Jump to content

Matrix product state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For periodic boundary conditions,Penrose graphical notation (tensor diagram notation) of a matrix product state of five particles.

A matrix product state (MPS) is a representation of a quantum many-body state. It is at the core of the one of the most effective algorithms for solving one dimensional strongly correlated quantum systems – the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithm.

For a system of spins of dimension , the general form of the MPS for periodic boundary conditions (PBS) can be written in the following form:

For open boundary conditions, Penrose graphical notation (tensor diagram notation) of a matrix product state of five particles.

For open boundary conditions (OBC), takes the form

Here are the matrices ( is the dimension of the virtual subsystems) and are the single-site basis states. For periodic boundary conditions, we consider , and for open boundary conditions . The parameter   is related to the entanglement between particles. In particular, if the state is a product state (i.e. not entangled at all), it can be described as a matrix product state with . represents a -dimensional local space on site . For qubits, . For qudits (d-level systems), .

For states that are translationally symmetric, we can choose: In general, every state can be written in the MPS form (with growing exponentially with the particle number N). Note that the MPS decomposition is not unique. MPS are practical when is small – for example, does not depend on the particle number. Except for a small number of specific cases (some mentioned in the section Examples), such a thing is not possible, though in many cases it serves as a good approximation.

For introductions see,[1][2][3] and.[4] In the context of finite automata see.[5] For emphasis placed on the graphical reasoning of tensor networks, see the introduction.[6]

Wave function as a Matrix Product State

[edit]

For a system of lattice sites each of which has a -dimensional Hilbert space, the completely general state can be written as

where is a -dimensional tensor. For example, the wave function of the system described by the Heisenberg model is defined by the dimensional tensor, whereas for the Hubbard model the rank is .

The main idea of the MPS approach is to separate physical degrees of freedom of each site, so that the wave function can be rewritten as the product of matrices, where each matrix corresponds to one particular site. The whole procedure includes the series of reshaping and singular value decompositions (SVD).[7][8]

There are three ways to represent wave function as an MPS: left-canonical decomposition, right-canonical decomposition, and mixed-canonical decomposition.[9]

Left-Canonical Decomposition

[edit]

The decomposition of the -dimensional tensor starts with the separation of the very left index, i.e., the first index , which describes physical degrees of freedom of the first site. It is performed by reshaping as follows

In this notation, is treated as a row index, as a column index, and the coefficient is of dimension . The SVD procedure yields

The separation of physical degrees of freedom of the first site.

In the relation above, matrices and are multiplied and form the matrix and . stores the information about the first lattice site. It was obtained by decomposing matrix into row vectors with entries . So, the state vector takes the form

The separation of the second site is performed by grouping and , and representing as a matrix of dimension . The subsequent SVD of can be performed as follows:

.

The separation of physical degrees of freedom for the first two sites.

Above we replace by a set of matrices of dimension with entries . The dimension of is with . Hence,

Following the steps described above, the state can be represented as a product of matrices

The maximal dimensions of the -matrices take place in the case of the exact decomposition, i.e., assuming for simplicity that is even, going from the first to the last site. However, due to the exponential growth of the matrix dimensions in most of the cases it is impossible to perform the exact decomposition.

The dual MPS is defined by replacing each matrix with :

Note that each matrix in the SVD is a semi-unitary matrix with property . This leads to

.

To be more precise, . Since matrices are left-normalized, we call the composition left-canonical.

Right-Canonical Decomposition

[edit]

Similarly, the decomposition can be started from the very right site. After the separation of the first index, the tensor transforms as follows:

.

The matrix was obtained by multiplying matrices and , and the reshaping of into column vectors forms . Performing the series of reshaping and SVD, the state vector takes the form

Since each matrix in the SVD is a semi-unitary matrix with property , the -matrices are right-normalized and obey . Hence, the decomposition is called right-canonical.

Mixed-Canonical Decomposition

[edit]

The decomposition performs from both the right and from the left. Assuming that the left-canonical decomposition was performed for the first n sites, can be rewritten as

.

MPS representation obtained by the mixed-canonical decomposition.

In the next step, we reshape as and proceed with the series of reshaping and SVD from the right up to site :

.

As the result,

.

Examples

[edit]

Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state

[edit]

Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state, which for N particles can be written as superposition of N zeros and N ones

can be expressed as a Matrix Product State, up to normalization, with

or equivalently, using notation from:[10]

This notation uses matrices with entries being state vectors (instead of complex numbers), and when multiplying matrices using tensor product for its entries (instead of product of two complex numbers). Such matrix is constructed as

Note that tensor product is not commutative.

In this particular example, a product of two A matrices is:

W state

[edit]

W state, i.e., the superposition of all the computational basis states of Hamming weight one.

Even though the state is permutation-symmetric, its simplest MPS representation is not.[1] For example:

AKLT model

[edit]

The AKLT ground state wavefunction, which is the historical example of MPS approach,[11] corresponds to the choice[9]

where the are Pauli matrices, or

Majumdar–Ghosh model

[edit]

Majumdar–Ghosh ground state can be written as MPS with

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Perez-Garcia, D.; Verstraete, F.; Wolf, M.M. (2008). "Matrix product state representations". Quantum Inf. Comput. 7: 401. arXiv:quant-ph/0608197.
  2. ^ Orús, Román (2014). "A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states". Annals of Physics. 349: 117-158. arXiv:1306.2164. Bibcode:2014AnPhy.349..117O. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013.
  3. ^ Verstraete, F; Murg, V.; Cirac, J.I. (2008). "Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems". Advances in Physics. 57 (2): 143–224. arXiv:0907.2796. Bibcode:2008AdPhy..57..143V. doi:10.1080/14789940801912366. S2CID 17208624.
  4. ^ Bridgeman, Jacob C; Chubb, Christopher T (2017-06-02). "Hand-waving and interpretive dance: an introductory course on tensor networks". Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical. 50 (22): 223001. arXiv:1603.03039. Bibcode:2017JPhA...50v3001B. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa6dc3. ISSN 1751-8113.
  5. ^ Crosswhite, Gregory M.; Bacon, Dave (2008-07-29). "Finite automata for caching in matrix product algorithms". Physical Review A. 78 (1): 012356. arXiv:0708.1221. Bibcode:2008PhRvA..78a2356C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.78.012356. ISSN 1050-2947.
  6. ^ Biamonte, Jacob; Bergholm, Ville (2017). "Tensor Networks in a Nutshell". arXiv:1708.00006 [quant-ph].
  7. ^ Baker, Thomas E.; Desrosiers, Samuel; Tremblay, Maxime; Thompson, Martin P. (2021). "Méthodes de calcul avec réseaux de tenseurs en physique". Canadian Journal of Physics. 99 (4): 207–221. arXiv:1911.11566. Bibcode:2021CaJPh..99..207B. doi:10.1139/cjp-2019-0611. ISSN 0008-4204.
  8. ^ Baker, Thomas E.; Thompson, Martin P. (2021-09-07), Build your own tensor network library: DMRjulia I. Basic library for the density matrix renormalization group, arXiv:2109.03120, retrieved 2024-11-03
  9. ^ a b Schollwöck, Ulrich (2011). "The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states". Annals of Physics. 326 (1): 96–192. arXiv:1008.3477. Bibcode:2011AnPhy.326...96S. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2010.09.012. S2CID 118735367.
  10. ^ Crosswhite, Gregory; Bacon, Dave (2008). "Finite automata for caching in matrix product algorithms". Physical Review A. 78 (1): 012356. arXiv:0708.1221. Bibcode:2008PhRvA..78a2356C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.78.012356. S2CID 4879564.
  11. ^ Affleck, Ian; Kennedy, Tom; Lieb, Elliott H.; Tasaki, Hal (1987). "Rigorous results on valence-bond ground states in antiferromagnets". Physical Review Letters. 59 (7): 799–802. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59..799A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.799. PMID 10035874.
[edit]