- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

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

Using matrix-product states for time-series machine learning

Joshua B. Moore1,*, Hugo P. Stackhouse1,†, Ben D. Fulcher1, and Sahand Mahmoodian2,3,‡

  • *Contact author: joshua.moore@sydney.edu.au
  • †Contact author: hugo.stackhouse@sydney.edu.au
  • ‡Contact author: sahand.mahmoodian@sydney.edu.au
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043010 – Published 1 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/61h8-8qr5

Abstract

Matrix-product states (MPS) have proven to be a versatile ansatz for modeling quantum many-body physics. For many applications, and particularly in one-dimension, they capture relevant quantum correlations in many-body wave functions while remaining tractable (polynomial scaling) to store and manipulate on a classical computer. This has motivated researchers to also apply the MPS ansatz to machine learning (ML) problems where capturing complex correlations in datasets is also a key requirement. Here, for the first time, we develop an MPS-based algorithm, MPSTime, for learning a joint probability distribution underlying a time-series dataset, and show how it can be used to tackle important time-series ML problems, including classification and imputation. MPSTime can efficiently learn complicated time-series probability distributions directly from data, requires only moderate maximum MPS bond dimension χmax (with values for our applications ranging between χmax=20−160), and can be trained for both classification and imputation tasks under a single logarithmic loss function. Using synthetic and publicly available real-world datasets—spanning applications in medicine, energy, and astronomy—we demonstrate performance competitive with state-of-the-art ML approaches, but with the key advantage of encoding the full joint probability distribution learned from the data, which is useful for analyzing and interpreting its underlying structure. This manuscript is supplemented with the release of a publicly available code package MPSTime that implements our approach, and can be used to reproduce all presented results. The effectiveness of the MPS-based ansatz for capturing complex correlation structures in time-series data makes it a powerful foundation for tackling challenging time-series analysis problems across science, industry, and medicine.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (106)

  1. M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, Commun. Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992).
  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. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014).
  4. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011).
  5. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product states represent ground states faithfully, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094423 (2006).
  6. B. Pirvu, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and L. Tagliacozzo, Matrix product states for critical spin chains: Finite-size versus finite-entanglement scaling, Phys. Rev. B 86, 075117 (2012).
  7. M. T. Manzoni, D. E. Chang, and J. S. Douglas, Simulating quantum light propagation through atomic ensembles using matrix product states, Nat. Commun. 8, 1743 (2017).
  8. S. Mahmoodian, G. Calajó, D. E. Chang, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Dynamics of many-body photon bound states in chiral waveguide QED, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031011 (2020).
  9. H. Pichler and P. Zoller, Photonic circuits with time delays and quantum feedback, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 093601 (2016).
  10. S. Mahmoodian, Chiral light-matter interaction beyond the rotating-wave approximation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 133603 (2019).
  11. G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  12. 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).
  13. I. V. Oseledets, Tensor-train decomposition, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33, 2295 (2011).
  14. G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004).
  15. E. M. Stoudenmire and D. J. Schwab, Supervised learning with tensor networks, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, December 5–10, 2016, Barcelona, Spain, edited by D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. V. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett (2016), pp. 4799–4807.
  16. Z.-Y. Han, J. Wang, H. Fan, L. Wang, and P. Zhang, Unsupervised generative modeling using matrix product states, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031012 (2018).
  17. A. Dymarsky and K. Pavlenko, Tensor network to learn the wave function of data, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043111 (2022).
  18. S. Cheng, L. Wang, T. Xiang, and P. Zhang, Tree tensor networks for generative modeling, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155131 (2019).
  19. S.-J. Ran, Z.-Z. Sun, S.-M. Fei, G. Su, and M. Lewenstein, Tensor network compressed sensing with unsupervised machine learning, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033293 (2020).
  20. A. Meiburg, J. Chen, J. Miller, R. Tihon, G. Rabusseau, and A. Perdomo-Ortiz, Generative learning of continuous data by tensor networks, SciPost Phys. 18, 096 (2025).
  21. A. Mossi, B. Žunkovic, and K. Flouris, A matrix product state model for simultaneous classification and generation, Quantum Mach. Intell. 7, 48 (2025).
  22. J. Wang, C. Roberts, G. Vidal, and S. Leichenauer, Anomaly detection with tensor networks, arXiv:2006.02516.
  23. B. Žunkovič, Positive unlabeled learning with tensor networks, Neurocomputing 552, 126556 (2023).
  24. B. Aizpurua, S. Palmer, and R. Orus, Tensor networks for explainable machine learning in cybersecurity, Neurocomputing 639, 130211 (2025).
  25. R. Selvan and E. B. Dam, Tensor networks for medical image classification, in Proceedings of the Third Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, edited by T. Arbel, I. Ben Ayed, M. de Bruijne, M. Descoteaux, H. Lombaert, and C. Pal (PMLR, 2020), Vol. 121, pp. 721–732.
  26. X. Shi, Y. Shang, and C. Guo, Clustering using matrix product states, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052424 (2022).
  27. S.-C. Bai, Y.-C. Tang, and S.-J. Ran, Unsupervised recognition of informative features via tensor network machine learning and quantum entanglement variations, Chin. Phys. Lett. 39, 100701 (2022).
  28. Y. Liu, W.-J. Li, X. Zhang, M. Lewenstein, G. Su, and S.-J. Ran, Entanglement-based feature extraction by tensor network machine learning, Front. Appl. Math. Stat. 7, 716044 (2021).
  29. A. S. Bhatia, M. K. Saggi, A. Kumar, and S. Jain, Matrix product state-based quantum classifier, Neural Computation 31, 1499 (2019).
  30. J. A. Reyes and E. M. Stoudenmire, Multi-scale tensor network architecture for machine learning, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 2, 035036 (2021).
  31. J. Y. Araz and M. Spannowsky, Quantum-inspired event reconstruction with tensor networks: Matrix product states, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2021) 112.
  32. T. Felser, M. Trenti, L. Sestini, A. Gianelle, D. Zuliani, D. Lucchesi, and S. Montangero, Quantum-inspired machine learning on high-energy physics data, npj Quantum Information 7, 111 (2021).
  33. R. Guidotti, A. Monreale, S. Ruggieri, F. Turini, F. Giannotti, and D. Pedreschi, A survey of methods for explaining black box models, in Proceedings of the ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2018), Vol. 51, pp. 1–42.
  34. B. D. Fulcher, Feature-based time-series analysis, in Feature Engineering for Machine Learning and Data Analytics, edited by G. Dong and H. Liu, 1st ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018), pp. 87–116.
  35. Q. Wen, T. Zhou, C. Zhang, W. Chen, Z. Ma, J. Yan, and L. Sun, Transformers in time series: A survey, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Survey Track15 (IJCAI, 2023), pp. 6778–6786.
  36. L. Girin, S. Leglaive, X. Bie, J. Diard, T. Hueber, and X. Alameda-Pineda, Dynamical variational autoencoders: A comprehensive review, FNT Mach. Learn. 15, 1 (2021).
  37. D. Zhang, M. Ma, and L. Xia, A comprehensive review on gans for time-series signals, Neural Comput. Appl. 34, 3551 (2022).
  38. Y. Yang, M. Jin, H. Wen, C. Zhang, Y. Liang, L. Ma, Y. Wang, C. Liu, B. Yang, Z. Xu, J. Bian, S. Pan, and Q. Wen, A survey on diffusion models for time series and spatio-temporal data, arXiv:2404.18886.
  39. https://github.com/hugopstackhouse/MPSTime.jl.
  40. B. D. Fulcher, M. A. Little, and N. S. Jones, Highly comparative time-series analysis: The empirical structure of time series and their methods, J. R. Soc. Interface 10, 20130048 (2013).
  41. S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, On information and sufficiency, Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 79 (1951).
  42. Z. Li and P. Zhang, Shortcut matrix product states and its applications, arXiv:1812.05248.
  43. Z.-z. Sun, S.-j. Ran, and G. Su, Tangent-Space gradient optimization of tensor network for machine learning, Phys. Rev. E 102, 012152 (2020).
  44. J. Liu, S. Li, J. Zhang, and P. Zhang, Tensor networks for unsupervised machine learning, Phys. Rev. E 107, L012103 (2023).
  45. K. Kreutz-Delgado, The complex gradient operator and the CR-calculus, arXiv:0906.4835.
  46. J. Wang, W. Du, W. Cao, K. Zhang, W. Wang, Y. Liang, and Q. Wen, Deep learning for multivariate time series imputation: A survey, arXiv:2402.04059.
  47. C. Fang and C. Wang, Time series data imputation: A survey on deep learning approaches, arXiv:2011.11347.
  48. R. A. Garcıa, S. Mathur, S. Pires, C. Regulo, B. Bellamy, P. L. Palle, J. Ballot, S. B. Forteza, P. G. Beck, T. R. Bedding, T. Ceillier, T. R. Cortes, D. Salabert, and D. Stello, Impact on asteroseismic analyses of regular gaps in Kepler data, A&A 568, A10 (2014).
  49. M. S. Osman, A. M. Abu-Mahfouz, and P. R. Page, A survey on data imputation techniques: Water distribution system as a use case, IEEE Access 6, 63279 (2018).
  50. L. Beretta and A. Santaniello, Nearest neighbor imputation algorithms: A critical evaluation, BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 16, 74 (2016).
  51. Y. Luo, X. Cai, Y. Zhang, J. Xu, and Y. Xiaojie, Multivariate time series imputation with generative adversarial networks, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Curran Associates, Inc., Red Hook, NY, 2018), Vol. 31, pp. 1603–1614.
  52. J. T. McCoy, S. Kroon, and L. Auret, Variational autoencoders for missing data imputation with application to a simulated milling circuit, IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 141 (2018).
  53. R. Penrose, Applications of negative dimensional tensors, in Combinatorial Mathematics and its Applications: Proceedings of a Conference held at the Mathematical Institute, Oxford, 7–10 July 1969, edited by D. J. A. Welsh (Academic Press, London, New York, 1971), pp. 221–244.
  54. A. J. Ferris and G. Vidal, Perfect sampling with unitary tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 85, 165146 (2012).
  55. C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, Information Science and Statistics (Springer, New York, 2006).
  56. Y. Chen, E. Keogh, B. Hu, N. Begum, A. Bagnall, A. Mueen, and G. Batista, The UCR Time Series Classification Archive (2015), www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/time_series_data/.
  57. University of California, Riverside, & University of Southampton, ECG200 UCR Archive Dataset [Data set], Zenodo (2018), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11186675.
  58. R. T. Olszewski, R. A. Maxion, and D. P. Siewiorek, Generalized feature extraction for structural pattern recognition in time-series data, Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001).
  59. University of California, Riverside, & University of Southampton, ItalyPowerDemand [Data set], Zenodo (2018), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11197656.
  60. E. Keogh, L. Wei, X. Xi, S. Lonardi, J. Shieh, and S. Sirowy, Intelligent icons: Integrating lite-weight data mining and visualization into GUI operating systems, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'06) (IEEE, Hong Kong, China, 2006), pp. 912–916.
  61. University of Southampton, KeplerLightCurves [Data set], Zenodo (2024), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11218015.
  62. University of Southampton, KeplerLightCurves (2024).
  63. S. Moritz, A. Sardá, T. Bartz-Beielstein, M. Zaefferer, and J. Stork, Comparison of different methods for univariate time series imputation in R, arXiv:1510.03924.
  64. B. Sanwouo, C. Quinton, and R. Rouvoy, TS-Pothole: Automated imputation of missing values in univariate time series, Neural Comput. Appl. 36, 22923 (2024).
  65. M. Khayati, M. Bohlen, and J. Gamper, Memory-efficient centroid decomposition for long time series, in 2014 IEEE 30th International Conference on Data Engineering (IEEE, Chicago, IL, 2014), pp. 100–111.
  66. Y. Tashiro, J. Song, Y. Song, and S. Ermon, CSDI: Conditional score-based diffusion models for probabilistic time series imputation, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, Curran Associates, Inc., 2021), pp. 24804–24816.
  67. W. Cao, D. Wang, J. Li, H. Zhou, L. Li, and Y. Li, BRITS: Bidirectional recurrent imputation for time series, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Inc., 2018), Vol. 31.
  68. M. Khayati, A. Lerner, Z. Tymchenko, and P. Cudré-Mauroux, Mind the gap: An experimental evaluation of imputation of missing values techniques in time series, Proc. VLDB Endow. 13, 768 (2020).
  69. W. Du, PyPOTS: A Python toolbox for data mining on partially-observed time series, arXiv:2305.18811.
  70. A. Bagnall, J. Lines, A. Bostrom, J. Large, and E. Keogh, The great time series classification bake off: A review and experimental evaluation of recent algorithmic advances, Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 31, 606 (2017).
  71. H. I. Fawaz, B. Lucas, G. Forestier, C. Pelletier, D. F. Schmidt, J. Weber, G. I. Webb, L. Idoumghar, P.-A. Muller, and F. Petitjean, InceptionTime: Finding AlexNet for time series classification, Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 34, 1936 (2020).
  72. M. Middlehurst, J. Large, M. Flynn, J. Lines, A. Bostrom, and A. Bagnall, HIVE-COTE 2.0: A new meta ensemble for time series classification, Mach. Learn. 110, 3211 (2021).
  73. M. Middlehurst, P. Schäfer, and A. Bagnall, Bake off redux: A review and experimental evaluation of recent time series classification algorithms, Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 38, 1958 (2024).
  74. B. Zanchi, G. Monachino, L. Fiorillo, G. Conte, A. Auricchio, A. Tzovara, and F. D. Faraci, Synthetic ECG signals generation: A scoping review, Comput. Biol. Med. 184, 109453 (2025).
  75. C. Esteban, S. L. Hyland, and G. Rätsch, Real-valued (medical) time series generation with recurrent conditional GANs, arXiv:1706.02633.
  76. Y.-H. Huang, C. Xu, Y. Wu, W.-J. Li, and J. Bian, TimeDP: Learning to generate multi-domain time series with domain prompts, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI, Reston, VA, 2025), Vol. 39, pp. 17520–17527.
  77. S. Bischoff et al., A practical guide to sample-based statistical distances for evaluating generative models in science, Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. (2024).
  78. M. Hayashi, S. Ishizaka, A. Kawachi, G. Kimura, and T. Ogawa, Information quantities in quantum systems, in Introduction to Quantum Information Science, edited by M. Hayashi, S. Ishizaka, A. Kawachi, G. Kimura, and T. Ogawa (Springer, Berlin, 2015), pp. 127–166.
  79. J. Martyn, G. Vidal, C. Roberts, and S. Leichenauer, Entanglement and tensor networks for supervised image classification, arXiv:2007.06082.
  80. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Info. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  81. Y. Liu, T. Dillon, W. Yu, W. Rahayu, and F. Mostafa, Missing value imputation for industrial IoT sensor data with large gaps, IEEE Int. Things J. 7, 6855 (2020).
  82. S. J. Hadeed, M. K. O'Rourke, J. L. Burgess, R. B. Harris, and R. A. Canales, Imputation methods for addressing missing data in short-term monitoring of air pollutants, Sci. Total Environ. 730, 139140 (2020).
  83. E. Afrifa-Yamoah, U. A. Mueller, S. M. Taylor, and A. J. Fisher, Missing data imputation of high-resolution temporal climate time series data, Meteorol. Appl. 27, e1873 (2020).
  84. M. Kazijevs and M. D. Samad, Deep imputation of missing values in time series health data: A review with benchmarking, J. Biomed. Inform. 144, 104440 (2023).
  85. M. Stenger, R. Leppich, I. Foster, S. Kounev, and A. Bauer, Evaluation is key: A survey on evaluation measures for synthetic time series, J. Big Data 11, 66 (2024).
  86. G. Vidal, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007).
  87. K. S. Owens and B. D. Fulcher, Parameter inference from a non-stationary unknown process, Chaos 34, 101501 (2024).
  88. S. Cheng, L. Wang, and P. Zhang, Supervised learning with projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. B 103, 125117 (2021).
  89. F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Renormalization algorithms for quantum-many body systems in two and higher dimensions, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066.
  90. J. Jam, C. Kendrick, K. Walker, V. Drouard, J. G.-S. Hsu, and M. H. Yap, A comprehensive review of past and present image inpainting methods, Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 203, 103147 (2021).
  91. H. Xiang, Q. Zou, M. A. Nawaz, X. Huang, F. Zhang, and H. Yu, Deep learning for image inpainting: A survey, Pattern Recognit. 134, 109046 (2023).
  92. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Computational complexity of projected entangled pair states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140506 (2007).
  93. J. Haferkamp, D. Hangleiter, J. Eisert, and M. Gluza, Contracting projected entangled pair states is average-case hard, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013010 (2020).
  94. K. Hyatt and E. M. Stoudenmire, DMRG approach to optimizing two-dimensional tensor networks, arXiv:1908.08833.
  95. S. González-García, S. Sang, T. H. Hsieh, S. Boixo, G. Vidal, A. C. Potter, and R. Vasseur, Random insights into the complexity of two-dimensional tensor network calculations, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235102 (2024).
  96. S. Schmidl, P. Wenig, and T. Papenbrock, Anomaly detection in time series: A comprehensive evaluation, Proc. VLDB Endow. 15, 1779 (2022).
  97. C. W. Tan, C. Bergmeir, F. Petitjean, and G. I. Webb, Time series extrinsic regression, Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 35, 1032 (2021).
  98. M. Loni, F. Poursalim, M. Asadi, and A. Gharehbaghi, A review on generative AI models for synthetic medical text, time series, and longitudinal data, npj Digit. Med. 8, 281 (2025).
  99. E. Brophy, Z. Wang, Q. She, and T. Ward, Generative adversarial networks in time series: A systematic literature review, ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 1 (2023).
  100. S. Bhat and E. Hortal, GAN-based data augmentation for improving the classification of EEG signals, in Proceedings of the 14th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference (ACM, Corfu, Greece, 2021), pp. 453–458.
  101. S. Takahashi, Y. Chen, and K. Tanaka-Ishii, Modeling financial time-series with generative adversarial networks, Physica A 527, 121261 (2019).
  102. M. Alzantot, S. Chakraborty, and M. B. Srivastava, SenseGen: A deep learning architecture for synthetic sensor data generation, in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2017).
  103. A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 299 (2009).
  104. J. Moore and H. Stackhouse, MPSTime.Jl paper code, In Physical Review Research (PRR) (v1.1), Zenodo (2025), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17051280.
  105. S. Bates, J. Sienz, and V. Toropov, Formulation of the optimal latin hypercube design of experiments using a permutation genetic algorithm, in Proceedings of the 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference, (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004).
  106. M. Middlehurst, A. Ismail-Fawaz, A. Guillaume, C. Holder, D. Guijo-Rubio, G. Bulatova, L. Tsaprounis, L. Mentel, M. Walter, P. Schäfer, and A. Bagnall, aeon: A Python toolkit for learning from time series, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 25, 1 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043010– Published 1 October, 2025
  • Received 11 May 2025
  • Accepted 1 September 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