- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Classical simulation of noisy quantum circuits via locally entanglement-optimal unravelings

Simon Cichy1,*, Paul K. Faehrmann1, Lennart Bittel1, Jens Eisert1,2,3,†, and Hakop Pashayan1,4,‡

  • *Contact author: simon.cichy@fu-berlin.de
  • †Contact author: jense@zedat.fu-berlin.de
  • ‡Contact author: hakop.pashayan@foxconn.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 114, 022430 – Published 17 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/jj2r-y777

Abstract

Classical simulations of noisy quantum circuits are instrumental to our understanding of the behavior of real-world quantum systems and the identification of regimes where one expects quantum advantage. In this work, we present a highly parallelizable tensor-network-based classical algorithm, equipped with rigorous accuracy guarantees, for simulating n-qubit quantum circuits with arbitrary single-qubit noise. Our algorithm represents the state of a noisy quantum system by a particular ensemble of matrix product states from which we stochastically sample. Each pure state evolved under a single-qubit noise process is then represented by the ensemble of states that achieves the minimal average entanglement (the entanglement of formation) between the noisy qubit and the remainder. This approach lets us use a more compact representation of the quantum state for a given accuracy requirement and noise level. For a given maximum bond dimension χ and circuit, our algorithm comes with an upper bound on the simulation error, runs in poly(n,χ)-time, and improves upon related prior work (1) in scope by extending analytic methods from the three commonly considered noise models to general single-qubit noise, (2) in performance by deriving an exact, closed-form solution to the local entanglement minimization problem, previously approached via variational heuristics, thereby guaranteeing local optimality without numerical optimization overhead, and (3) in conceptual contribution by showing that the fixed unraveling used in prior work becomes equivalent to our choice of unraveling in the special case of depolarizing, dephasing, and amplitude damping noise acting on a maximally entangled state.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (131)

  1. S. Aaronson and A. Ambainis, The need for structure in quantum speedups Theory Comput. 10, 133 (2014).
  2. S. Ben-David and S. Podder, How symmetric is too symmetric for large quantum speedups? arXiv:2001.09642.
  3. A. M. Childs and D. Wang, Can graph properties have exponential quantum speedup? arXiv:2001.10520.
  4. S. Ben-David, A. M. Childs, A. Gilyén, W. Kretschmer, S. Podder, and D. Wang, in 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2020), pp. 649–660.
  5. S. Aaronson and A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics Theory Comput. 9, 143 (2013).
  6. M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 080501 (2016).
  7. A. Bouland, J. F. Fitzsimons, and D. E. Koh, in 33rd Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2018), edited by R. A. Servedio, Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 102 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2018), pp. 21:1–21:25.
  8. H. Pashayan, S. D. Bartlett, and D. Gross, From estimation of quantum probabilities to simulation of quantum circuits, Quantum 4, 223 (2020).
  9. M. Yoganathan, R. Jozsa, and S. Strelchuk, Quantum advantage of unitary Clifford circuits with magic state inputs, Proc. R. Soc. A 475, 20180427 (2019).
  10. M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. S. Morales, and Z. Zimborás, Fermion sampling: A robust quantum computational advantage scheme using fermionic linear optics and magic input states, PRX Quantum 3, 020328 (2022).
  11. D. Hangleiter and J. Eisert, Computational advantage of quantum random sampling, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035001 (2023).
  12. D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers, in Group22: Proceedings of the XXII International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics, edited by S. P. Corney, R. Delbourgo, and P. D. Jarvis (International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999), pp. 32–43.
  13. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  14. L. G. Valiant, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '01 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2001), pp. 114–123.
  15. B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032325 (2002).
  16. S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by Clifford gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250501 (2016).
  17. H. Qassim, H. Pashayan, and D. Gosset, Improved upper bounds on the stabilizer rank of magic states, Quantum 5, 606 (2021).
  18. S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum 3, 181 (2019).
  19. A. Heimendahl, F. Montealegre-Mora, F. Vallentin, and D. Gross, Stabilizer extent is not multiplicative, Quantum 5, 400 (2021).
  20. J. R. Seddon, B. Regula, H. Pashayan, Y. Ouyang, and E. T. Campbell, Quantifying quantum speedups: Improved classical simulation from tighter magic monotones, PRX Quantum 2, 010345 (2021).
  21. O. Reardon-Smith, M. Oszmaniec, and K. Korzekwa, Improved simulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations, Quantum 8, 1549 (2024).
  22. B. Dias and R. Koenig, Classical simulation of non-Gaussian fermionic circuits, Quantum 8, 1350 (2024).
  23. O. Reardon-Smith, The fermionic linear optical extent is multiplicative for 4 qubit parity eigenstates, arXiv:2407.20934.
  24. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  25. G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  26. G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004).
  27. R. Orús, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 538 (2019).
  28. J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021).
  29. J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 277 (2010).
  30. E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Roads towards fault-tolerant universal quantum computation, Nature (London) 549, 172 (2017).
  31. S. Virmani, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Classical simulability, entanglement breaking, and quantum computation thresholds, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042328 (2005).
  32. G. González-García, J. I. Cirac, and R. Trivedi, Pauli path simulations of noisy quantum circuits beyond average case, Quantum 9, 1730 (2025).
  33. D. S. Franca and R. Garcia-Patron, Limitations of optimization algorithms on noisy quantum devices, Nat. Phys. 17, 1221 (2021).
  34. A. Deshpande, P. Niroula, O. Shtanko, A. V. Gorshkov, B. Fefferman, and M. J. Gullans, Tight Bounds on the Convergence of Noisy Random Circuits to the Uniform Distribution, PRX Quantum 3, 040329 (2022).
  35. D. Aharonov, X. Gao, Z. Landau, Y. Liu, and U. Vazirani, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy random circuit sampling, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2023) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2023), pp. 945–957.
  36. T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X 15, 041018 (2025).
  37. A. A. Mele, A. Angrisani, S. Ghosh, S. Khatri, J. Eisert, D. S. França, and Y. Quek, Noise-induced shallow circuits and the absence of barren plateaus, Nat. Phys. 22, 751 (2026) .
  38. K. Noh, L. Jiang, and B. Fefferman, Efficient classical simulation of noisy random quantum circuits in one dimension, Quantum 4, 318 (2020).
  39. R. S. Bennink, E. M. Ferragut, T. S. Humble, J. A. Laska, J. J. Nutaro, M. G. Pleszkoch, and R. C. Pooser, Unbiased simulation of near-Clifford quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062337 (2017).
  40. S. V. Isakov, D. Kafri, O. Martin, C. V. Heidweiller, W. Mruczkiewicz, M. P. Harrigan, N. C. Rubin, R. Thomson, M. Broughton, K. Kissell, E. Peters, E. Gustafson, A. C. Y. Li, H. Lamm, G. Perdue, A. K. Ho, D. Strain, and S. Boixo, Simulations of quantum circuits with approximate noise using qsim and Cirq, arXiv:2111.02396.
  41. A. Sander, M. Fröhlich, M. Eigel, J. Eisert, P. Gelß, M. Hintermüller, R. M. Milbradt, R. Wille, and C. B. Mendl, Large-scale stochastic simulation of open quantum systems, Nat. Commun. 16, 11074 (2025) .
  42. T. Vovk and H. Pichler, Entanglement-optimal trajectories of many-body quantum Markov processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 243601 (2022).
  43. M. Kolodrubetz, Optimality of Lindblad unfolding in measurement phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B 107, L140301 (2023).
  44. Z. Cheng and M. Ippoliti, Efficient sampling of noisy shallow circuits via monitored unraveling, PRX Quantum 4, 040326 (2023).
  45. Z. Chen, Y. Bao, and S. Choi, Optimized trajectory unraveling for classical simulation of noisy quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 230403 (2024).
  46. T. Vovk and H. Pichler, Quantum trajectory entanglement in various unravelings of Markovian dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012207 (2024).
  47. R. Daraban, F. Salas-Ramírez, and J. Schachenmayer, Non-unitarity maximizing unraveling of open quantum dynamics, SciPost Phys. 18, 048 (2025).
  48. W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
  49. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/jj2r-y777 for further preliminaries and notation, visualizing examples, detailed proofs of the results and additional numerical results.
  50. L. P. Hughston, R. Jozsa, and W. K. Wootters, A complete classification of quantum ensembles having a given density matrix, Phys. Lett. A 183, 14 (1993).
  51. R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989).
  52. H. Azuma and M. Ban, Another convex combination of product states for the separable Werner state, Phys. Rev. A 73, 032315 (2006).
  53. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996).
  54. C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher, Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996).
  55. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  56. X.-N. Zhu and S.-M. Fei, Improved lower and upper bounds for entanglement of formation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 054301 (2012).
  57. J. S. Kim, Entanglement of formation and monogamy of multi-party quantum entanglement, Sci. Rep. 11, 2364 (2021).
  58. A. Uhlmann, Roofs and convexity, Entropy 12, 1799 (2010).
  59. A. Uhlmann, Entropy and optimal decompositions of states relative to a maximal commutative subalgebra, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 5, 209 (1998).
  60. K. Audenaert, F. Verstraete, and B. De Moor, Variational characterizations of separability and entanglement of formation, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052304 (2001).
  61. U. Schollwoeck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011).
  62. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094423 (2006).
  63. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Entropy scaling and simulability by matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030504 (2008).
  64. P. Zoller, M. Marte, and D. F. Walls, Quantum jumps in atomic systems, Phys. Rev. A 35, 198 (1987).
  65. R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, Monte Carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A 45, 4879 (1992).
  66. H. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics: Lectures Presented at the Université Libre de Bruxelles October 28 to November 4, 1991, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs, Vol. 18 (Springer, Berlin, 1993).
  67. K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Monte Carlo wave-function method in quantum optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 10, 524 (1993).
  68. K. Mølmer and Y. Castin, Monte Carlo wavefunctions in quantum optics, Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 8, 49 (1996).
  69. M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998).
  70. A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Adv. Phys. 63, 77 (2014).
  71. W. Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 13 (1963).
  72. A. J. Ferris and G. Vidal, Perfect sampling with unitary tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 85, 165146 (2012).
  73. B. Vanhecke, M. Van Damme, J. Haegeman, L. Vanderstraeten, and F. Verstraete, Tangent-space methods for truncating uniform MPS, SciPost Phys. Core 4, 004 (2021).
  74. S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997).
  75. R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012).
  76. M. Houde, W. McCutcheon, and N. Quesada, Matrix decompositions in quantum optics: Takagi/Autonne, Bloch–Messiah/Euler, Iwasawa, and Williamson, Can. J. Phys. 102, 497 (2024).
  77. V. A. Marčenko and L. A. Pastur, Distribution of eigenvalues for some sets of random matrices, Math. USSR-Sbornik 1, 457 (1967).
  78. M. Žnidarič, Entanglement of random vectors, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, F105 (2007).
  79. A. A. Mele, Introduction to Haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner's tutorial, Quantum 8, 1340 (2024).
  80. J. M. Renes, Quantum Information Theory (De Gruyter Oldenbourg, Munich, 2022).
  81. J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018).
  82. B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement-induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entanglement, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031009 (2019).
  83. A. Zabalo, M. J. Gullans, J. H. Wilson, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and J. H. Pixley, Critical properties of the measurement-induced transition in random quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 101, 060301(R) (2020).
  84. Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measurements, Phys. Rev. B 101, 104301 (2020).
  85. C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Measurement-induced criticality in random quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 101, 104302 (2020).
  86. R. Suzuki, J. Haferkamp, J. Eisert, and P. Faist, Quantum complexity phase transitions in monitored random circuits, Quantum 9, 1627 (2025).
  87. B. Pirvu, V. Murg, J. I. Cirac, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product operator representations, New J. Phys. 12, 025012 (2010).
  88. J. Guth Jarkovský, A. Molnár, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Efficient description of many-body systems with matrix product density operators, PRX Quantum 1, 010304 (2020).
  89. H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Orús, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015008 (2021).
  90. M. Kliesch, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Matrix-product operators and states: NP-hardness and undecidability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 160503 (2014).
  91. D. Wellnitz, G. Preisser, V. Alba, J. Dubail, and J. Schachenmayer, Rise and fall, and slow rise again, of operator entanglement under dephasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 170401 (2022).
  92. L. Bonnes and A. M. Läuchli, Superoperators vs. trajectories for matrix product state simulations of open quantum system: A case study, arXiv:1411.4831.
  93. S. Wolff, A. Sheikhan, and C. Kollath, Numerical evaluation of two-time correlation functions in open quantum systems with matrix product state methods: A comparison, SciPost Phys. Core 3, 010 (2020).
  94. G. Preisser, D. Wellnitz, T. Botzung, and J. Schachenmayer, Comparing bipartite entropy growth in open-system matrix-product simulation methods, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012616 (2023).
  95. EPL. van Nieuwenburg, J. Y. Malo, A. J. Daley, and M. H. Fischer, Dynamics of many-body localization in the presence of particle loss, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 01LT02 (2018).
  96. F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004).
  97. M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Mixed-state dynamics in one-dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207205 (2004).
  98. A. H. Werner, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, M. Kliesch, T. Calarco, J. Eisert, and S. Montangero, Positive tensor network approach for simulating open quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 237201 (2016).
  99. S. Cheng, C. Cao, C. Zhang, Y. Liu, S.-Y. Hou, P. Xu, and B. Zeng, Simulating noisy quantum circuits with matrix product density operators, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023005 (2021).
  100. Y. Guo and S. Yang, Locally purified density operators for noisy quantum circuits, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 120302 (2024).
  101. G. D. las Cuevas, N. Schuch, D. Pérez-García, and J. I. Cirac, Purifications of multipartite states: Limitations and constructive methods, New J. Phys. 15, 123021 (2013).
  102. G. De las Cuevas, T. S. Cubitt, J. I. Cirac, M. M. Wolf, and D. Pérez-García, Fundamental limitations in the purifications of tensor networks, J. Math. Phys. 57, 071902 (2016).
  103. I. Glasser, R. Sweke, N. Pancotti, J. Eisert, and I. Cirac, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY, 2019), Vol. 32.
  104. G. De las Cuevas, A. Klingler, and T. Netzer, Approximate tensor decompositions: Disappearance of many separations, J. Math. Phys. 62, 093502 (2021).
  105. P. Rall, D. Liang, J. Cook, and W. Kretschmer, Simulation of qubit quantum circuits via Pauli propagation, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062337 (2019).
  106. Q. Huang and C. B. Mendl, Classical simulation of quantum circuits using a multiqubit Bloch vector representation of density matrices, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022409 (2022).
  107. T. Begušić, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Sci. Adv. 10, eadk4321 (2024).
  108. T. Begušić, K. Hejazi, and G. K.-L. Chan, Simulating quantum circuit expectation values by Clifford perturbation theory, J. Chem. Phys. 162, 154110 (2025).
  109. E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, R. Duncan, I. Rungger, and C. Cîrstoiu, Classical simulations of noisy variational quantum circuits, npj Quantum Inf. 11, 84 (2025).
  110. M. S. Rudolph, E. gottes, Z. Holmes, and L. Cincio, Classical surrogate simulation of quantum systems with LOWESA, arXiv:2308.09109.
  111. I. Ermakov, O. Lychkovskiy, and T. Byrnes, Unified framework for efficiently computable quantum circuits, arXiv:2401.08187.
  112. Y. Shao, F. Wei, S. Cheng, and Z. Liu, Simulating noisy variational quantum algorithms: A polynomial approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 120603 (2024).
  113. A. Angrisani, A. Schmidhuber, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Classically estimating observables of noiseless quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 170602 (2025).
  114. C. Cirstoiu, A Fourier analysis framework for approximate classical simulations of quantum circuits, arXiv:2410.13856.
  115. S. Lerch, R. Puig, M. S. Rudolph, A. Angrisani, T. Jones, M. Cerezo, S. Thanasilp, and Z. Holmes, Efficient quantum-enhanced classical simulation for patches of quantum landscapes, PRX Quantum 7, 020359 (2026).
  116. A. Angrisani, A. A. Mele, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, and Z. Holmes, Simulating quantum circuits with arbitrary local noise using Pauli propagation, PRX Quantum 7, 020313 (2026).
  117. V. Martinez, A. Angrisani, E. Pankovets, O. Fawzi, and D. Stilck França, Efficient simulation of parametrized quantum circuits under nonunital noise through Pauli backpropagation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 250602 (2025).
  118. M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y. Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems, arXiv:2505.21606.
  119. J. Nelson, J. Rajakumar, D. Hangleiter, and M. J. Gullans, Polynomial-time classical simulation of noisy quantum circuits with naturally fault-tolerant gates, arXiv:2411.02535.
  120. J. Rajakumar, J. D. Watson, and Y.-K. Liu, in Proceedings of the 2025 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), SODA '25 (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2025), pp. 1037–1056.
  121. D. P. DiVincenzo, B. M. Terhal, and A. V. Thapliyal, Optimal decompositions of barely separable states, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 377 (2000).
  122. B. M. Terhal and K. G. H. Vollbrecht, Entanglement of formation for isotropic states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2625 (2000).
  123. K. G. H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Why two qubits are special, J. Math. Phys. 41, 6772 (2000).
  124. K. G. H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Entanglement measures under symmetry, Phys. Rev. A 64, 062307 (2001).
  125. S. Gharibian, Strong NP-hardness of the quantum separability problem, Quantum Inf. Comput. 10, 343 (2010).
  126. S. Trotzky, Y.-A. Chen, A. Flesch, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwöck, J. Eisert, and I. Bloch, Probing the relaxation towards equilibrium in an isolated strongly correlated one-dimensional Bose gas, Nat. Phys. 8, 325 (2012).
  127. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. Wei, E. Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023).
  128. J. Tindall, M. Fishman, E. M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Efficient tensor network simulation of IBM's Eagle kicked Ising experiment, PRX Quantum 5, 010308 (2024).
  129. Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What limits the simulation of quantum computers? Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020).
  130. S. Patra, S. S. Jahromi, S. Singh, and R. Orús, Efficient tensor network simulation of IBM's largest quantum processors, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013326 (2024).
  131. Locally entanglement optimal code repository, https://github.com/SimonCichy/locally-entanglement-optimal-unraveling.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 114, 022430– Published 17 August, 2026
  • Received 15 October 2025
  • Revised 22 June 2026
  • Accepted 9 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation