- 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

Dynamical cluster-based strategy for improving tensor network algorithms in quantum circuit simulations

Andrea De Girolamo1,2,3,4,*, Paolo Facchi1,5, Peter Rabl6,7,8, Saverio Pascazio1,5, Cosmo Lupo1,5, and Giuseppe Magnifico1,5

  • *Contact author: andrea.degirolamo@phd.unipd.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043170 – Published 17 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/x7x4-kn4n

Abstract

We optimize matrix-product state-based algorithms for simulating quantum circuits with finite fidelity, specifically the time-evolving block decimation (TEBD) and the density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithms, by exploiting the irregular arrangement of entangling operations in circuits. We introduce a variation of the standard TEBD algorithm, we termed “cluster-TEBD,” which dynamically arranges qubits into entanglement clusters, enabling the exact contraction of multiple circuit layers in a single time step. Moreover, we enhance the DMRG algorithm by introducing an adaptive protocol, which analyzes the entanglement distribution within each circuit section to be contracted, dynamically adjusting the qubit grouping at each iteration. We analyze the performances of these enhanced algorithms in simulating both stabilizer and nonstabilizer random-structured quantum circuits, with up to 1000 qubits and 100 layers of Clifford and non-Clifford gates, and in simulating Shor's quantum algorithm with up to hundreds of thousands of layers. Our findings show that, even with reasonable computational resources per task, cluster-based approaches can significantly speed up simulations of large-sized quantum circuits and improve the fidelity of the final states.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (72)

  1. L. K. Grover, A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search, in Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC’96 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1996), pp. 212–219.
  2. P. W. Shor, Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer, SIAM Rev. 41, 303 (1999).
  3. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010).
  4. J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  5. R. Acharya et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature (London) 638, 920 (2025).
  6. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014).
  7. S. Montangero, Introduction to Tensor Network Methods (Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2018).
  8. 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).
  9. M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, Commun. Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992).
  10. D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix product state representations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 7, 401 (2007).
  11. G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003).
  12. S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992).
  13. U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005).
  14. Y. Zhou, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, What limits the simulation of quantum computers? Phys. Rev. X 10, 041038 (2020).
  15. F. Arute et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  16. S. Aaronson and L. Chen, Complexity-theoretic foundations of quantum supremacy experiments, in Proceedings of the 32nd Computational Complexity Conference, CCC’17 (Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, DEU, 2017).
  17. A. W. Harrow and A. Montanaro, Quantum computational supremacy, Nature (London) 549, 203 (2017).
  18. A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sampling, Nat. Phys. 15, 159 (2019).
  19. Y. Makhlin, G. Scöhn, and A. Shnirman, Josephson-junction qubits with controlled couplings, Nature (London) 398, 305 (1999).
  20. P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019).
  21. J. Gray and S. Kourtis, Hyper-optimized tensor network contraction, Quantum 5, 410 (2021).
  22. F. Pan and P. Zhang, Simulating the Sycamore quantum supremacy circuits, arXiv:2103.03074 [quant-ph].
  23. F. Pan, K. Chen, and P. Zhang, Solving the sampling problem of the sycamore quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 090502 (2022).
  24. Y. A. Liu, X. L. Liu, F. N. Li, H. Fu, Y. Yang, J. Song, P. Zhao, Z. Wang, D. Peng, H. Chen, C. Guo, H. Huang, W. Wu, and D. Chen, Closing the “quantum supremacy” gap: Achieving real-time simulation of a random quantum circuit using a new sunway supercomputer, in Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC’21 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2021).
  25. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den 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).
  26. 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).
  27. 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).
  28. D. Jaschke, A. Pagano, S. Weber, and S. Montangero, Ab-initio tree-tensor-network digital twin for quantum computer benchmarking in 2D, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035055 (2024).
  29. K. Bidzhiev, A. Wennersteen, M. Beji, M. Dagrada, M. D'Arcangelo, S. Grijalva, A.-C. L. Henaff, A. Quelle, and A. S. Naik, Cloud on-demand emulation of quantum dynamics with tensor networks, arXiv:2302.05253 [quant-ph].
  30. T. Ayral, T. Louvet, Y. Zhou, C. Lambert, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, Density-matrix renormalization group algorithm for simulating quantum circuits with a finite fidelity, PRX Quantum 4, 020304 (2023).
  31. M. Niedermeier, J. L. Lado, and C. Flindt, Simulating the quantum fourier transform, Grover's algorithm, and the quantum counting algorithm with limited entanglement using tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033325 (2024).
  32. A. Fatima and I. L. Markov, Faster Schrödinger-style simulation of quantum circuits, in Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA 2021), pp. 194–207.
  33. C. Zhang, Z. Song, H. Wang, K. Rong, and J. Zhai, Hyquas: Hybrid partitioner based quantum circuit simulation system on GPU, in Proceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on Supercomputing, ICS’21 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2021), pp. 443–454.
  34. A. Cicero, M. A. Maleki, M. W. Azhar, A. F. Kockum, and P. Trancoso, Simulation of quantum computers: Review and acceleration opportunities, arXiv:2410.12660 [quant-ph].
  35. S. Schlag, T. Heuer, L. Gottesbüren, Y. Akhremtsev, C. Schulz, and P. Sanders, High-quality hypergraph partitioning, ACM J. Exp. Algorithmics 27, 1 (2023).
  36. D. G. A. Smith and J. Gray, opt_einsum— A Python package for optimizing contraction order for einsum-like expressions, J. Open Source Softw. 3, 753 (2018).
  37. 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.
  38. G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004).
  39. 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).
  40. J. Chen, F. Zhang, C. Huang, M. Newman, and Y. Shi, Classical simulation of intermediate-size quantum circuits, arXiv:1805.01450.
  41. B. Villalonga, S. Boixo, B. Nelson, C. Henze, E. Rieffel, R. Biswas, and S. Mandrà, A flexible high-performance simulator for verifying and benchmarking quantum circuits implemented on real hardware, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 86 (2019).
  42. C. Huang, F. Zhang, M. Newman, J. Cai, X. Gao, Z. Tian, J. Wu, H. Xu, H. Yu, B. Yuan, M. Szegedy, Y. Shi, and J. Chen, Classical simulation of quantum supremacy circuits, arXiv:2005.06787.
  43. R. Schutski, T. Khakhulin, I. Oseledets, and D. Kolmakov, Simple heuristics for efficient parallel tensor contraction and quantum circuit simulation, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062614 (2020).
  44. F. Zhang, C. Huang, M. Newman, J. Cai, H. Yu, Z. Tian, B. Yuan, H. Xu, J. Wu, X. Gao, J. Chen, M. Szegedy, and Y. Shi, Alibaba cloud quantum development platform: Large-scale classical simulation of quantum circuits, arXiv:1907.11217.
  45. C. Huang et al., Efficient parallelization of tensor network contraction for simulating quantum computation, Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 578 (2021).
  46. W. Tang and M. Martonosi, Tensorqc: Towards scalable distributed quantum computing via tensor networks, arXiv:2502.03445.
  47. L. S. Herzog, L. Burgholzer, C. Ufrecht, D. D. Scherer, and R. Wille, Joint cutting for hybrid Schrödinger-Feynman simulation of quantum circuits, arXiv:2502.06959.
  48. K. Sarode, D. E. Huang, and E. W. Bethel, Circuit partitioning and full circuit execution: A comparative study of GPU-based quantum circuit simulation, in 2024 IEEE 31st International Conference on High Performance Computing, Data, and Analytics (HiPC), Bangalore, India, 2024 (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2024), pp. 177–187.
  49. M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Random quantum circuits, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 335 (2023).
  50. A. W. Harrow and R. A. Low, Random quantum circuits are approximate 2-designs, Commun. Math. Phys. 291, 257 (2009).
  51. F. G. S. L. Brandão, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs, Commun. Math. Phys. 346, 397 (2016).
  52. Y. Mitsuhashi, R. Suzuki, T. Soejima, and N. Yoshioka, Unitary designs of symmetric local random circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 180404 (2025).
  53. Y. Mitsuhashi, R. Suzuki, T. Soejima, and N. Yoshioka, Characterization of randomness in quantum circuits of continuous gate sets, Phys. Rev. A 111, 052409 (2025).
  54. R. Suzuki, H. Katsura, Y. Mitsuhashi, T. Soejima, J. Eisert, and N. Yoshioka, More global randomness from less random local gates, arXiv:2410.24127.
  55. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  56. S. Beauregard, Circuit for Shor's algorithm using 2n+3 qubits, Quantum Inf. Comput. 3, 175 (2003).
  57. T. G. Draper, Addition on a quantum computer, arXiv:quant-ph/0008033.
  58. J. Chen, E. Stoudenmire, and S. R. White, Quantum Fourier transform has small entanglement, PRX Quantum 4, 040318 (2023).
  59. P. Arnault, P. Arrighi, S. Herbert, E. Kasnetsi, and T. Li, A typology of quantum algorithms, arXiv:2407.05178.
  60. M. Turisini, M. Cestari, and G. Amati, Leonardo: A Pan-European pre-exascale supercomputer for HPC and AI applications, J. Large-Scale Res. Facil. JLSRF 9, A186 (2024).
  61. Y.-Y. Shi, L.-M. Duan, and G. Vidal, Classical simulation of quantum many-body systems with a tree tensor network, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022320 (2006).
  62. P. Silvi, F. Tschirsich, M. Gerster, J. Jünemann, D. Jaschke, M. Rizzi, and S. Montangero, The tensor networks anthology: Simulation techniques for many-body quantum lattice systems, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 8 (2019).
  63. X. Yuan, J. Sun, J. Liu, Q. Zhao, and Y. Zhou, Quantum simulation with hybrid tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040501 (2021).
  64. J. Schuhmacher, M. Ballarin, A. Baiardi, G. Magnifico, F. Tacchino, S. Montangero, and I. Tavernelli, Hybrid tree tensor networks for quantum simulation, PRX Quantum 6, 010320 (2025).
  65. G. Ferrari, G. Magnifico, and S. Montangero, Adaptive-weighted tree tensor networks for disordered quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. B 105, 214201 (2022).
  66. P. Seitz, I. Medina, E. Cruz, Q. Huang, and C. B. Mendl, Simulating quantum circuits using tree tensor networks, Quantum 7, 964 (2023).
  67. J. Tindall and M. Fishman, Gauging tensor networks with belief propagation, SciPost Phys. 15, 222 (2023).
  68. J. Tindall, A. Mello, M. Fishman, M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Dynamics of disordered quantum systems with two- and three-dimensional tensor networks, arXiv:2503.05693.
  69. M. S. Rudolph and J. Tindall, Simulating and sampling from quantum circuits with 2D tensor networks, arXiv:2507.11424.
  70. E. Gabriel, G. E. Fagg, G. Bosilca, T. Angskun, J. J. Dongarra, J. M. Squyres, V. Sahay, P. Kambadur, B. Barrett, A. Lumsdaine, R. H. Castain, D. J. Daniel, R. L. Graham, and T. S. Woodall, Open MPI: Goals, concept, and design of a next generation MPI implementation, in Proceedings of the 11th European PVM/MPI Users’ Group Meeting (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004), pp. 97–104.
  71. ReCaS-Bari, https://www.recas-bari.it/.
  72. M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor software library for tensor network calculations, SciPost Phys. Codebases 4 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043170– Published 17 November, 2025
  • Received 8 May 2025
  • Accepted 29 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