- 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

Riemannian approach to the Lindbladian dynamics of a locally purified tensor network

Emiliano Godinez-Ramirez1,2,*, Richard M. Milbradt1,†, and Christian B. Mendl1,3,‡

  • *Contact author: cristian.godinez@tum.de
  • †Contact author: r.milbradt@tum.de
  • ‡Contact author: christian.mendl@tum.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 112, 012224 – Published 28 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/kztw-ywxr

Abstract

Tensor networks offer a valuable framework for implementing Lindbladian dynamics in many-body open quantum systems with nearest-neighbor couplings. In particular, a tensor network Ansatz known as the locally purified density operator employs the local purification of the density matrix to guarantee the positivity of the state at all times. Within this framework, the dissipative evolution utilizes the Trotter-Suzuki splitting, yielding a second-order approximation error. However, due to the Lindbladian dynamics' nature, employing higher-order schemes results in nonphysical quantum channels. In this work, we leverage the gauge freedom inherent in the Kraus representation of quantum channels to improve the splitting error. To this end, we formulate an optimization problem on the Riemannian manifold of isometries and find a solution via the second-order trust-region algorithm. We validate our approach using two nearest-neighbor noise models and achieve an improvement of orders of magnitude compared to other positivity-preserving schemes. In addition, we demonstrate the usefulness of our method as a compression scheme, helping to control the exponential growth of computational resources, which thus far has limited the use of the locally purified Ansatz.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (37)

  1. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010).
  2. D. Manzano, A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation, AIP Adv. 10, 025106 (2020).
  3. M. B. Hastings, Solving gapped Hamiltonians locally, Phys. Rev. B 73, 085115 (2006).
  4. 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).
  5. G. D. l. Cuevas, N. Schuch, D. Pérez-García, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Purifications of multipartite states: Limitations and constructive methods, New J. Phys. 15, 123021 (2013).
  6. 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).
  7. M. Suzuki, General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics, J. Math. Phys. 32, 400 (1991).
  8. P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre, Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008).
  9. R. Brieger, I. Roth, and M. Kliesch, Compressive gate set tomography, PRX Quantum 4, 010325 (2023).
  10. S. Diehl, E. Rico, M. A. Baranov, and P. Zoller, Topology by dissipation in atomic quantum wires, Nat. Phys. 7, 971 (2011).
  11. E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse Pauli–Lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Nat. Phys. 19, 1116 (2023).
  12. M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, Commun. Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992).
  13. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  14. 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).
  15. M. Kliesch, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Matrix-product operators and states: NP-hardness and undecidability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 160503 (2014).
  16. H. Pichler, J. Schachenmayer, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Heating dynamics of bosonic atoms in a noisy optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033606 (2013).
  17. G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  18. M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert, Dissipative quantum Church-Turing theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 120501 (2011).
  19. C. J. Wood, J. D. Biamonte, and D. G. Cory, Tensor networks and graphical calculus for open quantum systems, Quantum Inf. Comput. 15, 0759 (2015).
  20. A. Edelman, T. A. Arias, and S. T. Smith, The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 20, 303 (1998).
  21. D. Nguyen, Operator valued formulas for riemannian gradient and Hessian and families of tractable metrics in Riemannian optimization, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 198, 135 (2023).
  22. R. Zhang, Newton retraction as approximate geodesics on submanifolds, arXiv:2006.14751.
  23. H. Yoshida, Construction of higher order symplectic integrators, Phys. Lett. A 150, 262 (1990).
  24. S. Blanes and P. Moan, Practical symplectic partitioned Runge–Kutta and Runge–Kutta–Nyström methods, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 142, 313 (2002).
  25. I. Luchnikov, A. Ryzhov, S. Filippov, and H. Ouerdane, QGOpt: Riemannian optimization for quantum technologies, SciPost Phys. 10, 079 (2021).
  26. Python software foundation, Python Language Reference, version 3.11 (2022), https://www.python.org.
  27. E. Godinez, OpenTN: A Riemannian approach to the Lindbladian dynamics of a locally purified tensor network, https://github.com/EmilianoG-byte/opentn.
  28. C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del Río, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. Gérard-Marchant et al., Array programming with NumPy, Nature (London) 585, 357 (2020).
  29. J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. Johnson, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Necula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, version 0.3.13 (2018), http://github.com/jax-ml/jax.
  30. J. Manton, Optimization algorithms exploiting unitary constraints, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 50, 635 (2002).
  31. Y. Cao and J. Lu, Structure-preserving numerical schemes for Lindblad equations, J. Sci. Comput. 102, 27 (2025).
  32. 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).
  33. A. Müller, T. Ayral, and C. Bertrand, Enabling large-depth simulation of noisy quantum circuits with positive tensor networks, arXiv:2403.00152.
  34. A. Kotil, R. Banerjee, Q. Huang, and C. B. Mendl, Riemannian quantum circuit optimization for Hamiltonian simulation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57, 135303 (2024).
  35. D. Dereniowski and M. Kubale, Cholesky factorization of matrices in parallel and ranking of graphs, in Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics, edited by R. Wyrzykowski, J. Dongarra, M. Paprzycki, and J. Waśniewski (Springer, Berlin, 2004), pp. 985–992.
  36. M. Hauru, M. Van Damme, and J. Haegeman, Riemannian optimization of isometric tensor networks, SciPost Phys. 10, 040 (2021).
  37. N. J. Higham, C. Mehl, and F. Tisseur, The canonical generalized polar decomposition, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 31, 2163 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 112, 012224– Published 28 July, 2025
  • Received 3 February 2025
  • Accepted 23 June 2025
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