error bound and demonstrate the method on quantum spin dynamics, radiative transfer with uncertainty, and other high-dimensional problems. The central payoff is a rank-adaptive scheme that avoids backward-in-time substeps and is parallel across the whole tree.

What carries the argument

The central object is the augmentation step: after all $K_i$ and $C$ substeps finish in parallel, the updated core tensor is built by placing the old-core update in the diagonal block and first-order approximations $\tilde C^1_i = hF(Y_0)\bigotimes_{j\neq i} U^{0,\ast}_j \times_i \tilde U^{1,\ast}_i$ in the off-diagonal blocks, with zeros elsewhere. This mirrors the parallel matrix integrator's augmented coefficient matrix. The proof machinery compares the augmented network with that of the rank-adaptive BUG integrator and bounds the difference using the fact that the tangent-space projection kills terms containing two or more new basis factors, leading to $O(h^2 + h\varepsilon)$ local differences.

What would settle it

Take a tensor ODE whose right-hand side has a large normal component, for example by adding a small random rank-increasing perturbation of size $\varepsilon$ to a vector field, and run the parallel integrator; if the error grows substantially beyond $c_2\varepsilon$, or if the measured quantity $\eta$ from equation (2.6) is not small in the radiative transfer experiments where the bound is expected to hold, the robustness claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the parallel Basis Update and Galerkin (BUG) idea, previously known for matrices, extends to Tucker tensors and general tree tensor networks. In one time step, each leaf basis is advanced by solving a small matrix differential equation using the old bases, each connecting tensor is advanced by a Galerkin step in the old basis, and then the augmented factors are joined by a simple augmentation step that inserts first-order approximations in the off-diagonal blocks. The resulting augmented tensor network differs from the rank-adaptive BUG integrator only by terms of order $h^2 + h\varepsilon$, so the robust error bound $\|Y_k - A(t_k)\| \le c_1 h + c_2 \varepsilon + c_3 \delta + c_4 k \vartheta$ holds with constants independent of small singular values. All node differential equations can be solved in parallel.

Load-bearing premise

The error bound assumes the part of the vector field perpendicular to the low-rank manifold is at most a tiny $\varepsilon$ near the solution, and the paper does not verify or enforce this condition in its experiments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All node ODEs in a tree tensor network can be solved in parallel per time step, removing the sequential leaf-to-root sweep of prior rank-adaptive integrators.
  • The robust first-order error bound carries over, so stepsizes need not shrink with small singular values or rapidly changing orthonormal factors.
  • The method is rank-adaptive: ranks can grow by at most doubling each step and can be truncated with a tolerance $\vartheta$, with truncation error controlled by the paper's Theorem 4.3.
  • No backward-in-time differential equations are used, which is favorable for dissipative problems where backward steps are problematic.
  • In the radiative transfer examples the parallel integrator needed about 12 s versus 30 s and 72 s versus 105 s compared with the rank-adaptive BUG integrator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the normal-component estimate $\eta$ from equation (2.6) is cheap to compute, the parallel integrator could be embedded in an adaptive step-size and rank controller that rejects steps only when $\eta$ exceeds a threshold, an idea the paper mentions but does not fully develop.
  • The first-order parallel update could serve as a predictor inside a second-order parallel BUG scheme, as already done for matrices in the paper's reference [19], potentially extending the parallelism to higher order.
  • The same augmentation strategy might apply to more general tensor networks beyond trees, although the recursive tree structure is what keeps the block structure manageable.
  • A direct comparison of the parallel and rank-adaptive BUG integrators on problems where the true normal component is known could quantify how much accuracy is traded for parallelism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a parallel basis update and Galerkin (BUG) integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation of tensor differential equations, extending the parallel matrix integrator of Ceruti–Kusch–Lubich to Tucker tensors and to general tree tensor networks. The proposed algorithm evolves all basis matrices and connecting tensors in parallel within each time step, is rank-adaptive, and avoids backward-in-time steps. The authors give a detailed first-order robust error bound for the Tucker case (Theorem 3.1) and state an analogous bound for the tree tensor network case (Theorem 4.5), with the proof of the latter omitted. Numerical experiments for a long-range quantum Ising model, a radiative-transfer planesource benchmark, and a radiative-transfer linesource benchmark compare the proposed integrator with the rank-adaptive BUG integrator and with reference solutions.

Significance. If the stated error bound for tree tensor networks is valid, the paper delivers a genuinely parallel, rank-adaptive, robust first-order integrator for a widely used tensor format, which is a substantive contribution to dynamical low-rank approximation. The Tucker-case proof is explicit and the numerical experiments show the expected first-order convergence and a useful speed-up over the rank-adaptive BUG integrator. The paper also ships reproducible code, which supports the empirical claims. However, the central theoretical claim for the general tree tensor network (Theorem 4.5) is not proven in the manuscript, and the numerical experiments do not report the normal-component quantity η needed to check the key assumption behind the bound. These issues reduce the confidence in the main result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.7, Theorem 4.5] The central error bound for general tree tensor networks is stated without a proof. The text says: 'The proof uses similar arguments to the proof of Theorem 3.1 and uses induction over the height of the tree as in Theorem 6.1 in [8]. Therefore, we omit a detailed proof.' This omission is load-bearing because the TTN algorithm is not a direct relabeling of the Tucker case: Algorithm 4 recursively augments ranks level by level, and the reduced vector fields F_τ are defined by restriction and prolongation onto subtree manifolds. To bound the difference between the parallel integrator and the rank-adaptive BUG integrator, one must control, at every node, products of new basis vectors in multiple modes, as is done explicitly for the Tucker case in part 3 of the proof of Theorem 3.1. The required induction over tree height is not straightforward, and the paper does not supply the intermediate statements. The theorem should either be proved in full or explicitly marked as a conjecture, with the Tucker-case bound presented as the proven result.
  2. [Section 4.7, Assumption 2 and Section 5] The robust error bound of Theorem 4.5 depends on Assumption 2, which postulates that the normal component of F on the low-rank manifold is bounded by ε. The paper explains in Section 2, equation (2.6), that the quantity η = ||U_1^* F(Y_0) V_1|| provides a computable estimate of ε, but no such quantity is reported in the numerical experiments of Section 5. As a result, the reader cannot verify whether the key assumption holds for the tested problems. The authors should report computed η values (or, at minimum, an a posteriori check of the normal component) for each experiment, and discuss how the observed η relates to the theoretical bound.
  3. [Section 4, reduced vector fields and Theorem 4.5] The omitted proof must transfer the global almost-tangential assumption on M_k^τ to the reduced flows F_τ. The restriction operator π* in Section 4.1 applies a partial trace which can contract norms in some modes, but the reduced vector field F_τi = π*_{τ,i} ∘ F_τ ∘ π_{τ,i} is used on the subtree manifold within the induction over tree height. It is not obvious that the bound ||P_K(Y)F(Y)|| ≤ ε for Y on the full manifold implies a comparable bound for the reduced flow on each subtree, with constants independent of the height of the tree and of all small singular values. The authors should provide a statement and proof of the inheritance property, or explain why the standard Tucker argument can be applied verbatim at each node.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.7, Theorem 4.5] The theorem statement says 'the error of the parallel Tucker integrator' but the section is about tree tensor networks; this should read 'parallel TTN integrator'.
  2. [Section 5.2] There is a typo: 'plansource' should be 'planesource'.
  3. [Equation (5.2)] The line-source radiative transfer equation is written as ∂_t f + Ω·∇f + σ_t f = (σ_s/4π) ∫ f dΩ + σ_a f. If σ_t denotes the total extinction coefficient, the term '+σ_a f' on the right-hand side appears inconsistent with the standard form; if σ_t is meant to be only the scattering part, the notation should be clarified.
  4. [Algorithm 2, line 5] The matrix whose range is used to construct pU_l is written as [U_l^0, Y_l(t_1)^J]. Since Y_l is defined as an r_l × n_l matrix in line 3, the transpose notation should be made explicit to avoid confusion about the orientation of the stored factor.
  5. [Section 4.6] The step-rejection condition 2) uses hη_τ > cϑ, but the paper does not explain the choice of the constant c (e.g., c=10) or how sensitive the results are to this parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's error bounds are derived from stated assumptions and prior published theorems, not from fitted or self-defined quantities.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The algorithm produces Y_{k+1} from Y_k by integrating ODEs for basis matrices and connecting tensors, then augmenting and truncating; no parameter is fitted to the target error and no prediction is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict. Theorem 3.1 is proven in the text from the three assumptions (Lipschitz/bounded F, small normal component epsilon, initial error delta) plus the rank-adaptive BUG local error from [3], and the proof bounds the gap between the parallel and BUG augmented cores block by block. Theorem 4.5 is stated for tree tensor networks with the proof omitted, noting that the proof uses similar arguments to the proof of Theorem 3.1 and uses induction over the height of the tree as in Theorem 6.1 in [8]. This is a genuine rigor gap, because the extension from Tucker to TTNs involves recursively reduced vector fields and a recursive augmentation, so the induction is not automatic; however, it is not circular, because Theorem 6.1 of [8] is a different earlier result and is not shown to imply the parallel BUG bound by definition. Likewise, the rank-truncation bound is imported from [7, Theorem A.1]; that is a prior published theorem used as a lemma, not an input whose value is later relabeled as the output. The normal-component assumption in Section 4.7 is an input hypothesis, and the numerical experiments do not claim to predict epsilon; they compare against exact diagonalization or collocation reference solutions. The self-citations are numerous, but the load-bearing mathematical content in the Tucker proof is given in the paper, and the TTN extension is an omitted proof rather than a circular reduction. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with the unproven TTN induction flagged as a completeness and correctness risk rather than as circularity.

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

The paper introduces no fitted free parameters and no new physical entities. The error bound rests on standard Lipschitz and normal-component assumptions and on cited results, several from the authors' own prior work; these are not circular because they are published theorems, but they are unverified in the experiments.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption F is Lipschitz continuous and bounded: ||F(Y) - F(Ĩ)|| <= L||Y - Ĩ|| and ||F(Y)|| <= B.
    Assumption 1 in Sections 3.2 and 4.7; required for the error bound and for the Lady Windermere fan argument.
  • domain assumption The normal component of F at the low-rank manifold is bounded by epsilon: ||P_k(Y)^perp F(Y)|| <= epsilon.
    Assumption 2, Section 4.7; this is the key robustness condition and is not enforced by the algorithm.
  • domain assumption Initial error is bounded by delta: ||Y_0 - A(0)|| <= delta.
    Assumption 3, Section 4.7, standard in error analysis.
  • standard math The rank truncation procedure satisfies ||X - pX|| <= c_tau theta (Theorem A.1 of [7]).
    Used in Section 4.4 and in the error bound; cited from the authors' earlier work, not reproven.
  • standard math Tangent space projection formula for Tucker manifolds (Koch and Lubich [17]).
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3.1, part 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A parallel Basis Update and Galerkin Integrator for Tree Tensor Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQFAA7SD

@misc{pith2026241200858,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A parallel Basis Update and Galerkin Integrator for Tree Tensor Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQFAA7SD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00858}
}
read the original abstract

Computing the numerical solution to high-dimensional tensor differential equations can lead to prohibitive computational costs and memory requirements. To reduce the memory and computational footprint, dynamical low-rank approximation (DLRA) has proven to be a promising approach. DLRA represents the solution as a low-rank tensor factorization and evolves the resulting low-rank factors in time. A central challenge in DLRA is to find time integration schemes that are robust to the arising small singular values. A robust parallel basis update & Galerkin integrator, which simultaneously evolves all low-rank factors, has recently been derived for matrix differential equations. This work extends the parallel low-rank matrix integrator to Tucker tensors and general tree tensor networks, yielding an algorithm in which all bases and connecting tensors are evolved in parallel over a time step. We formulate the algorithm, provide a robust error bound, and demonstrate the efficiency of the new integrators for problems in quantum many-body physics, uncertainty quantification, and radiative transfer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00858 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Augmentation of an order three tensor. Left: Illustration of the augmenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Unspecified parameters are Ω “ ∆ “ V “ α “ 1, and ϑ “ 10´8 . Left: Errors for d “ 8 particles at time T “ 1. Right: Maximal ranks over time for d “ 16 particles and rmax “ 30. We verify the error bound of Theorem 4.5 by applying the algorithm to the Schr¨odinger equation (5.1) with strongly and long-range interacting sites, i.e. α “ 1, where we start from an initial state where all particles are in spin up. The simu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Expected scalar flux at time t “ 2, using 200 spatial cells, 100 moments in direction, and 100 points in both random variables. The parallel integrator takes 12 seconds, while the rank-adaptive BUG integrator takes 30 seconds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variance of the scalar flux at time t “ 2, using 200 spatial cells, 100 moments in direction, and 100 points in both random variables. The parallel integrator takes 12 seconds, while the rank-adaptive BUG integrator takes 30 seconds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ranks chosen by the integrator during simulation. The root tensor always has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Expected scalar flux at time tend “ 1.0. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variance of the scalar flux at time tend “ 1.0. REFERENCES [1] G. Ceruti, L. Einkemmer, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich, A robust second-order low-rank BUG integrator based on the midpoint rule, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 64 (2024), p. 30. [2] G. Ceruti, D. Kressner, and D. Su…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ranks chosen by the integrator during simulation. The root tensor always has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Automatic partitioning for the low-rank integration of stochastic Boolean reaction networks

    math.NA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Kernighan-Lin plus information-entropy heuristic automatically partitions Boolean reaction networks for low-rank master equation integration, outperforming manual and cut-minimal partitions in tests on mTOR, pancrea...

  2. A review of low-rank methods for time-dependent kinetic simulations

    math.NA 2024-12 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review of dynamical low-rank and step-and-truncate methods showing that many kinetic problems can be solved with drastically reduced memory and cost.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [8]

    Ceruti, C

    G. Ceruti, C. Lubich, and H. W alach , Time integration of tree tensor networks , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 59 (2021), pp. 289–313

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Ceruti, L

    G. Ceruti, L. Einkemmer, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich , A robust second-order low-rank BUG integrator based on the midpoint rule , BIT Numerical Mathematics, 64 (2024), p. 30

    2024

  3. [2]

    Ceruti, D

    G. Ceruti, D. Kressner, and D. Sulz, Low-rank tree tensor network operators for long-range pairwise interactions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09952, (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Ceruti, J

    G. Ceruti, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich , A rank-adaptive robust integrator for dynamical low- rank approximation, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 62 (2022), pp. 1149–1174. PARALLEL BUG INTEGRATOR FOR TTNS 21 Fig. 8: Ranks chosen by the integrator during simulation. The root tensor always has rank 1. The connecting tensor of the tree τ1 connects spatial and angular...

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Ceruti, J

    G. Ceruti, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich , A parallel rank-adaptive integrator for dynamical low- rank approximation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 46 (2024), pp. B205–B228

    2024

  6. [5]

    Ceruti, J

    G. Ceruti, J. Kusch, C. Lubich, and D. Sulz, Numerical testcases for A parallel basis update and Galerkin integrator for tree tensor networks , 2024. https://github.com/JonasKu/ Publication-Parallel-BUG-for-TTNs.git

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Ceruti and C

    G. Ceruti and C. Lubich , An unconventional robust integrator for dynamical low-rank ap- proximation, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 62 (2022), pp. 23–44

    2022

  8. [7]

    Ceruti, C

    G. Ceruti, C. Lubich, and D. Sulz , Rank-adaptive time integration of tree tensor networks , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 61 (2023), pp. 194–222

    work page 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    J. I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete , Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems , Reviews of Mod- ern Physics, 93 (2021), p. 045003

    2021

  2. [10]

    F alc´o, W

    A. F alc´o, W. Hackbusch, and A. Nouy, Tree-based tensor formats, SeMA Journal, 78 (2018), pp. 159 – 173

    2018

  3. [11]

    B. D. Ganapol , Analytical benchmarks for nuclear engineering applications , 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    C. K. Garrett and C. D. Hauck , A comparison of moment closures for linear kinetic trans- port equations: The line source benchmark , Transport Theory and Statistical Physics, 42 (2013), pp. 203–235

    2013

  5. [13]

    Hackbusch, Tensor spaces and numerical tensor calculus , Springer, 2012

    W. Hackbusch, Tensor spaces and numerical tensor calculus , Springer, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. V andereycken, and F. Verstraete , Unify- ing time evolution and optimization with matrix product states , Phys. Rev. B, 94 (2016), p. 165116

    2016

  7. [15]

    Hairer, S

    E. Hairer, S. Norsett, and G. W anner, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems, Springer, Berlin, 1993

    1993

  8. [16]

    Kieri, C

    E. Kieri, C. Lubich, and H. W alach , Discretized dynamical low-rank approximation in the presence of small singular values , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 54 (2016), pp. 1020–1038

    2016

  9. [17]

    Koch and C

    O. Koch and C. Lubich, Dynamical tensor approximation, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 31 (2010), pp. 2360–2375

    2010

  10. [18]

    T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader , Tensor decompositions and applications , SIAM review, 51 (2009), pp. 455–500

    2009

  11. [19]

    Kusch, Second-order robust parallel integrators for dynamical low-rank approximation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02834, (2024)

    J. Kusch, Second-order robust parallel integrators for dynamical low-rank approximation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02834, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kusch, L

    J. Kusch, L. Einkemmer, and G. Ceruti , On the stability of robust dynamical low-rank approximations for hyperbolic problems, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 45 (2023), 22 G. CERUTI, J. KUSCH, CH. LUBICH, D. SULZ pp. A1–A24

    2023

  13. [21]

    Lubich and I

    C. Lubich and I. V. Oseledets , A projector-splitting integrator for dynamical low-rank ap- proximation, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 54 (2014), pp. 171–188

    2014

  14. [22]

    Lubich, I

    C. Lubich, I. V. Oseledets, and B. V andereycken, Time integration of tensor trains, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 53 (2015), pp. 917–941

    2015

  15. [23]

    Lubich, T

    C. Lubich, T. Rohwedder, R. Schneider, and B. V andereycken, Dynamical approximation by hierarchical Tucker and tensor-train tensors , SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 34 (2013), pp. 470–494

    2013

  16. [24]

    I. V. Oseledets , Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 33 (2011), pp. 2295–2317

    2011

  17. [25]

    Paeckel, T

    S. Paeckel, T. K ¨ohler, A. Swoboda, S. R. Manmana, U. Schollw ¨ock, and C. Hu- big, Time-evolution methods for matrix-product states , Annals of Physics, 411 (2019), p. 167998

    2019

  18. [26]

    Perez-Garcia, F

    D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac , Matrix product state representations, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0608197, (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. W alker, and K. Mølmer , Quantum information with Rydberg atoms , Rev. Mod. Phys., 82 (2010), pp. 2313–2363

    2010

  20. [28]

    Schollw¨ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states , Annals of Physics, 326 (2011), pp

    U. Schollw¨ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states , Annals of Physics, 326 (2011), pp. 96–192. January 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  21. [29]

    Secular, N

    P. Secular, N. Gourianov, M. Lubasch, S. Dolgov, S. R. Clark, and D. Jaksch, Parallel time-dependent variational principle algorithm for matrix product states , Physical Review B, 101 (2020), p. 235123

    2020

  22. [30]

    Shi, L.-M

    Y.-Y. Shi, L.-M. Duan, and G. Vidal , Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network , Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 74 (2006), p. 022320

    2006

  23. [31]

    D. Sulz, C. Lubich, G. Ceruti, I. Lesanovsky, and F. Carollo , Numerical simulation of long-range open quantum many-body dynamics with tree tensor networks , Physical Review A, 109 (2024), p. 022420

    2024

  24. [32]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91 (2003), p. 147902

    2003

  25. [33]

    W ang and M

    H. W ang and M. Thoss , Multilayer formulation of the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree theory, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 119 (2003), pp. 1289–1299

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.