Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Tensor Network Representation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing deterministic low-rank projectors with stochastic ones sampled by Markov chain Monte Carlo makes tensor-network partition-function estimates unbiased and makes statistical error fall exponentially with bond dimension.

desk verdict Promising idea with a serious gap: the stochastic projector estimator is never fully defined, and the sign-problem evidence is too thin to support the headline claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02974 v2 pith:DQFBDKQX submitted 2024-12-04 cond-mat.stat-mech physics.comp-ph

Synge Todo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.comp-ph MSC 82B8065C05 PACS 05.10.Ln75.10.Hk
keywords MarkovchainMonteCarlotensornetworkrenormalizationgroupstochasticprojectorunbiasedestimatorbonddimensionsignproblemIsingmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Tensor network methods approximate the partition function by repeatedly truncating bond dimension with low-rank projectors, and that truncation is a source of systematic error. This paper argues the truncation can be converted into a sampling problem: choose stochastic projectors whose average is the identity, and run a Markov chain over projector configurations. The resulting Monte Carlo estimator is claimed to be unbiased, so the bond dimension cutoff no longer biases results. In two-dimensional Ising simulations, the statistical error decreases exponentially as the bond dimension cutoff grows, and the negative sign problem at an imaginary magnetic field is substantially mitigated. If the claim holds, it turns the bond dimension from a bias parameter into a precision knob for statistical inference.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the stochastic projector average identity, Eq. (3), where a projector $P=W_R W_L^*$, a low-rank truncation operator inserted at a bond, is replaced by a random rank-$d$ projector drawn from a distribution $p(\theta)$ such that $\langle W_R W_L^*\rangle_\theta=I_r$. A set of rank-1 projectors is weighted by powers of the singular values, Eq. (D1), and a dynamic-programming scheme, Eqs. (D6)–(D14), draws subsets of rank-1 projectors without overflow or underflow. A computational graph stores the contraction tree so that an MCMC sweep re-evaluates only affected ancestors, and impurity tensors provide physical quantities without projector derivatives. Together these pieces turn the systematic truncation error into a statistical sampling problem.

What would settle it

Compute, for a small random tensor network, the exact contraction and the MCMC contraction estimator at several $d$ values; if the ensemble average over many chains differs from the exact value by more than the estimated statistical error, Eq. (3) is violated. The same check can be done directly by Monte Carlo averaging $W_R W_L^*$ over the proposed projector sets and comparing to $I_r$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that inserting projectors $P=W_R W_L^*$ that are sampled rather than chosen optimally removes the systematic error of low-rank tensor contraction while keeping the method usable. The random projectors are tuned so their ensemble average is the identity, $\langle W_R W_L^*\rangle_\theta=I_r$, meaning that any rank-$d$ truncation is 'undone' on average and the partition function estimator $\sum_{\{\theta_i\}} g(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_{N_p})p(\theta_1)\cdots p(\theta_{N_p})$ is unbiased. Markov chain Monte Carlo samples the projector configurations, and a computational graph restricts each update to the ancestors of the changed projector, reducing a sweep to $O(d^5 N\log N)$ work. On the $N=16\times16$ Ising model the paper reports specific heat and magnetization squared consistent with exact transfer-matrix results at $d=6$, and an asymptotic variance that falls exponentially with $d$. At the Yang–Lee edge field with negative fugacity, the average sign rises toward unity as $d$ grows, which the paper reads as mitigation of the sign problem at polynomial cost.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the random projectors averaging to exactly the identity; if the sampling probabilities and scale factors are not perfectly matched, the systematic error from low-rank truncation is not fully removed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bond dimension cutoff becomes a statistical convergence parameter: increasing $d$ reduces Monte Carlo variance exponentially instead of removing a deterministic bias.
  • Physical observables obtained from impurity tensors inherit the unbiasedness, so specific heat, magnetization, and similar quantities can be matched to exact results at modest $d$.
  • Systems with negative or complex weights, where the sign problem is severe, can be simulated with average sign improving systematically as $d$ grows, at polynomial cost.
  • The projector formulation of TRG carries over to other tensor network algorithms, so the same MCMC treatment can be built on TEBD, ATRG, BTRG, CATN, or HOTRG.
  • Because the projectors average to the identity, the impurity-tensor method no longer needs projector derivatives, removing an extra source of systematic error present in ordinary tensor renormalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical test of Eq. (3) on random matrices at moderate $r,d$ would isolate whether the Appendix D sampling weights realize the identity average exactly; this is a cheap falsification check.
  • The hyperparameter $\omega$ controlling the weight of singular values is left free; tuning it per system could further reduce the asymptotic variance beyond the exponential-in-$d$ scaling shown.
  • The same sampler could estimate free-energy differences or response functions at nearby couplings by reweighting the stored projector configurations, which the paper does not discuss.
  • For fermionic or real-time networks with complex weights, the sign improvement is likely representation-dependent, so the practical range of system sizes for which the average sign stays large is a quantitative question for future work.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Markov chain Monte Carlo method over stochastic projectors inserted in tensor network contractions. The key idea is to replace deterministic low-rank projectors in the tensor renormalization group by randomly sampled projectors whose average is the identity, so that the unbiasedness of the partition-function estimator removes the systematic error of finite bond-dimension truncation. The method is demonstrated on the two-dimensional Ising model at zero field, where d=6 results for specific heat and magnetization squared agree with exact transfer-matrix data, and on the Yang-Lee zero field z=-1, where the average sign is claimed to improve systematically with increasing bond dimension cutoff d. The paper also reports an exponential decrease of the asymptotic variance with d and states that this yields an exponential speedup at O(d^5 N log N) cost per sweep.

Significance. If the central unbiasedness claim can be made rigorous, the idea is valuable because it offers a systematic way to eliminate the dominant systematic error of tensor renormalization methods while retaining their efficiency. The paper ships a useful algorithmic ingredient in Appendix D, where an overflow-free dynamic programming sampler for the marginal inclusion probabilities is developed, and Appendix A gives a clear demonstration of the exponential variance problem of naive importance sampling. The numerical benchmarks against exact transfer-matrix data are appropriate and the code-independent description of the computational graph is a strength. However, the manuscript's central identity, Eq. (3), is not fully specified, and the quantitative claims of exponential variance reduction and sign-problem resolution rest on limited numerical evidence. These issues are significant because the paper's headline claims depend directly on them.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3) and Appendix D] The paper's central unbiasedness condition, Eq. (3), is not actually defined. The average of a function of a random variable θ with probability p(θ) is Σ_θ p(θ) f(θ), not (1/n_c) Σ_θ p(θ) f(θ), so the normalization in Eq. (3) is internally inconsistent. More importantly, the stochastic projector P(θ) = W_R(θ) W_L(θ)^* is never explicitly written: footnote [70] admits that scale factors are introduced, but the text and Appendix D do not state how the sampled set S = {k_1,...,k_d} is turned into an operator. A reader implementing the algorithm cannot tell whether the correct choice is P(S) = Σ_{i∈S} w_i η_i ξ_i^*, P(S) = Σ_{i∈S} (1/w_i) η_i ξ_i^*, or P(S) = Σ_{i∈S} η_i ξ_i^*/q_i, where q_i is the marginal inclusion probability of Eq. (D3). Only the last choice, with q_i defined by Eq. (D3), together with the completeness of the augmented dual basis in Eq. (B13), yields E[P] = I_r and hence unbiasedness. Because the scale factors are load-bearing for the elimination of systematic error, they must be specified explicitly and the identity verified.
  2. [Physical quantities / impurity tensor method] The paper does not define the estimators used for physical quantities. It states that impurity tensors are used and that projectors 'become the identity operators after taking the random average and do not depend on external variables,' but it never writes the MCMC estimator for, e.g., the specific heat. In particular, for the negative-weight case of Fig. 3 the relevant estimator is a ratio of expectations with a reweighting factor, and the unbiasedness of such ratio estimators is not automatic at finite MCMC sample size. Without the explicit estimator formulas and the justification that they are unbiased (or at least consistent with controlled bias), the comparison with exact transfer-matrix results in Fig. 2 does not by itself validate the observable estimates.
  3. [Inset of Fig. 2] The headline claim of exponential variance reduction is supported by data of limited scope. The asymptotic variance is reported at a single system size (16×16), over a modest range of d (4 to 14), and without error bars on the variance estimates; it is also not reported how many independent MCMC runs or how many total samples were used for each point. Since the inset is the only quantitative evidence for 'exponential acceleration,' the paper should provide error bars on the variance, confirm the trend over a wider range of d and N, and state the computational cost actually incurred. As written, the exponential claim is not established.
  4. [Fig. 3 and sign problem] The sign-problem demonstration is incomplete. The figure shows only the average sign as a function of temperature for N = 32×32 and d = 2,3,4,6, without statistical errors or a comparison at different system sizes. The conclusion that the sign problem is 'prevented with polynomial computational time' requires showing that the total computational cost needed to reach a given statistical accuracy grows only polynomially with N and d; the average sign alone is not sufficient, because the cost also depends on the autocorrelation time of the Markov chain and on the variance of the estimator. A concrete scaling analysis is needed before the abstract's claim about the sign problem can be accepted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix C and Fig. 6] The heading 'T ensor Renormalization Group' contains a typo, and the caption of Fig. 6 spells the authors of Ref. [39] as 'Leven-Nave' rather than 'Levin-Nave'.
  2. [Main text near Fig. 2] The number of Monte Carlo steps is printed as '2 14' and '2 11'; these should be formatted as 2^14 and 2^11.
  3. [Eq. (D14)] Equation (D14) introduces square roots in the denominator without derivation; since this is the first place the overflow-free marginal probability is defined, a short derivation or a reference to the identity that justifies this expression would help.
  4. [Inset of Fig. 2] The legend for the horizontal lines is ambiguous ('those by the standard MH method (horizontal lines)'); the lines should be labeled per quantity.
  5. [Footnote [70] and references] Reference [70] appears only as a footnote and is not listed in the reference list; it should either be moved into the numbered reference list or converted to a proper footnote.
  6. [Appendix D and hyperparameter ω] The paper notes that the optimal value of ω should be studied in the future, but for reproducibility it would be good to report the sensitivity of the results to ω, even if only in an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central unbiasedness claim is anchored to Ferris's external construction and to exact transfer-matrix benchmarks, not to the paper's own outputs; the only real weakness is an unexhibited scale-factor construction, which is a completeness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central claim that stochastic projectors give an unbiased estimator rests on Eq. (3), ⟨W_R(θ)W_L^*(θ)⟩_θ = I_r, which the paper attributes to Ferris's sampling scheme (Ref. 69) with scale factors acknowledged in footnote [70]. That identity is an external algebraic construction, not an assumption already containing the paper's target results. The h = 0 Ising specific heat and magnetization-squared results in Fig. 2 are compared against exact transfer-matrix data, an independent external benchmark, and no fitted parameter is used to force agreement. The hyperparameter ω in Eq. (D1) is set to 1 by hand for the demonstration, with the paper explicitly noting that the optimal value should be studied in the future, so it is not fitted to the predicted quantities. The self-citations present (ATRG, BTRG, lifted directed-worm algorithm, and related prior work by the author) are contextual references to earlier algorithms and do not carry the load-bearing unbiasedness argument. The genuine weakness flagged by the paper's own text is that the scale factors making Eq. (3) hold are never explicitly exhibited, and Eq. (3) as printed has a possible 1/n_c normalization inconsistency. That is a missing proof or correctness gap, not circularity: the conclusion is not defined into the inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified, and the circularity score stays in the 0–2 range.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on an externally cited identity (Ferris) and a few algorithmic assumptions that are standard or under-specified. The only hand-chosen constant is the hyperparameter omega. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • omega (weight exponent) = 1
    Hyperparameter in Eq. (D1) controlling the sampling weight distribution of rank-1 projectors. Set to 1 for all demonstrations; the paper notes the optimal value should be studied.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The stochastic projectors satisfy the average identity ⟨W_R W_L^*⟩_θ = I_r (Eq. (3)).
    Borrowed from Ferris (Ref. 69); the scale factors needed to make this exact for the sampling scheme in Appendix D are not explicitly constructed in the paper. This identity is the basis for unbiasedness.
  • standard math The dual orthonormal basis can be augmented to a complete set such that P = W_R W_L^* = I_r for the full-rank case (Eq. (B13)).
    Standard linear algebra construction described in Appendix B; needed so that the stochastic projectors can average to the identity on the full r-dimensional space.
  • domain assumption The tensor network contraction can be represented as a tree graph (computational graph), so updating one projector only requires re-evaluating its ancestors.
    Assumed in the 'Computational graph' paragraph; holds for TRG and similar hierarchical contraction schemes, but must be verified for more general networks.
  • standard math Metropolis-Hastings with independent proposals over projector configurations satisfies detailed balance and ergodicity.
    Standard MCMC theory invoked in the main text; no proof given for the specific state space.
  • domain assumption For systems with negative weights, the MCMC is run on the absolute value of g with reweighting by the sign, and the average sign is well behaved.
    The paper presents average sign results in Fig. 3 but does not describe the negative-weight sampling procedure; this is an implicit modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Tensor Network Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DQFBDKQX

@misc{pith2026241202974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Tensor Network Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DQFBDKQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02974}
}
read the original abstract

Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) is a powerful tool for sampling from complex probability distributions. Despite its versatility, MCMC often suffers from strong autocorrelation and the negative sign problem, leading to slowing down the convergence of statistical error. We propose a novel MCMC formulation based on tensor network representations to reduce the population variance and mitigate these issues systematically. By introducing stochastic projectors into the tensor network framework and employing Markov chain sampling, our method eliminates the systematic error associated with low-rank approximation in tensor contraction while maintaining the high accuracy of the tensor network method. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method on the two-dimensional Ising model, achieving an exponential reduction in statistical error with increasing bond dimension cutoff. Furthermore, we address the sign problem in systems with negative weights, showing significant improvements in average signs as bond dimension cutoff increases. The proposed framework provides a robust solution for accurate statistical estimation in complex systems, paving the way for broader applications in computational physics and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02974 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Tensor network of the Levin-Nave TRG in the projec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Temperature dependence of the average sign. Blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Temperature dependence of the specific heat (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Histogram of log( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Original Leven-Nave TRG procedure [39]. Tensors in the original tensor network (a) are iteratively replaced by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. TRG in projector formulation. The first step (b) is the same as the original TRG. Then, the next steps, (c) and (d) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    projector

    Although the inserted tensor is not exactly a projector due to the scale factors, it is referred to as a “projector” in the present paper for simplicity

    work page

  2. [1]

    Newman and G

    M. Newman and G. Barkema, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics (Oxford University Press, 1999)

    1999

  3. [2]

    D. P. Landau and K. Binder, A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulations in Statistical Physics, 4th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  4. [3]

    Sokal, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Mechan- ics: Foundations and New Algorithms, in Functional In- tegration: Basics and Applications, edited by C

    A. Sokal, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Mechan- ics: Foundations and New Algorithms, in Functional In- tegration: Basics and Applications, edited by C. DeWitt- Morette, P. Cartier, and A. Folacci (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1997) pp. 131–192

    1997

  5. [4]

    C. P. Robert and G. Casella, Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2004)

    2004

  6. [5]

    Suwa and S

    H. Suwa and S. Todo, Control of probability flow in Markov chain Monte Carlo—Nonreversibility and lifting, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 10.1063/5.0233858 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0233858 2024

  7. [6]

    E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Sign problem in the nu- merical simulation of many-electron systems, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9301 (1990)

    1990

  8. [7]

    A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, New Monte Carlo technique for studying phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2635 (1988)

    work page 1988

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    E. P. M¨ unger and M. A. Novotny, Reweighting in Monte Carlo and Monte Carlo renormalization-group studies, 11 Phys. Rev. B 43, 5773 (1991)

    1991

  2. [9]

    R. H. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, Nonuniversal critical dynamics in Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 86 (1987)

    1987

  3. [10]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. D. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Hybrid Monte Carlo, Phys. Lett. B 195, 216 (1987)

    1987

  4. [11]

    H. G. Evertz, G. Lana, and M. Marcu, Cluster algorithm for vertex models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 875 (1993)

    1993

  5. [12]

    Boninsegni, N

    M. Boninsegni, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Worm Algorithm for Continuous-Space Path Integral Monte Carlo Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 070601 (2006)

    2006

  6. [13]

    Fr ´ ıas P´ erez, M

    M. Fr ´ ıas P´ erez, M. Mari¨ en, D. P´ erez Garc ´ ıa, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, and S. Iblisdir, Collective Monte Carlo updates through tensor network renormalization, SciPost Physics 14, 123 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    T. Chen, E. Guo, W. Zhang, P. Zhang, and Y. Deng, Tensor network Monte Carlo simulations for the two-dimensional random-bond Ising model (2024), arXiv:2409.06538 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Janke, Multicanonical Monte Carlo simulations, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 254, 164 (1998)

    W. Janke, Multicanonical Monte Carlo simulations, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 254, 164 (1998)

    1998

  9. [16]

    Hukushima and K

    K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, Exchange Monte Carlo Method and Application to Spin Glass Simulations, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 1604 (1996)

    1996

  10. [17]

    Diaconis, S

    P. Diaconis, S. Holmes, and R. M. Neal, Analysis of a nonreversible Markov chain sampler, Ann. Appl. Probab. 10, 726 (2000)

    2000

  11. [18]

    K. S. Turitsyn, M. Chertkov, and M. Vucelja, Irreversible Monte Carlo algorithms for efficient sampling, Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom. 240, 410 (2011)

    2011

  12. [19]

    Creutz, Overrelaxation and Monte Carlo simulation, Phys

    M. Creutz, Overrelaxation and Monte Carlo simulation, Phys. Rev. D 36, 515 (1987)

    1987

  13. [20]

    Suwa and S

    H. Suwa and S. Todo, Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method without Detailed Balance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 120603 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    E. P. Bernard, W. Krauth, and D. B. Wilson, Event- chain Monte Carlo algorithms for hard-sphere systems, Phys. Rev. E 80, 056704 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Michel, S

    M. Michel, S. C. Kapfer, and W. Krauth, Generalized event-chain Monte Carlo: Constructing rejection-free global-balance algorithms from infinitesimal steps, The Journal of Chemical Physics 140, 054116 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    Hangleiter, I

    D. Hangleiter, I. Roth, D. Nagaj, and J. Eisert, Eas- ing the Monte Carlo sign problem, Science Advances 6, eabb8341 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    Klassen, M

    J. Klassen, M. Marvian, S. Piddock, M. Ioannou, I. Hen, and B. M. Terhal, Hardness and Ease of Curing the Sign Problem for Two-Local Qubit Hamiltonians, SIAM J. Comput. 49, 1332 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    Levy and B

    R. Levy and B. K. Clark, Mitigating the Sign Problem through Basis Rotations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 216401 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Murota and S

    K. Murota and S. Todo, Local basis transformation to mitigate negative sign problems, preprint

  20. [27]

    Wolff, Collective Monte Carlo Updating for Spin Sys- tems, Phys

    U. Wolff, Collective Monte Carlo Updating for Spin Sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 361 (1989)

    1989

  21. [28]

    Wolff, Critical slowing down, Nuclear Physics B - Pro- ceedings Supplements 17, 93 (1990)

    U. Wolff, Critical slowing down, Nuclear Physics B - Pro- ceedings Supplements 17, 93 (1990)

    1990

  22. [29]

    Hasenbusch, Improved estimators for a cluster up- dating of O(n) spin models, Nuclear Physics B 333, 581 (1990)

    M. Hasenbusch, Improved estimators for a cluster up- dating of O(n) spin models, Nuclear Physics B 333, 581 (1990)

    1990

  23. [30]

    Niedermayer, Improving the improved estimator in O(N ) spin models, Physics Letters B 237, 473 (1990)

    F. Niedermayer, Improving the improved estimator in O(N ) spin models, Physics Letters B 237, 473 (1990)

    1990

  24. [31]

    Baker, George A

    Jr. Baker, George A. and N. Kawashima, Renormal- ized Coupling Constant for the Three-Dimensional Ising Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 994 (1995)

    1995

  25. [32]

    Horita, H

    T. Horita, H. Suwa, and S. Todo, Upper and lower critical decay exponents of Ising ferromagnets with long-range interaction, Phys. Rev. E 95, 012143 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    Suwa, Lifted directed-worm algorithm, Phys

    H. Suwa, Lifted directed-worm algorithm, Phys. Rev. E 106, 055306 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

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

    2011

  28. [35]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics 349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  29. [36]

    Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renormal- ization, 1st ed

    T. Xiang, Density Matrix and Tensor Network Renormal- ization, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York Melbourne New Delhi Singapore, 2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  31. [38]

    Nishino and K

    T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, Corner Transfer Matrix Renormalization Group Method, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 891 (1996)

    1996

  32. [39]

    Levin and C

    M. Levin and C. P. Nave, Tensor Renormalization Group Approach to Two-Dimensional Classical Lattice Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120601 (2007)

    2007

  33. [40]

    E. M. Stoudenmire and D. J. Schwab, Supervised Learn- ing with Quantum-Inspired Tensor Networks (2017), arXiv:1605.05775 [cond-mat, stat]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Z.-Y. Han, J. Wang, H. Fan, L. Wang, and P. Zhang, Unsupervised Generative Modeling Using Matrix Prod- uct States, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031012 (2018)

    2018

  35. [42]

    Z.-F. Gao, S. Cheng, R.-Q. He, Z. Y. Xie, H.-H. Zhao, Z.- Y. Lu, and T. Xiang, Compressing deep neural networks by matrix product operators, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023300 (2020)

    2020

  36. [43]

    Y. A. Liu, X. L. Liu, F. N. Li, H. Fu, Y. Yang, J. Song, P. Zhao, Z. Wang, D. Peng, H. Chen, C. Guo, H. Huang, W. Wu, and D. Chen, Closing the ”quantum supremacy” gap: Achieving real-time simulation of a random quan- tum circuit using a new Sunway supercomputer, in Pro- ceedin...

    2021

  37. [44]

    Pan and P

    F. Pan and P. Zhang, Simulating the Sycamore quantum supremacy circuits (2021), arXiv:2103.03074 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Seitz, I

    P. Seitz, I. Medina, E. Cruz, Q. Huang, and C. B. Mendl, Simulating quantum circuits using tree tensor networks, Quantum 7, 964 (2023), arXiv:2206.01000 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Ayral, T

    T. Ayral, T. Louvet, Y. Zhou, C. Lambert, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, Density-Matrix Renormal- ization Group Algorithm for Simulating Quantum Cir- cuits with a Finite Fidelity, PRX Quantum 4, 020304 (2023)

    2023

  40. [47]

    Ye and N

    E. Ye and N. F. G. Loureiro, Quantum-inspired method for solving the Vlasov-Poisson equations, Phys. Rev. E 106, 035208 (2022)

    2022

  41. [48]

    Gourianov, M

    N. Gourianov, M. Lubasch, S. Dolgov, Q. Y. van den Berg, H. Babaee, P. Givi, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch, A quantum-inspired approach to exploit turbulence struc- tures, Nat Comput Sci 2, 30 (2022)

    2022

  42. [49]

    Kornev, S

    E. Kornev, S. Dolgov, K. Pinto, M. Pflitsch, 12 M. Perelshtein, and A. Melnikov, Numerical solution of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations for chemical mixers via quantum-inspired Tensor Train Finite Ele- ment Method (2023), arXiv:2305.10784

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Sakurai, H

    R. Sakurai, H. Takahashi, and K. Miyamoto, Learning parameter dependence for Fourier-based option pricing with tensor networks (2024), arXiv:2405.00701

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Schutski, T

    R. Schutski, T. Khakhulin, I. Oseledets, and D. Kol- makov, Simple heuristics for efficient parallel tensor con- traction and quantum circuit simulation, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062614 (2020)

    2020

  45. [52]

    Gray and G

    J. Gray and G. K.-L. Chan, Hyper-optimized compressed contraction of tensor networks with arbitrary geometry (2022), arXiv:2206.07044 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, M. P. Qin, J. W. Zhu, L. P. Yang, and T. Xiang, Coarse-graining renormalization by higher- order singular value decomposition, Phys. Rev. B 86, 045139 (2012)

    2012

  47. [54]

    Adachi, T

    D. Adachi, T. Okubo, and S. Todo, Anisotropic tensor renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054432 (2020)

    2020

  48. [55]

    F. Pan, P. Zhou, S. Li, and P. Zhang, Contracting Arbi- trary Tensor Networks: General Approximate Algorithm and Applications in Graphical Models and Quantum Cir- cuit Simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 060503 (2020)

    2020

  49. [56]

    Z.-C. Gu, F. Verstraete, and X.-G. Wen, Grass- mann tensor network states and its renormalization for strongly correlated fermionic and bosonic states (2010), arXiv:1004.2563 [cond-mat]

    2010 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Gu, Efficient simulation of Grassmann tensor prod- uct states, Phys

    Z.-C. Gu, Efficient simulation of Grassmann tensor prod- uct states, Phys. Rev. B 88, 115139 (2013)

    2013

  51. [58]

    Akiyama and D

    S. Akiyama and D. Kadoh, More about the Grassmann tensor renormalization group, J. High Energ. Phys. 2021 (10), 188, arXiv:2005.07570 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Akiyama, Y

    S. Akiyama, Y. Meurice, and R. Sakai, Tensor renormal- ization group for fermions, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 36, 343002 (2024)

    2024

  53. [60]

    Or´ us and G

    R. Or´ us and G. Vidal, Simulation of two-dimensional quantum systems on an infinite lattice revisited: Cor- ner transfer matrix for tensor contraction, Phys. Rev. B 80, 094403 (2009)

    2009

  54. [61]

    Z. Y. Xie, H. C. Jiang, Q. N. Chen, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Second Renormalization of Tensor-Network States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160601 (2009)

    2009

  55. [62]

    Adachi, T

    D. Adachi, T. Okubo, and S. Todo, Bond-weighted ten- sor renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 105, L060402 (2022)

    2022

  56. [63]

    Evenbly, Algorithms for tensor network renormaliza- tion, Phys

    G. Evenbly, Algorithms for tensor network renormaliza- tion, Phys. Rev. B 95, 045117 (2017)

    2017

  57. [64]

    Yang, Z.-C

    S. Yang, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Loop Optimization for Tensor Network Renormalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 110504 (2017)

    2017

  58. [65]

    Hauru, C

    M. Hauru, C. Delcamp, and S. Mizera, Renormalization of tensor networks using graph-independent local trun- cations, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045111 (2018)

    2018

  59. [66]

    See Appendix B for rank-deficient cases

    Here, we consider the full-rank case, that is, we assume that the rank of A∗B is the same as the bond dimension r between A∗ and B. See Appendix B for rank-deficient cases

  60. [67]

    Vidal, Efficient Simulation of One-Dimensional Quan- tum Many-Body Systems, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient Simulation of One-Dimensional Quan- tum Many-Body Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

  61. [68]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Ma- trix Product Density Operators: Simulation of Finite- Temperature and Dissipative Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  62. [69]

    A. J. Ferris, Unbiased Monte Carlo for the age of tensor networks (2015), arXiv:1507.00767 [cond-mat, physics:physics]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Doucet, N

    A. Doucet, N. Freitas, and N. Gordon, eds., Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice(Springer, New York, NY, 2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    Arulampalam, N

    S. Arulampalam, N. Gordon, and B. Ristic, Beyond the Kalman Filter: Particle Filters for Tracking Applications (Artech House, Boston, 2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of State Calcula- tions by Fast Computing Machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  66. [74]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970)

    1970

  67. [75]

    Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite pro- jected entangled-pair states, Phys

    P. Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite pro- jected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035133 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    Morita and N

    S. Morita and N. Kawashima, Calculation of higher-order moments by higher-order tensor renormalization group, Computer Physics Communications 236, 65 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Morita and N

    S. Morita and N. Kawashima, Multi-impurity method for the bond-weighted tensor renormalization group (2024), arXiv:2411.13998

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    H. A. Kramers and G. H. Wannier, Statistics of the Two- Dimensional Ferromagnet. Part I, Phys. Rev. 60, 252 (1941)

    1941

  71. [79]

    C. N. Yang and T. D. Lee, Statistical Theory of Equa- tions of State and Phase Transitions. I. Theory of Con- densation, Phys. Rev. 87, 404 (1952)

    1952

  72. [80]

    Gordon, D

    N. Gordon, D. Salmond, and A. Smith, Novel approach to nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian state estimation, IEE Proceedings F (Radar and Signal Processing) 140, 107 (1993)

    1993

  73. [81]

    E. Arai, H. Ohki, S. Takeda, and M. Tomii, All-mode renormalization for tensor network with stochastic noise, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114515 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Halko, P

    N. Halko, P. G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp, Finding Structure with Randomness: Probabilistic Algorithms for Constructing Approximate Matrix Decompositions, SIAM Rev. 53, 217 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

    Morita, R

    S. Morita, R. Igarashi, H.-H. Zhao, and N. Kawashima, Tensor renormalization group with randomized singular value decomposition, Phys. Rev. E 97, 033310 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    E. V. Denardo, Dynamic Programming: Models and Ap- plications (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.