pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15300 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP

Ensembles of random quantum states tunable from volume law to area law

H\'elo\"ise Albot , Sebastian Paeckel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MP
keywords random quantum statesentanglement scalingvolume lawarea lawmatrix product statessigma-ensemblesquantum many-body systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single control parameter tunes random quantum states from volume-law to area-law entanglement.

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

The paper introduces the σ-ensembles, a family of random pure quantum states with only one control parameter. States are built by assigning probability distributions to the eigenvalues of successive subsystems and then reconstructing a consistent global state through the matrix product state formalism. This setup makes it possible to adjust the entanglement continuously from the volume law of fully random states to the area law typical of ground states. Because the area-law versions remain tractable for classical simulation, the ensembles offer a practical alternative to Haar-random states for studying quantum many-body systems.

Core claim

We introduce the σ-ensembles – a family of random quantum states with only a single control parameter. By imposing a probability distribution on the eigenvalues of the successive subsystems and subsequently reconstructing a compatible global state using the matrix product state formalism, the ensemble can be tuned between volume-law and area-law entanglement behavior.

What carries the argument

The σ-ensemble constructed by choosing probability distributions for the eigenvalues of successive reduced subsystems and rebuilding the full pure state via the MPS representation.

If this is right

  • Area-law states from the ensemble can be simulated efficiently on classical computers using tensor-network methods.
  • The single parameter supplies a continuous dial to explore the crossover between volume-law and area-law regimes.
  • The resulting states resemble the entanglement properties of typical Hamiltonian ground states more closely than Haar-random states.
  • The construction sidesteps the exponential classical cost of simulating volume-law entangled states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ensembles could serve as controllable test cases for benchmarking classical simulation algorithms across different entanglement strengths.
  • The same subsystem-eigenvalue approach might be adapted to enforce other scaling behaviors or to generate states with prescribed correlation functions.
  • Varying the parameter could let researchers isolate how entanglement scaling alone influences the computational hardness of quantum many-body problems.

Load-bearing premise

Assigning probability distributions to the eigenvalues of successive subsystems and reconstructing via the MPS formalism produces valid global pure states whose entanglement scaling can be continuously tuned by the single parameter without introducing inconsistencies.

What would settle it

Generate states at several values of the control parameter and measure the scaling of bipartite entanglement entropy with subsystem size to test whether it changes from volume law to area law.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15300 by H\'elo\"ise Albot, Sebastian Paeckel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Mean von Neumann entropy (a) and maximum bond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A standard approach to generate random pure quantum states relies on sampling from the Haar measure. However, the entanglement properties of such states present a fundamental challenge for their general applicability. Here, we introduce the $\sigma$-ensembles $\unicode{x2013}$ a family of random quantum states with only a single control parameter. Crucially, these states are designed such that they can be tuned between volume-law and area-law behavior, which has been a major obstacle thus far. We construct representatives of this ensemble by imposing a probability distribution on the eigenvalues of the successive subsystems, and subsequently reconstructing a compatible global state using the matrix product state (MPS) formalism. Due to their area-law entanglement, our approach circumvents the intractability of Haar-random pure states in classical simulations of quantum systems and is more representative of typical Hamiltonian ground states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the σ-ensembles, a family of random pure quantum states controlled by a single parameter σ. These states are constructed by assigning probability distributions to the eigenvalues of successive subsystems and then reconstructing compatible global states via the matrix product state (MPS) formalism. The central claim is that this procedure yields an ensemble whose entanglement entropy can be tuned continuously from volume-law to area-law scaling, providing states that are both more representative of typical Hamiltonian ground states and classically simulable.

Significance. If the construction is shown to be consistent, the σ-ensembles would supply a practical, single-parameter family of random states bridging Haar-random volume-law states and area-law states. This could enable systematic numerical studies of entanglement transitions and typical properties in many-body systems without the exponential cost of full Haar sampling.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and construction method] Abstract and construction procedure: the central claim requires that independent sampling of Schmidt eigenvalues from σ-parameterized distributions on successive subsystems, followed by MPS reconstruction, produces valid global pure states whose entanglement scaling varies continuously with σ. However, the Schmidt spectrum on subsystem 1..k must be exactly the marginal of the spectrum on 1..k+1 after contraction with the next tensor; independent draws generically violate this marginalization. The manuscript supplies no explicit consistency check, rejection/renormalization procedure, or proof that the chosen distributions remain realizable for arbitrary σ without introducing σ-dependent biases that would break the single-parameter tunability.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the states are 'designed such that they can be tuned' but does not specify the functional form of the eigenvalue distribution or the precise manner in which σ enters the sampling.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive overall assessment of the manuscript and for identifying an important technical point regarding the consistency of the σ-ensemble construction. We address the major comment below and will make corresponding revisions to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and construction method] Abstract and construction procedure: the central claim requires that independent sampling of Schmidt eigenvalues from σ-parameterized distributions on successive subsystems, followed by MPS reconstruction, produces valid global pure states whose entanglement scaling varies continuously with σ. However, the Schmidt spectrum on subsystem 1..k must be exactly the marginal of the spectrum on 1..k+1 after contraction with the next tensor; independent draws generically violate this marginalization. The manuscript supplies no explicit consistency check, rejection/renormalization procedure, or proof that the chosen distributions remain realizable for arbitrary σ without introducing σ-dependent biases that would break the single-parameter tunability.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation, which correctly notes that our construction samples the eigenvalue distributions independently for each cut. The MPS reconstruction builds a valid global pure state by sequentially fixing the tensors to realize the prescribed singular values at each bond; the resulting state is always normalized and pure by construction of the MPS. While the sampled spectra are not guaranteed to be exact marginals of one another, the parameter σ directly controls the typical decay rate of the singular values at every cut, thereby tuning the entanglement entropy scaling from volume-law (small σ) to area-law (large σ) as claimed. Numerical sampling of the ensemble for a range of σ and system sizes confirms that the average entanglement entropy follows the expected scaling without introducing additional σ-dependent biases beyond those encoded in the target distributions. We will revise the manuscript to add an explicit description of the sequential reconstruction algorithm, a discussion of the marginalization property, and numerical validation of consistency and tunability in a new appendix. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: explicit construction of tunable ensembles

full rationale

The paper presents an explicit construction of the σ-ensembles by choosing probability distributions on subsystem eigenvalues (parameterized by σ) and reconstructing global states via MPS. This is framed as a design choice to achieve continuous tuning of entanglement scaling, not as a derivation or prediction from independent principles that later reduces to the inputs. No equations or steps equate a claimed result to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition by construction; the single parameter σ is an input to the distributions, and the resulting volume-to-area-law behavior is a direct consequence of that choice. The approach is self-contained with no load-bearing self-citations or hidden constraints invoked to force the outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the MPS reconstruction from subsystem eigenvalue distributions and on the assumption that the resulting states are pure and exhibit the stated entanglement scaling. No numerical fitting parameters beyond the single control parameter are mentioned.

free parameters (1)
  • σ
    Single control parameter that tunes the ensemble between volume-law and area-law entanglement regimes.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Matrix product states can represent the global pure state consistent with given subsystem eigenvalue distributions.
    Invoked when reconstructing the global state from successive subsystems.
  • domain assumption The chosen probability distributions on subsystem eigenvalues produce valid quantum states.
    Required for the ensemble to consist of legitimate pure states.
invented entities (1)
  • σ-ensembles no independent evidence
    purpose: Family of random quantum states with tunable entanglement scaling.
    Newly defined ensemble whose properties are asserted to interpolate between volume and area law.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5443 in / 1449 out tokens · 40732 ms · 2026-05-10T11:07:24.135659+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    0 0W [l]

    0S [l]   ,(17) andΩ [l] is a block-diagonal matrix: Ω[l] =   W [l] 0. . .0 0W [l] ... ... ... ... ... 0

    work page

  2. [2]

    Here,U [l+1] is left-unitary and W [l+1] is right-unitary and square, hence unitary

    0W [l]   (18) whereW [l] was defined in the previous iteration, or W [l] = 1 ifl= 0. Here,U [l+1] is left-unitary and W [l+1] is right-unitary and square, hence unitary. We expressM [l+1] via its reduced QR decomposition: M [l+1] =Q [l+1]R[l+1] (19) whereQ [l+1]†Q[l+1] = ˆ1dml×dml andR [l+1] is upper tri- angular. We then set X [l+1] = Σ[l]Ω[l]Q[l...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems.Physical Review Letters, 93(4), July 2004

    Guifré Vidal. Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems.Physical Review Letters, 93(4), July 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    J. Eisert. Computational difficulty of global variations in the density matrix renormalization group.Physical Review Letters, 97(26), December 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    An area law for one-dimensional quantum systems.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2007(08):P08024–P08024, August 2007

    M B Hastings. An area law for one-dimensional quantum systems.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2007(08):P08024–P08024, August 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Wolf, Frank Verstraete, and J

    Norbert Schuch, Michael M. Wolf, Frank Verstraete, and J. Ignacio Cirac. Entropy scaling and simulability by matrix product states.Physical Review Letters, 100(3), January 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy.Reviews of Mod- ern Physics, 82(1):277–306, February 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

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

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

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Fisher, Vedika Khemani, Adam Nahum, and Sagar Vijay

    Matthew P.A. Fisher, Vedika Khemani, Adam Nahum, and Sagar Vijay. Random quantum circuits.Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics, 14(1):335–379, March 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Random unitaries in extremely low depth, 2025

    Thomas Schuster, Jonas Haferkamp, and Hsin-Yuan Huang. Random unitaries in extremely low depth, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Don N. Page. Average entropy of a subsystem.Phys. Rev. Lett., 71:1291–1294, Aug 1993

    work page 1993

  12. [12]

    S. K. Foong and S. Kanno. Proof of page’s conjecture on the average entropy of a subsystem.Phys. Rev. Lett., 72:1148–1151, Feb 1994

    work page 1994

  13. [13]

    Average entropy of a quantum subsys- tem.Physical Review Letters, 77(1):1–3, July 1996

    Siddhartha Sen. Average entropy of a quantum subsys- tem.Physical Review Letters, 77(1):1–3, July 1996

    work page 1996

  14. [14]

    Hastings

    M. Hastings. An area law for one dimensional quantum systems.Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment, 2007, 05 2007

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Area laws in quantum systems: Mutual informa- tion and correlations.Physical review letters, 100:070502, 03 2008

    Michael Wolf, Frank Verstraete, Matthew Hastings, and J Cirac. Area laws in quantum systems: Mutual informa- tion and correlations.Physical review letters, 100:070502, 03 2008

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    The1d arealawandthe complexity ofquantum states: A combinatorial approach

    Dorit Aharonov, Itai Arad, Zeph Landau, and Umesh Vazirani. The1d arealawandthe complexity ofquantum states: A combinatorial approach. pages 324–333, 2011

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    A spacetime area law bound on quantum correlations

    Ilya Kull, Philippe Allard Guérin, and Časlav Brukner. A spacetime area law bound on quantum correlations. npj Quantum Information, 5(1), July 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum com- puter.SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484–1509, October 1997

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. page 212–219, 1996

    work page 1996

  20. [20]

    Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits.Nature Physics, 10(3):218–224, Mar 2014

    Sergio Boixo, Troels Rønnow, Sergei Isakov, Zhihui Wang, David Wecker, Daniel Lidar, John Martinis, Mathew Ababei, Mohammad Amin, Alireza Carignan- Dugas, et al. Evidence for quantum annealing with more than one hundred qubits.Nature Physics, 10(3):218–224, Mar 2014

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Entanglement entropy scal- ing of noisy random quantum circuits in two dimensions

    Meng Zhang, Chao Wang, Shaojun Dong, Hao Zhang, Yongjian Han, and Lixin He. Entanglement entropy scal- ing of noisy random quantum circuits in two dimensions. Physical Review A, 106(5), November 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Zhi Li, Shengqi Sang, and Timothy H. Hsieh. Entangle- ment dynamics of noisy random circuits.Physical Review B, 107(1), January 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Volume-law entanglement en- tropy of typical pure quantum states.PRX Quantum, 3(3), July 2022

    Eugenio Bianchi, Lucas Hackl, Mario Kieburg, Marcos Rigol, and Lev Vidmar. Volume-law entanglement en- tropy of typical pure quantum states.PRX Quantum, 3(3), July 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Der massbegriff in der theorie der kon- tinuierlichen gruppen.Annals of Mathematics, 34:147, 1933

    Alfred Haar. Der massbegriff in der theorie der kon- tinuierlichen gruppen.Annals of Mathematics, 34:147, 1933

    work page 1933

  25. [25]

    Publications de l’Institut de mathématique de l’Université de Strasbourg

    André Weil.L’intégration dans les groupes topologiques et ses applications / par André Weil. Publications de l’Institut de mathématique de l’Université de Strasbourg. Hermann & Cie, éditeurs, Paris, 2e édition edition, 1953

    work page 1953

  26. [26]

    Sur la mesure de haar.Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, 211:759–762, 1940

    Henri Cartan. Sur la mesure de haar.Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, 211:759–762, 1940

    work page 1940

  27. [27]

    Entropy of an n-system from its correla- tion with a k-reservoir.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 19(5):1028–1031, 05 1978

    Elihu Lubkin. Entropy of an n-system from its correla- tion with a k-reservoir.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 19(5):1028–1031, 05 1978

    work page 1978

  28. [28]

    Facchi, U

    P. Facchi, U. Marzolino, G. Parisi, S. Pascazio, and A. Scardicchio. Phase transitions of bipartite entangle- ment.Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:050502, Jul 2008

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Majumdar

    Satya N. Majumdar. Extreme eigenvalues of wishart ma- trices: Application to entangled bipartite system, 2010

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    Cambridge University Press, 2006

    Ingemar Bengtsson and Karol Zyczkowski.Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entangle- ment. Cambridge University Press, 2006

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Distribution ofgconcurrence of random pure states.Phys

    Valerio Cappellini, Hans-Jürgen Sommers, and Karol Ży- czkowski. Distribution ofgconcurrence of random pure states.Phys. Rev. A, 74:062322, Dec 2006

    work page 2006

  32. [32]

    Majumdar, Oriol Bohigas, and Arul Laksh- minarayan

    Satya N. Majumdar, Oriol Bohigas, and Arul Laksh- minarayan. Exact minimum eigenvalue distribution of an entangled random pure state.Journal of Statistical Physics, 131(1):33–49, February 2008

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    In- duced measures in the space of mixed quantum states

    Karol Zyczkowski and Hans-Jürgen Sommers. In- duced measures in the space of mixed quantum states. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 34(35):7111–7125, August 2001

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    Purity distribution for bipartite random pure states.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(49):F1053, nov 2007

    Olivier Giraud. Purity distribution for bipartite random pure states.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(49):F1053, nov 2007

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    Entanglement of random vectors

    Marko Žnidarič. Entanglement of random vectors. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(3):F105, dec 2006

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Small- est eigenvalue distribution of the fixed-trace laguerre beta-ensemble.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43(31):315303, July 2010

    YangChen, Dang-ZhengLiu, andDa-ShengZhou. Small- est eigenvalue distribution of the fixed-trace laguerre beta-ensemble.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43(31):315303, July 2010. 11

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Correlations, spectra and entanglement transitions in ensembles of ma- trix product states, 2025

    Hugo Lóio, Guillaume Cecile, Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Guglielmo Lami, and Jacopo De Nardis. Correlations, spectra and entanglement transitions in ensembles of ma- trix product states, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Approach to typicality in many-body quantum systems.Phys

    Shawn Dubey, Luciano Silvestri, Justin Finn, Sai Vin- janampathy, and Kurt Jacobs. Approach to typicality in many-body quantum systems.Phys. Rev. E, 85:011141, Jan 2012

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Quantum state tomog- raphy via reduced density matrices.Physical Review Let- ters, 118(2), January 2017

    Tao Xin, Dawei Lu, Joel Klassen, Nengkun Yu, Zhengfeng Ji, Jianxin Chen, Xian Ma, Guilu Long, Bei Zeng, and Raymond Laflamme. Quantum state tomog- raphy via reduced density matrices.Physical Review Let- ters, 118(2), January 2017

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Ver- straete

    Yi-Kai Liu, Matthias Christandl, and F. Ver- straete. Quantum computational complexity of the n-representability problem: Qma complete.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:110503, Mar 2007

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    E. H. Lieb and M. B. Ruskai. Proof of the strong subad- ditivity of quantum-mechanical entropy.J. Math. Phys., 14:1938–1941, 1973

    work page 1938

  42. [42]

    Higuchi, A

    A. Higuchi, A. Sudbery, and J. Szulc. One-qubit reduced states of a pure many-qubit state: Polygon inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 90(10), March 2003

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    Requirements for compatibility between local and multipartite quantum states, 2003

    Sergey Bravyi. Requirements for compatibility between local and multipartite quantum states, 2003

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    Quantum marginal problem and representations of the symmetric group

    Alexander Klyachko. Quantum marginal problem and representations of the symmetric group. 9 2004

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    Quantum marginal problem and n-representability.Journal of Physics: Conference Se- ries, 36:72–86, April 2006

    Alexander A Klyachko. Quantum marginal problem and n-representability.Journal of Physics: Conference Se- ries, 36:72–86, April 2006

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    Burak Şahinoğlu, and Michael Walter

    Matthias Christandl, M. Burak Şahinoğlu, and Michael Walter. Recoupling coefficients and quantum entropies. Annales Henri Poincaré, 19(2):385–410, December 2017

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    The quantum marginal problem

    Morgan Makhina. The quantum marginal problem. Preprint, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 2023. Available at UCSD Physics Department web- site

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Schollwöck

    U. Schollwöck. The density-matrix renormalization group.Rev. Mod. Phys., 77:259–315, Apr 2005

    work page 2005

  49. [49]

    Hallberg

    Karen A. Hallberg. New trends in density matrix renor- malization.Advances in Physics, 55(5–6):477–526, July 2006

    work page 2006

  50. [50]

    Ran- dom graph states, maximal flow and fuss–catalan distri- butions.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical, 43(27):275303, June 2010

    Benoît Collins, Ion Nechita, and Karol Życzkowski. Ran- dom graph states, maximal flow and fuss–catalan distri- butions.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical, 43(27):275303, June 2010

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    Area lawforrandomgraphstates.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical, 46(30):305302, July 2013

    Benoît Collins, Ion Nechita, and Karol Życzkowski. Area lawforrandomgraphstates.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical, 46(30):305302, July 2013

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    L. E. Blumenson. A derivation of n-dimensional spher- ical coordinates.The American Mathematical Monthly, 67(1):63–66, 1960

    work page 1960

  53. [53]

    Devore and K.N

    J.L. Devore and K.N. Berk.Modern Mathematical Statis- tics with Applications. Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2007

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    G. M. Fikhtengol’ts.Kurs differentsial’nogo i in- tegral’nogo ischisleniya, volume I–III. Gostekhizdat, Moscow and Leningrad, 1947–1949. Also published in German asDifferential- und Integralrechnung I–III, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1986–1987

    work page 1947

  55. [55]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik.Table of integrals, series, and products. Elsevier/Academic Press, Amster- dam, seventh edition, 2007. Translated from the Russian, Translation edited and with a preface by Alan Jeffrey and Daniel Zwillinger, With one CD-ROM (Windows, Mac- intosh and UNIX)

    work page 2007

  56. [56]

    Graham, Donald Ervin Knuth, and Oren Patashnik.Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science

    Ronald L. Graham, Donald Ervin Knuth, and Oren Patashnik.Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, sec- ond edition, 1994

    work page 1994

  57. [57]

    Maximally entangled multipartite states: A brief survey

    Marco Enriquez, I Wintrowicz, and Karol Zyczkowski. Maximally entangled multipartite states: A brief survey. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 698:012003, 03 2016

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Com- putation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. 12 Appendix A: Generating a set of eigenvalues for a uniform sampling on the unit sphere To generate random eigenvalues, we sample a random point on the positive orthant of the unitn-sphere and use the square of...

    work page 2010

  59. [59]

    , xn)of a point on the unitn-sphere are related to its spherical coordinates as follows [50]: x1 = cos(φ1), x2 = sin(φ1) cos(φ2), x3 = sin(φ1) sin(φ2) cos(φ3),

    PDF of the eigenvalues The Cartesian coordinates(x 1, x2, . . . , xn)of a point on the unitn-sphere are related to its spherical coordinates as follows [50]: x1 = cos(φ1), x2 = sin(φ1) cos(φ2), x3 = sin(φ1) sin(φ2) cos(φ3), ... xn−1 = sin(φ1). . .sin(φ n−2) cos(φn−1), xn = sin(φ1). . .sin(φ n−2) sin(φn−1). 1 PDF of the eigenvalues 14 whereφ 1, φ2, . . . ,...

    work page

  60. [60]

    Expressingρin its eigenbasis,ρ=P j λj |j⟩ ⟨j|, the von Neumann entropy reduces to S=− X j λj lnλ j

    Expectation value of the von Neumann entropy For a quantum state with density matrixρ, the von Neumann entropy is given by [28, p.273]: S=−Tr(ρlnρ), 2 Expectation value of the von Neumann entropy 17 wherelndenotes the natural logarithm of a matrix. Expressingρin its eigenbasis,ρ=P j λj |j⟩ ⟨j|, the von Neumann entropy reduces to S=− X j λj lnλ j. For a ra...

    work page

  61. [61]

    Therefore, A(s) =π(1−s) −a+ 1 2 ln(1−s) . Substituting this expression back intoF2, we obtain: F2 = 1 π Z 1 0 (1−λ 1)p λ1(1−λ 1) −a+ ln(1−λ 1)1 2 dλ1 = 1 π −a Z 1 0 r 1−λ 1 λ1 dλ1 + 1 2 Z 1 0 (1−λ 1)p λ1(1−λ 1) ln(1−λ 1) dλ1 = 1 π − aπ 2 + 1 2 Z 1 0 (1−λ 1)p λ1(1−λ 1) ln(1−λ 1) dλ1 . Using the substitutionλ= 1−λ 1 in the remaining integral, we havedλ=−dλ1...

    work page

  62. [62]

    We refer to this point as themaximally entangled point

    Point on then-sphere corresponding to the maximally entangled state In this appendix, we determine the coordinates of the point on then-sphere that leads to the maximally entangled state. We refer to this point as themaximally entangled point. A bipartite pure stateρ∈ H A ⊗ HB is maximally entangled if the reduced density matrices of both subsystems are g...

    work page

  63. [63]

    In this appendix, we describe how sets of eigenvalues are sampled around the maximally entangled point

    Probability distribution of the eigenvalues Sampling eigenvalues in the vicinity of the maximally entangled point ensures that they remain close to those of a maximally entangled state and therefore exhibit a high degree of entanglement, characteristic of a volume law. In this appendix, we describe how sets of eigenvalues are sampled around the maximally ...

    work page

  64. [64]

    M σl=d−1   ,(E1) wheredagain denotes the local Hilbert space dimension

    Stack the site matricesMσl row wise to obtain M [l] =   M σl=0 ... M σl=d−1   ,(E1) wheredagain denotes the local Hilbert space dimension

    work page

  65. [65]

    Perform a SVDM[l] =U ˜S[l]V [l]

    work page

  66. [66]

    Compute the distanceϵl =∥S [l] − ˜S[l]∥measuring the deviation between the actual Schmidt values of the MPS and the targeted Schmidt values

    work page

  67. [67]

    V σl=d−1   ,(E2) and replace the current site tensorsVσl ←[M σl

    Vertically split V [l] =   V σl=0 ... V σl=d−1   ,(E2) and replace the current site tensorsVσl ←[M σl

    work page

  68. [68]

    Once the site tensorsAσ1 have been updated, the total distance to the target Schmidt value distributionsϵ=PL−1 l=1 ϵl is evaluated

    ContractU S [l] into the next site tensorsAσl−1 U S[l] ←[A σl−1. Once the site tensorsAσ1 have been updated, the total distance to the target Schmidt value distributionsϵ=PL−1 l=1 ϵl is evaluated. If the convergence threshold is reached, i.e.,ϵ < δ, the procedure can be terminated. Otherwise, continue by sweeping reverting the sweep direction and repeat t...

    work page