- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review B

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

Improved contraction of finite projected entangled pair states

Markus Scheb*

  • *Contact author: mrks.scheb@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. B 113, 205101 – Published 1 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/sfxv-fvyc

Abstract

We present an improved version of the algorithm contracting and optimizing finite projected entangled pair states (fPEPS) in conjunction with projected entangled pair operators (PEPOs). Our work has two components to it. First, we explain in detail the characteristic contraction patterns that occur in fPEPS calculations and how to slice them such that peak memory occupation remains minimal while ensuring efficient parallel computation. Second, we combine controlled bond expansion [A. Gleis, J.-W. Li, and J. von Delft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 246402 (2023)] with randomized singular value decomposition [V. Rokhlin, A. Szlam, and M. Tygert, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 31, 1100 (2009)] and apply it throughout the fPEPS algorithm. We present benchmark results for the Hubbard model for system sizes up to 8×8 and SU(2) symmetric bond dimension of up to D=6 for PEPS bonds and χ=500 for the environment bonds. Finally, we comment on the state and future of the fPEPS-PEPO framework.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (45)

  1. R. Orús, Tensor networks for complex quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 538 (2019).
  2. 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).
  3. M. C. Bañuls, Tensor network algorithms: A route map, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 173 (2023).
  4. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  5. S. R. White, Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345 (1993).
  6. S. Rommer and S. Östlund, Class of ansatz wave functions for one-dimensional spin systems and their relation to the density matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 55, 2164 (1997).
  7. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011).
  8. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066.
  9. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, PEPS as unique ground states of local Hamiltonians, Quant. Inf. Comp. 8, 0650 (2008).
  10. N. Schuch, I. Cirac, and D. Pérez-García, PEPS as ground states: Degeneracy and topology, Ann. Phys. 325, 2153 (2010).
  11. F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, and J. I. Cirac, Criticality, the area law, and the computational power of projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 220601 (2006).
  12. J. Jordan, R. Orús, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008).
  13. P. Corboz, Variational optimization with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035133 (2016).
  14. H. N. Phien, J. A. Bengua, H. D. Tuan, P. Corboz, and R. Orús, Infinite projected entangled pair states algorithm improved: Fast full update and gauge fixing, Phys. Rev. B 92, 035142 (2015).
  15. P. Corboz, S. R. White, G. Vidal, and M. Troyer, Stripes in the two-dimensional t−J model with infinite projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 84, 041108(R) (2011).
  16. P. Corboz, Improved energy extrapolation with infinite projected entangled-pair states applied to the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045116 (2016).
  17. C. Zhang, J.-W. Li, D. Nikolaidou, and J. von Delft, Frustration-induced superconductivity in the t−t′ Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 116502 (2025).
  18. J.-W. Li, B. Bruognolo, A. Weichselbaum, and J. von Delft, Study of spin symmetry in the doped t−J model using infinite projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 103, 075127 (2021).
  19. M. P. Zaletel and F. Pollmann, Isometric tensor network states in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 037201 (2020).
  20. T. Soejima, K. Siva, N. Bultinck, S. Chatterjee, F. Pollmann, and M. P. Zaletel, Isometric tensor network representation of string-net liquids, Phys. Rev. B 101, 085117 (2020).
  21. S.-H. Lin, M. P. Zaletel, and F. Pollmann, Efficient simulation of dynamics in two-dimensional quantum spin systems with isometric tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 106, 245102 (2022).
  22. W. Kadow, F. Pollmann, and M. Knap, Isometric tensor network representations of two-dimensional thermal states, Phys. Rev. B 107, 205106 (2023).
  23. P. Emonts and E. Zohar, Fermionic Gaussian projected entangled pair states in 3+1D: Rotations and relativistic limits, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014514 (2023).
  24. Q. Yang, X.-Y. Zhang, H.-J. Liao, H.-H. Tu, and L. Wang, Projected d-wave superconducting state: A fermionic projected entangled pair state study, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125128 (2023).
  25. J.-W. Li, J. von Delft, and H.-H. Tu, U(1)-symmetric Gaussian fermionic projected entangled paired states and their Gutzwiller projection, Phys. Rev. B 107, 085148 (2023).
  26. T. Vieijra, J. Haegeman, F. Verstraete, and L. Vanderstraeten, Direct sampling of projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. B 104, 235141 (2021).
  27. J. Hasik, M. Van Damme, D. Poilblanc, and L. Vanderstraeten, Simulating chiral spin liquids with projected entangled-pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 177201 (2022).
  28. A. Sinha, M. M. Rams, and J. Dziarmaga, Efficient representation of minimally entangled typical thermal states in two dimensions via projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045136 (2024).
  29. M. Lubasch, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Bañuls, Algorithms for finite projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 90, 064425 (2014).
  30. M. Lubasch, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Bañuls, Unifying projected entangled pair state contractions, New J. Phys. 16, 033014 (2014).
  31. M. Scheb and R. M. Noack, Finite projected entangled pair states for the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 107, 165112 (2023).
  32. A. Gleis, J.-W. Li, and J. von Delft, Controlled bond expansion for density matrix renormalization group ground state search at single-site costs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 246402 (2023).
  33. V. Rokhlin, A. Szlam, and M. Tygert, A randomized algorithm for principal component analysis, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 31, 1100 (2009).
  34. N. Halko, P. G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp, Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions, SIAM Rev. 53, 217 (2011).
  35. G. M. Crosswhite, A. C. Doherty, and G. Vidal, Applying matrix product operators to model systems with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. B 78, 035116 (2008).
  36. G. M. Crosswhite and D. Bacon, Finite automata for caching in matrix product algorithms, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012356 (2008).
  37. A. Gleis, J.-W. Li, and J. von Delft, Projector formalism for kept and discarded spaces of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 106, 195138 (2022).
  38. I. P. McCulloch and J. J. Osborne, Comment on “controlled bond expansion for density matrix renormalization group ground state search at single-site costs” (Extended version), arXiv:2403.00562.
  39. G. Evenbly, Gauge fixing, canonical forms, and optimal truncations in tensor networks with closed loops, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085155 (2018).
  40. G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 2013).
  41. B.-X. Zheng, C.-M. Chung, P. Corboz, G. Ehlers, M.-P. Qin, R. M. Noack, H. Shi, S. R. White, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Stripe order in the underdoped region of the two-dimensional Hubbard model, Science 358, 1155 (2017).
  42. H.-Y. Lin, Y. Guo, R.-Q. He, Z. Y. Xie, and Z.-Y. Lu, Green's function Monte Carlo combined with projected entangled pair state approach to the frustrated J1−J2 Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235133 (2024).
  43. W.-Y. Liu, H. Zhai, R. Peng, Z.-C. Gu, and G. K.-L. Chan, Accurate simulation of the Hubbard model with finite fermionic projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 256502 (2025).
  44. J. Tindall and M. Fishman, Gauging tensor networks with belief propagation, SciPost Phys. 15, 222 (2023).
  45. G. Evenbly, N. Pancotti, A. Milsted, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, Loop series expansions for tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 013245 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. B 113, 205101– Published 1 May, 2026
  • Received 2 November 2025
  • Revised 1 March 2026
  • Accepted 14 April 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