PEPS, matrix product operators and the

algebraic Bethe ansatz

Frank Verstraete
University of Vienna

Valentin Murg, Ignacio Cirac (MPQ)

B. Pirvu (Vienna)
Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States
as variational states for simulating strongly correlated
quantum systems

Why?

History of Quantum Mechanics is one in which we try to find

approximate solutions to Schrdinger equation
Actually, this is the reason why quantum computers would be so exciting

Most relevant breakthroughs in context of many-body physics: guess

the right wavefunction (BCS, Laughlin, )

Is there a way to come up with a systematic way of parameterizing the

wavefunctions arising in relevant Hamiltonians?

In case of 1-D quantum spin chains: NRG / DMRG : MPS

In case of 2-D quantum spin systems: PEPS / MERA / .
 Many-body Hilbert space is a convenient illusion
Size of Hilbert space of system of N particles / modes / scales exponentially with
N.

What is the fraction of states that are physical, i.e. can be created as low-energy states of
local Hamiltonians or by a quantum computer in poly time? Exponentially small !!!

Ground states (and low-energy states ) have very special properties

Amount of entanglement is very small: can be formalized using so-called area laws
Ground states have extremal local correlations: all (quasi-)long range correlations are a
consequence of the fact that those local correlations must be made compatible with translational
invariance

If we want to simulate a many-body system, we should be smarter

 Matrix Product States

Valence bond state: translational invariant by construction

Has extremal local correlations
Obeys area law by construction

Theorem: if an area law is satisfied, then the state can be well

approximated by a MPS:

S 1, 2,, L c ln L exN DN DN
cst f (c )
N

In case of local gapped 1-D Hamiltonians: area law is guaranteed

Conclusion: all states in finite 1-D chains can be represented by
MPS: breakdown of exponential wall !
 S.R. Whites DMRG et al.

DMRG can be understood as variational method within this class of

VBS/MPS states: alternating least squares
Extension to periodic BC: trivial once formulated like this

A local Hamiltonian (e.g. Heisenberg model) is a special case of a

more general type of operators: matrix product operators
 Matrix product operators
Slight modification of DMRG allows to approximate extremal
eigenvectors (and eigenvalues) of hermitean MPO by MPS:

O
max

Where else do MPO appear?

Transfer matrices of classical spin systems!

Tr A
DMRG is therefore
T i1
A A ... Ai1 Ai2 Ai3 ...
i2 i3
basically a method
i1i2i3 ... for finding leading
eigenvector and

cosh eigenvalue of
x A x x
sinh transfer matrix (cfr.
Nishino, Baxter)
 We can also solve another optimization problem involving MPO:
given a MPS and an MPO O, find the MPS that minimizes

min O 2

It turns out that this is also a multiquadratic optimization problem that is

very well conditioned and can be solved using DMRG-like sweeping!
Core method for simulating PEPS
The error in the approximation is known exactly!
Leads to a massively parallel time evolution algorithm that does not
break translational invariance:
 Matrix Product Operators and the Bethe ansatz:

Algebraic Bethe ansatz is all about MPO:

Tr A
i1i2 i3 ...
i1
Ai2 Ai3 ... Oi1 Oi2 Oi3 ...

i i i
A 0 .I A1 X A2 Y A3 Z
2 2 2
O0 I O1 X O2 Y O3 X

Crucial Property of this family of MPO: they all commute (==Yang-

Baxter equation):

U U 1

U I ic X X Y Y Z Z

Gauge transformation of MPS/MPO leave it invariant!

 What has this to do with the Heisenberg model?

d
H heis 2i ln
d i / 2

This can easily be seen because i / 2 is the shift operator (shifts
qubits 1,2,3,N to 2,3,4,1); taking the derivative replaces one of
those swaps with the idenity; logarithmic derivative undoes all the other
swaps, leaving the Heisenberg Hamiltonian!

It follows that H heis , 0 and hence they have the same

eigenvectors

Lets now define new operators similar to but with OBC:

B 0 Ai1 Ai2 Ai3 ... 1 Oi1 Oi2 Oi3 ...

i1i2 i3 ...

These will play the role of creation operators and commute for all
 All eigenstates of the Heisenberg model are of the form

1 2 3 ...
B 1 B 2 B 3 ... 000... 000... f 000...

The parameters i
are found by imposing that these are eigenstates
of
= Bethe equations (follows simply from working out
commutation relations; this leads to coupled equations between the i )

U U 1 U I ic X X Y Y Z Z

In terms of MPS/MPO: all eigenstates can exactly be represented as

Can therefore easily be simulated using MPS algorithms: correlation

functions, with absolute error bars!
How to extend to higher dimensions? PEPS!
 Generalizing MPS to higher dimensions: PEPS

Area law is satisfied by construction : scalable!

Precursors: AKLT, Nishino; PEPS introduced in context of
measurement-based quantum computation
 arXiv:cond-mat/0407066

How to calculate expectation values?

Equivalent to contracting tensor network consisting of MPS and MPO!

Obvious way of doing this: recursively use min O 2

Optimization: alternating least squares as in DMRG

Alternatively: imaginary time evolution ; infinite algorithm ; renormalization (Gu et al.)
 Holographic principle: dimensional reduction

Crucial property of MPS/PEPS: dimensional reduction

Start from quantum system in 2 dimensions (2+1)

The PEPS ansatz maps the quantum Hamiltonian to a state
corresponding to a partition function in 2 dimensions (2+0)
The properties of such a state are described by a (1+1) dimensional
theory (eigenvectors of transfer matrices)
Those eigenvectors are well described by MPS
Properties of MPS are trivial to calculate: reduction to a partition function
of a 1-D system (1+0)
 From here on: all work and
slides by Valentin Murg
The Method Time Evolution
e iH t | PEPS
Goal:
Simulation of the Operation
| PEPS e iH t | PEPS

Procedure:
iH t
Dimension For t = 1 , the state e | PEPS
remains a PEP-state, but with
Dimension D increased virtual Dimension:
D D

Problem Virtual Dimension increases

: exponentially with the
number of steps.

Workaround:
Dimension D Approximate at each step the
PEP-state by a PEP-state with
reduced virtual Dimension.
 8

The Method Time Evolution

| PEPS

Goal:
| PEPS %
| PEPS
Dimension D Dimension D%

% 2 Min.
K | PEPS | PEPS
Dimension D

Algorithm:
Optimization of the distance site by site:
% v
MA%
| PEPS K
A%
( ij )
0 ( ij )
w
k

Optimal scaling of the Algorithm:

#steps ~ N 2 D10
Dimension D%
#memory ~ D8
 arXiv:0901.2019

J1-J2-J3 Heisenberg model

J1

J2
J3

Frustrated system
We did calculation for systems with open boundary conditions of
size up to 14x14 and D=4
J1J2J3-Model Classical Phase Diagram

IV. Helicoidal ( q, ) III. Helicoidal (q, q )

J1 J1

J2 J2

I. Nel ( , ) II. Independent Sublattices

J1 J1

J2 J2
J1J2J3-Model Quantum Phase Diagram

II. Collinear ( ,0) (0, )

J1

J2

J1

J2

(Order-by-Disorder)
J1J3-Model Long Range Order
Structure Factor

J 3 / J1 0 J 3 / J1 0.5 J 3 / J1 1

Nel Order: No long range order! Nel Order on

four Sublattices:
Q ( , ) Q ( / 2, / 2)
Plaquette order parameter, 8x8 lattice, J3/J1=1/2

Pure Plaquette
state: in Pl
Q=1, in
between Pl
Q=1/4
 24

J1J3-Model Intermediate Phase

Comparison with short range resonating valence bond ground state
 34

J1J2-Model Long Range Order

Structure Factor
J1J2-Model Long Range Order
Structure Factor

J 2 / J1 0 J 2 / J1 0.6 J 2 / J1 1

Nel Order: No long range order! Columnar Order:

Q ( , ) Q ( ,0), (0, )
J1J2-Model Long Range Order
Local Spin Directions

J 2 / J1 0.1 J 2 / J1 1
 General features of PEPS

Pretty reliable and well-conditioned method with absolute error bars for expectation
values of variables
In principle unbiased, like DMRG: we can make the system completely translational
invariant
Especially suited for describing spin liquids et al., gapped systems (cfr. MERA for critical
systems!)
In case of fermions: make use of classical gauge theories to get right statistics

Everything that can be done with MPS can be done with PEPS (but at a much higher
cost)

Cost of algorithm still scales as ND10 , which is very good as a function of systems
size, but bad with respect to the bond dimension

Not too bad if compared with DMRG: D 5 versus D3

Note also: way less entanglement in 2-D than in 1-D: frustration!

Work in progress for finding alternative methods for contracting tensor networks
Renormalization methods of Gu et al.
Calculating expectation values by Monte Carlo sampling (see talk of Schuch)
Infinite methods (cfr. Talk of Orus)
 Conclusion

MPS/MPO/PEPS might be a smarter tool to study new states of

quantum matter
MPS/MPO/PEPS formalism is very natural way of representing
wave functions of strongly correlated quantum systems
How does it compare to MERA (Cfr. Guifre)???

Workshop and long-term programme in Erwin Schrodinger Institute

for Mathematical Physics in Vienna on topic of Entanglement and
Correlations in many-body quantum physics from Aug. 10 Oct. 17
http://qit.univie.ac.at/conference

PhD and Postdoc positions available in Vienna