pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.08730 · v4 · pith:XTNQFCPRnew · submitted 2024-12-11 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.str-el

Reweighted Time-Evolving Block Decimation for Improved Quantum Dynamics Simulations

Sayak Guha Roy , Kevin Slagle This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 06:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el
keywords reweighted TEBDMPDOtensor networkquantum dynamicstime evolutionmixed statestruncationconserved quantities
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reweighted TEBD improves MPDO time-evolution accuracy by deprioritizing high-weight expectation values during truncation.

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

The paper introduces rTEBD as a modification to the standard time-evolving block decimation algorithm when it is applied to matrix product density operators. Standard TEBD truncates the bond dimension without regard to the fact that low-weight observables such as single-particle correlations are far more important for most physical questions than the exponentially many high-weight correlators. rTEBD multiplies the contribution of each term of weight n by a factor γ^{-n} inside every truncation step. This change produces simulations that are markedly more accurate than ordinary TEBD on MPDOs and that reach or surpass the accuracy of TEBD on matrix product states, while also keeping conserved quantities close to their exact values over long times.

Core claim

The central claim is that applying a reweighting factor γ^{-n} to high-weight expectation values inside the singular-value truncation of an MPDO makes the resulting time-dependent simulation significantly more accurate than standard TEBD on the same MPDO representation, competitive with or better than TEBD on an MPS representation, and able to preserve conserved quantities to high numerical precision.

What carries the argument

The reweighting factor γ^{-n} applied to expectation values of weight n inside every truncation step of the MPDO time-evolution algorithm.

If this is right

  • rTEBD time-dependent MPDO simulations are significantly more accurate than standard TEBD MPDO simulations.
  • rTEBD accuracy is competitive with or sometimes exceeds TEBD accuracy on MPS representations.
  • Conserved quantities remain close to their exact values over long simulation times when low-weight terms are prioritized.
  • The improvement requires no extra computational cost beyond the standard TEBD truncation step.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same reweighting idea could be tested inside other MPDO algorithms such as time-dependent variational principle or purification-based methods.
  • Choosing γ adaptively rather than as a fixed hyper-parameter might further reduce truncation error on specific models.
  • Because the method only changes the truncation weights, it can be combined with existing bond-dimension adaptation schemes without altering the underlying Trotter decomposition.
  • Long-time simulations of open quantum systems may benefit most, since conservation of quantities such as particle number is often the dominant accuracy requirement.

Load-bearing premise

Low-weight expectation values are sufficiently more important than high-weight ones that systematically reducing the latter by a fixed factor γ^{-n} at every truncation improves overall accuracy without creating new systematic errors.

What would settle it

Run both rTEBD and standard TEBD on the same MPDO for a model whose dynamics are known to be dominated by high-weight correlators; if the rTEBD error grows faster or conserved quantities drift more, the central claim is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08730 by Kevin Slagle, Sayak Guha Roy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representation of a wavefunction of a 6-site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representation of a density matrix ρ in terms of a matrix product density operator (MPDO). 2 simulates the time evolution of the wavefunc￾tion and returns the wavefunction at time t+∆t, where ∆t is the Trotter step. The brickwork (odd/even) Trotterized circuit is frequently used in the literature for Matrix Product State simula￾tions [1, 2, 49, 50]. After each two-qubit unitary, a singular value decomposit… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of a reweighted MPDO defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of Tr[ρ] as a function of time for a free fermionic chain of length L = 128 with open boundary conditions evolving according to the Hamiltonian defined in Eqn. (16) and starting from the initial state defined in Eqn. (17). We compare MPDO-TEBD with rTEBD and show that rTEBD preserves Tr[ρ] approximately and gets better with increasing χ. However, MPDO-TEBD is unable to preserve Tr[ρ], which falls to z… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The initial state |ψ0⟩ [Eqn. (17)] that we time evolve by the free-fermion chain Hamiltonian [Eqn. (16)]. To give this correlation a large amplitude, we choose a GHZ state as the initial state (rather than the previous uncorrelated initial state): |ψGHZ⟩ = 1 √ 2 (|ψ0⟩ + Y j σ 1 j |ψ0⟩) (24) where |ψ0⟩ (Eqn. (17)) was our previous uncorre￾lated initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots of (a) energy density (ε), (b) average fermion number error (n i err), (c) total fermion number (⟨ntot⟩/L) and (d) Fourier transform of fermion number (⟨n(k = π/4)⟩) as a function of time, defined in Eqns. (19–22), for a free fermionic chain of length L = 128 with open boundary conditions evolving according to the Hamiltonian defined in Eqn. (16) and starting from the initial state defined in Eqn. (1… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated time-evolution of the connected density-density correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The initial state |ψ0⟩ [Eqn. (27)] that we time evolve by the spin Hamiltonian [Eqn. (25)]. 4.2.1 Choosing γ Looking at errors in conserved quantities offers a method to tune γ. Here, we consider using the root-mean-squared (over time) error in the con￾served energy density: ε avg err = s 1 Tf Z Tf 0 dt|ε(t) − ε(0)| 2 (29) We expect that smaller ε avg err indicates a better choice of γ. In [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Plot of ε avg err with Tf = 100 as a function of γ for different χ and for the spin system described in Sec. 4.2 of length L = 64. The plot suggests that values of γ between 1.6 and 1.7 are the most accurate for this model. [2] Sebastian Paeckel, Thomas Köhler, An￾dreas Swoboda, Salvatore R. Manmana, Ulrich Schollwöck, and Claudius Hubig. “Time-evolution methods for matrix￾product states”. Annals of Physi… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Plot of (a) energy density (ϵ), (b) total fermion number density (⟨ntot⟩/L) and (c) average fermion number error (nerr) as a function of time for a chain of length L = 128 for a free fermionic system describd by the Hamiltonian in Eqn. (16) and time evolving the initial state defined by Eqn. (17). The plot is made for two different reweighting schemes: fermionic scheme (Eqn. (36)) and bosonic scheme (Eqn.… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Plot of nk (Eqn 39) with k = π/2 as a function of time for a chain of length L = 64 for a free fermionic system describd by the Hamiltonian in Eqn. (16) and time evolving the initial state defined by Eqn 17. We compare rTEBD (γ = 1.5) with MPDO-TEBD and ‘Exact’ results. We see that rTEBD with the fermionic scheme outperforms MPDO-TEBD and rTEBD with the xy scheme. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce a simple yet significant improvement to the time-evolving block decimation (TEBD) tensor network algorithm for simulating the time dynamics of strongly correlated one-dimensional (1D) mixed quantum states. The efficiency of 1D tensor network methods stems from using a product of matrices to express either: the coefficients of a wavefunction, yielding a matrix product state (MPS); or the expectation values of a density matrix, yielding a matrix product density operator (MPDO). To avoid exponential computational costs, TEBD truncates the matrix dimension while simulating the time evolution. However, when truncating an MPDO, TEBD does not favor the likely more important low-weight expectation values, such as $\langle c_i^\dagger c_j \rangle$, over the exponentially many high-weight expectation values, such as $\langle c_{i_1}^\dagger c^\dagger_{i_2} \cdots c_{i_n} \rangle$ of weight $n$, despite the critical importance of the low-weight expectation values. Motivated by this shortcoming, we propose a reweighted TEBD (rTEBD) algorithm that deprioritizes high-weight expectation values by a factor of $\gamma^{-n}$ during the truncation. This modification makes rTEBD significantly more accurate than the TEBD time-dependent simulation of an MPDO, and competitive with and sometimes better than TEBD using MPS. Furthermore, by prioritizing low-weight expectation values, rTEBD preserves conserved quantities to high precision.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces reweighted time-evolving block decimation (rTEBD) for simulating time dynamics of 1D mixed quantum states represented as matrix product density operators (MPDOs). Standard TEBD truncation on MPDOs treats all expectation values equally, but rTEBD deprioritizes high-weight operators (weight n) by a tunable factor γ^{-n} during each truncation step. The central claims are that this yields significantly higher accuracy than TEBD on MPDOs, is competitive with or superior to MPS-based TEBD, and preserves conserved quantities to high precision by favoring low-weight observables such as ⟨c†_i c_j⟩.

Significance. If the numerical improvements hold under controlled tests, the method offers a lightweight, practical enhancement to existing tensor-network toolkits for open-system or mixed-state dynamics. The explicit separation of low- versus high-weight contributions during truncation is a simple idea that could be adopted quickly; however, the lack of any error bound or convergence analysis limits its immediate theoretical impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods / truncation procedure] The central claim that rTEBD remains a controlled approximation to the original Liouvillian step rests on the assertion that reweighting only affects truncation without introducing new systematic bias. No derivation or perturbative bound is supplied showing that the modified singular-value spectrum still converges to the unweighted case as γ → 1 or as bond dimension → ∞ (see the truncation step in the Methods section).
  2. [Numerical results / figures] The paper reports that rTEBD is “significantly more accurate” and “competitive with and sometimes better than” MPS-TEBD, yet the only quantitative support appears to be selected fidelity or observable plots without tabulated error bars, system sizes, or direct comparison of Trotter and truncation errors across multiple γ values. This makes it impossible to judge whether the observed gains exceed the usual statistical fluctuations of the underlying TEBD implementation.
  3. [Algorithm description / parameter γ] The reweighting parameter γ is introduced as a free tunable factor. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the final observables become insensitive to γ within a stated window, nor does it provide an a-priori prescription for choosing γ from the Hamiltonian or initial state; this leaves open the possibility that the reported improvements are the result of post-hoc optimization rather than a robust algorithmic advance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the weight-n operators is introduced only in the abstract; a clear definition (e.g., the number of creation/annihilation operators) should appear in the main text before the first use of γ^{-n}.
  2. [Abstract / Results] The abstract states that rTEBD “preserves conserved quantities to high precision,” but the manuscript does not specify which quantities are conserved by the underlying model or how the deviation is quantified (absolute error, relative drift per unit time, etc.).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / truncation procedure] The central claim that rTEBD remains a controlled approximation to the original Liouvillian step rests on the assertion that reweighting only affects truncation without introducing new systematic bias. No derivation or perturbative bound is supplied showing that the modified singular-value spectrum still converges to the unweighted case as γ → 1 or as bond dimension → ∞ (see the truncation step in the Methods section).

    Authors: We agree that no derivation or perturbative bound is supplied. By construction the procedure reduces exactly to standard TEBD when γ = 1. We will add an explicit statement in the Methods section noting this limit. A rigorous bound on any additional bias is not derived in the present work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical results / figures] The paper reports that rTEBD is “significantly more accurate” and “competitive with and sometimes better than” MPS-TEBD, yet the only quantitative support appears to be selected fidelity or observable plots without tabulated error bars, system sizes, or direct comparison of Trotter and truncation errors across multiple γ values. This makes it impossible to judge whether the observed gains exceed the usual statistical fluctuations of the underlying TEBD implementation.

    Authors: The manuscript currently presents results through figures. In the revision we will add a table reporting quantitative maximum errors in fidelity and selected observables for multiple system sizes, several γ values, and with Trotter and truncation contributions separated where possible. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Algorithm description / parameter γ] The reweighting parameter γ is introduced as a free tunable factor. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the final observables become insensitive to γ within a stated window, nor does it provide an a-priori prescription for choosing γ from the Hamiltonian or initial state; this leaves open the possibility that the reported improvements are the result of post-hoc optimization rather than a robust algorithmic advance.

    Authors: We will add a sensitivity analysis in the revision showing that key observables remain stable for γ within a window around the reported value. A general a-priori rule for selecting γ directly from the Hamiltonian is not supplied; we will include a brief heuristic discussion based on the expected weight distribution of observables. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A formal perturbative bound or convergence analysis for the reweighted truncation as γ → 1 or bond dimension → ∞.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in rTEBD proposal

full rationale

The paper proposes rTEBD as an explicit heuristic modification to standard TEBD truncation for MPDOs, introducing the tunable reweighting factor γ^{-n} by direct ansatz to deprioritize high-weight operators. This choice is stated as motivated by the relative importance of low-weight expectation values, with no equations or derivations that reduce the claimed accuracy gains or conservation preservation back to the inputs by construction. No fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, no self-citations form load-bearing uniqueness arguments, and the central improvement is presented as an empirical outcome of the modification rather than a tautological result. The derivation chain remains self-contained as a proposed algorithm change whose performance is to be validated externally.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one explicit free parameter (the reweight factor γ) and one domain assumption about the relative importance of observables; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • γ
    Reweighting factor applied to high-weight terms during truncation; its specific numerical value is not given in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Low-weight expectation values are more important for accurate dynamics than high-weight expectation values of the same MPDO.
    This premise directly motivates the choice to multiply weight-n terms by γ^{-n} before truncation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5800 in / 1488 out tokens · 44863 ms · 2026-05-23T06:56:54.992350+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

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Efficient simulation of one- dimensional quantum many-body systems

    Guifré Vidal. “Efficient simulation of one- dimensional quantum many-body systems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040502 (2004). 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 t 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 MPDO-TEBD (unnormalized) = 32 = 64 = 128 MPDO-TEBD = 32 = 64 = 128 rTEBD ( = 1.6) = 32 = 64 = 128 MPS-TEBD = 32 = 64 = 128 Exact Figure 12: Same as Fig. 8(a), except for the intera...

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Time-evolution methods for matrix- product states

    Sebastian Paeckel, Thomas Köhler, An- dreas Swoboda, Salvatore R. Manmana, Ulrich Schollwöck, and Claudius Hubig. “Time-evolution methods for matrix- product states”. Annals of Physics411, 167998 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Time-evolution of lo- cal information: thermalization dynamics of local observables

    Thomas Klein Kvorning, Loïc Herviou, and Jens H. Bardarson. “Time-evolution of lo- cal information: thermalization dynamics of local observables”. SciPost Phys.13, 080 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Efficient large-scale many-body quantum dynamics via local-information time evolution

    Claudia Artiaco, Christoph Fleckenstein, David Aceituno Chávez, Thomas Klein Kvorning, and Jens H. Bardarson. “Efficient large-scale many-body quantum dynamics via local-information time evolution”. PRX Quantum5, 020352 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Quantum dynamics of thermalizing sys- tems

    Christopher David White, Michael Zale- tel, Roger S. K. Mong, and Gil Refael. “Quantum dynamics of thermalizing sys- tems”. Physical Review B97(2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Emergent hydrodynamics 11 in nonequilibrium quantum systems

    Bingtian Ye, Francisco Machado, Christo- pher David White, Roger S. K. Mong, and Norman Y. Yao. “Emergent hydrodynamics 11 in nonequilibrium quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 030601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Dissipation- assisted operator evolution method for capturing hydrodynamic transport

    Tibor Rakovszky, C. W. von Keyser- lingk, and Frank Pollmann. “Dissipation- assisted operator evolution method for capturing hydrodynamic transport” (2020). arXiv:2004.05177

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Probing hydrodynamic crossovers with dissipation-assisted operator evolution

    N. S. Srivatsa, Oliver Lunt, Tibor Rakovszky, and Curt von Keyserlingk. “Probing hydrodynamic crossovers with dissipation-assisted operator evolu- tion” (2024). arXiv:2408.08249

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Lloyd, T

    Jerome Lloyd, Tibor Rakovszky, Frank Pollmann, and Curt von Keyserlingk. “The ballistic to diffusive crossover in a weakly-interacting fermi gas” (2023). arXiv:2310.16043

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Energy diffusion in weakly interact- ing chains with fermionic dissipation- assisted operator evolution

    En-Jui Kuo, Brayden Ware, Peter Lunts, Mohammad Hafezi, and Christopher David White. “Energy diffusion in weakly interact- ing chains with fermionic dissipation- assisted operator evolution” (2023). arXiv:2311.17148

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Real-time operator evolution in two and three dimensions via sparse pauli dynam- ics

    Tomislav Begušić and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. “Real-time operator evolution in two and three dimensions via sparse pauli dynam- ics” (2024). arXiv:2409.03097

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Com- paring numerical methods for hydrodynam- ics in a one-dimensional lattice spin model

    Stuart Yi-Thomas, Brayden Ware, Jay D. Sau, and Christopher David White. “Com- paring numerical methods for hydrodynam- ics in a one-dimensional lattice spin model”. Phys. Rev. B110, 134308 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    A universal operator growth hypoth- esis

    Daniel E. Parker, Xiangyu Cao, Alexander Avdoshkin, Thomas Scaffidi, and Ehud Alt- man. “A universal operator growth hypoth- esis”. Phys. Rev. X9, 041017 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Operator backflow and the classical simulation of quantum trans- port

    Curt von Keyserlingk, Frank Pollmann, and Tibor Rakovszky. “Operator backflow and the classical simulation of quantum trans- port”. Phys. Rev. B105, 245101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Effective dissi- pation rate in a liouvillian-graph picture of high-temperature quantum hydrodynamics

    Christopher David White. “Effective dissi- pation rate in a liouvillian-graph picture of high-temperature quantum hydrodynamics”. Phys. Rev. B107, 094311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Finding purifica- tions with minimal entanglement

    Johannes Hauschild, Eyal Leviatan, Jens H. Bardarson, Ehud Altman, Michael P. Zale- tel, and Frank Pollmann. “Finding purifica- tions with minimal entanglement”. Physical Review B98, 235163 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Variational adiabatic trans- port of tensor networks

    Hyeongjin Kim, Matthew Fishman, and Dries Sels. “Variational adiabatic trans- port of tensor networks”. PRX Quantum5, 020361 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Time dependent variational principle for tree tensor networks

    Daniel Bauernfeind and Markus Aichhorn. “Time dependent variational principle for tree tensor networks” (2019). url:http: //arxiv.org/abs/1908.03090

    work page arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Per- formance of the time-dependent variational principle for matrix product states in long- time evolution of a pure state

    Shimpei Goto and Ippei Danshita. “Per- formance of the time-dependent variational principle for matrix product states in long- time evolution of a pure state”. Physical Re- view B99, 054307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Time-dependentvari- ationalprincipleforquantumlattices

    Jutho Haegeman, J. Ignacio Cirac, Tobias J. Osborne, Iztok Pižorn, Henri Verschelde, andFrankVerstraete. “Time-dependentvari- ationalprincipleforquantumlattices”. Phys- ical Review Letters107, 070601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Density matrix formu- lation for quantum renormalization groups

    Steven R. White. “Density matrix formu- lation for quantum renormalization groups”. Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863–2866 (1992)

    work page 1992

  22. [22]

    Time-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effec- tive hilbert spaces

    A J Daley, C Kollath, U Schollwöck, and G Vidal. “Time-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effec- tive hilbert spaces”. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P04005 (2004)

    work page 2004

  23. [23]

    From density-matrix renormalization group to matrix prod- uct states

    Ian P McCulloch. “From density-matrix renormalization group to matrix prod- uct states”. Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment2007, P10014 (2007)

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems

    J. Ignacio Cirac, David Pérez-García, Nor- bert Schuch, and Frank Verstraete. “Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems”. Reviews of Modern Physics93(2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Real-time evolution using the density ma- trix renormalization group

    Steven R. White and Adrian E. Feiguin. “Real-time evolution using the density ma- trix renormalization group”. Physical Re- view Letters93(2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

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

    Ulrich Schollwöck. “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states”. Annals of Physics326, 96–192 (2011)

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    A simple ten- sor network algorithm for two-dimensional 12 steady states

    Augustine Kshetrimayum, Hendrik Weimer, and Roman Orus. “A simple ten- sor network algorithm for two-dimensional 12 steady states”. Nature Communications8, 1291 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Matrix product states for dynamical simulation of infinite chains

    M. C. Bañuls, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac. “Matrix product states for dynamical simulation of infinite chains”. Physical Review Letters102, 240603 (2009)

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Time evolution of an infinite projected entangled pair state: an efficient algorithm

    Piotr Czarnik, Jacek Dziarmaga, and Philippe Corboz. “Time evolution of an infinite projected entangled pair state: an efficient algorithm”. Physical Review B99(2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Repulsively Bound Hadrons in aZ 2 Lattice Gauge The- ory

    Sayak Guha Roy, Vaibhav Sharma, Kaidi Xu, Umberto Borla, Jad C. Halimeh, and Kaden R. A. Hazzard. “Repulsively Bound Hadrons in aZ 2 Lattice Gauge The- ory” (2025). arXiv:2510.23618

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Escap- ing fronts in local quenches of a confining spin chain

    Anna Krasznai and Gábor Takács. “Escap- ing fronts in local quenches of a confining spin chain”. SciPost Phys.16, 138 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Matrix prod- uct study of spin fractionalization in the one- dimensional kondo insulator

    Jing Chen, E. Miles Stoudenmire, Yashar Komijani, and Piers Coleman. “Matrix prod- uct study of spin fractionalization in the one- dimensional kondo insulator”. Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023227 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Time-dependent variational princi- ple with controlled bond expansion for ma- trix product states

    Jheng-Wei Li, Andreas Gleis, and Jan von Delft. “Time-dependent variational princi- ple with controlled bond expansion for ma- trix product states”. Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 026401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Parallel implementation of the time- evolving block decimation algorithm for the bose–hubbard model

    Miroslav Urbanek and Pavel Soldán. “Parallel implementation of the time- evolving block decimation algorithm for the bose–hubbard model”. Computer Physics Communications199, 170–177 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Unifying time evolution and opti- mization with matrix product states

    JuthoHaegeman, ChristianLubich, IvanOs- eledets, Bart Vandereycken, and Frank Ver- straete. “Unifying time evolution and opti- mization with matrix product states”. Phys- ical Review B94, 165116 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Post-matrix product state methods: To tangent space and be- yond

    Jutho Haegeman, Tobias J. Osborne, and Frank Verstraete. “Post-matrix product state methods: To tangent space and be- yond”. Physical Review B88, 075133 (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Matrix product states ap- proaches to operator spreading in ergodic quantum systems

    Kévin Hémery, Frank Pollmann, and David J. Luitz. “Matrix product states ap- proaches to operator spreading in ergodic quantum systems”. Phys. Rev. B100, 104303 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Infinite boundary conditions for matrix product state calculations

    Ho N. Phien, Guifré Vidal, and Ian P. Mc- Culloch. “Infinite boundary conditions for matrix product state calculations”. Phys. Rev. B86, 245107 (2012)

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Time evolution within a comov- ingwindow: scalingofsignalfrontsandmag- netization plateaus after a local quench in quantum spin chains

    V Zauner, M Ganahl, H G Evertz, and T Nishino. “Time evolution within a comov- ingwindow: scalingofsignalfrontsandmag- netization plateaus after a local quench in quantum spin chains”. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter27, 425602 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engineered dissi- pation

    X. Mi et al. “Stable quantum-correlated many-body states through engineered dissi- pation”. Science383, 1332–1337 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Avalanche terahertz photon detection in a rydberg tweezer array

    Chris Nill, Albert Cabot, Arno Traut- mann, Christian Groß, and Igor Lesanovsky. “Avalanche terahertz photon detection in a rydberg tweezer array”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 073603 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Matrix-product-operator approach to the nonequilibrium steady state of driven-dissipative quantum arrays

    Eduardo Mascarenhas, Hugo Flayac, and Vincenzo Savona. “Matrix-product-operator approach to the nonequilibrium steady state of driven-dissipative quantum arrays”. Phys. Rev. A92, 022116 (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Efficient higher-order matrix productoperatorsfortimeevolution

    Maarten Van Damme, Jutho Haegeman, Ian McCulloch, and Laurens Vander- straeten. “Efficient higher-order matrix productoperatorsfortimeevolution” (2023). arXiv:2302.14181

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dis- sipative systems

    F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac. “Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dis- sipative systems”. Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 207204 (2004)

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    Variational matrix product opera- tors for the steady state of dissipative quan- tum systems

    Jian Cui, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Mari Carmen Bañuls. “Variational matrix product opera- tors for the steady state of dissipative quan- tum systems”. Physical Review Letters114, 220601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems

    Hendrik Weimer, Augustine Kshetrimayum, and Román Orús. “Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems”. Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015008 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Mixed- state dynamics in one-dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent super- operator renormalization algorithm

    Michael Zwolak and Guifré Vidal. “Mixed- state dynamics in one-dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent super- operator renormalization algorithm”. Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 207205 (2004). 13

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling

    Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C. Tran, Nathan Wiebe, and Shuchen Zhu. “Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling”. Physical Review X11(2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Matrix product state approach for a quantum system at finite temperatures us- ing random phases and trotter gates

    Shimpei Goto, Ryui Kaneko, and Ippei Dan- shita. “Matrix product state approach for a quantum system at finite temperatures us- ing random phases and trotter gates”. Phys. Rev. B104, 045133 (2021)

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset

    Matthew DeCross, Eli Chertkov, Megan Ko- hagen, and Michael Foss-Feig. “Qubit-reuse compilation with mid-circuit measurement and reset”. Phys. Rev. X13, 041057 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Über das paulis- che äquivalenzverbot

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner. “Über das paulis- che äquivalenzverbot”. Zeitschrift für Physik 47, 631–651 (1928)

    work page 1928

  52. [52]

    Reweighted TEBD code repository

    Sayak Guha Roy. “Reweighted TEBD code repository” (2025).https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.17479680. A Derivation of the MPDOs and unitaries in the reweighted basis In this section, we will derive Eqn. 9 and the time evolving two-qubit unitaries (Eqn. 8) in the reweighted Pauli basis. To see Eqn. 9, we can consider a 1-qubit system whose density operator is...

    work page 2025