Cited by 580Quantum many-body systemsQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum Information and Cryptography

Criticality, the Area Law, and the Computational Power of Projected Entangled Pair States

Open access
Verstraete, F., Wolf, M. M., Perez-Garcia, D., Cirac, J. I.·2006·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

The projected entangled pair state (PEPS) representation of quantum states on two-dimensional lattices induces an entanglement based hierarchy in state space. We show that the lowest levels of this hierarchy exhibit a very rich structure including states with critical and topological properties. We prove, in particular, that coherent versions of thermal states of any local 2D classical spin model correspond to such PEPS, which are in turn ground states of local 2D quantum Hamiltonians. This correspondence maps thermal onto quantum fluctuations, and it allows us to analytically construct critical quantum models exhibiting a strict area law scaling of the entanglement entropy in the face of power law decaying correlations. Moreover, it enables us to show that there exist PEPS which can serve as computational resources for the solution of NP-hard problems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.96.220601

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PEPS can provide a memory-efficient representation relative to MPS for some states with geometrically constrained patterns of entanglement and correlation, in particular a subset of area-law entangled states, when virtual indices are chosen to match the target topology.

    “For some states subject to geometrically constrained patterns of entanglement and correlation, in particular a subset of those exhibiting area-law entanglement, PEPS can provide a memory-efficient representation relative to MPS when virtual indices (bonds) are chosen to match the target topology 49,93 .”

    From Beyond-classical computation in quantum simulation (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The underlying structure of the constructive approach to universal resources for MQC can be described mathematically using matrix-product states or projected-entangled-pairs.

    “The underlying structure of this approach can be described mathematically using the language of matrix-product-states or projected-entangled-pairs 18,86,87 .”

    From Measurement-based quantum computation (2009) · cites this paper as [87]

  • These connections enable one to phrase statistical physics problems naturally in a quantum mechanical setting.

    “For one, these connections enable one to phrase statistical physics problems naturally in a quantum mechanical setting 87,92,95,96,99-102 .”

    From Measurement-based quantum computation (2009) · cites this paper as [87]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E.H. Lieb, H. Tasaki, Commun. Math. Phys. 115, 477 (1988);
  2. M. Fannes, B. Nachter- gaele, Commun. Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992).
  3. F. Verstraete, D. Porras, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 227205 (2004);
  4. G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004).
  5. F. Verstraete and J.I. Cirac, cond-mat/0505140; · arXiv
  6. M.B. Hastings, cond-mat/0508554. · arXiv
  7. M.M. Wolf, G. Ortiz, F. Verstraete, J.I. Cirac, cond-mat/0512180. · arXiv
  8. C.L. Henley, J. Stat. Phys. 89, 483 (1997);
  9. E. Ardonne, P. Fendley, E. Fradkin, Annals Phys. 310, 493 (2004);
  10. C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, C. Mudry, P. Pujol, Annals Phys. 318, 316 (2005).
  11. H. Niggemann, A. Klümper, J. Zittartz, Z.Phys. B 104, 103 (1997);
  12. H. Niggemann, A. Klümper, J. Zittartz, Eur. Phys. J. B 13, 15 (2000).
  13. G. Vidal, J.I. Latorre, E. Rico, A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003);
  14. M.B. Plenio, J. Eisert, J. Dreissig, M. Cramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 060503 (2005).
  15. M.M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010404 (2006);
  16. D. Gioev and I. Klich, quant-ph/0504151. · arXiv
  17. M. Cramer, J. Eisert, M.B. Plenio, J. Dreissig, quant-ph/0505092; · arXiv
  18. W. Dür, L. Hartmann, M. Hein, M. Lewenstein, H.J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 097203 (2005).
  19. D.P. Landau and K. Binder, "A guide to Monte Carlo simulations in statistical physics", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
  20. F. Martinelli, E. Olivieri, R.H. Schonmann, Commun. Math. Phys. 165, 33 (1994).
  21. M.B. Hastings, T. Koma, math-ph/0507008; · arXiv
  22. B. Nachter- gaele, R. Sims, math-ph/0506030. · arXiv
  23. R. Raussendorf and H.J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188 (2001); Quant. Inf. Comp. 6, 443 (2002).
  24. F. Barahona, J. Phys. A 15, 3241 (1982).
  25. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, D. Preda, Science 292, 472 (2001).
  26. A.Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003).
  27. A. Kitaev, J. Preskill, hep-th/0510092; · arXiv
  28. M. Levin and X.G. Wen, cond-mat/0510613; A.Hamma, R.Ionicioiu, P.Zanardi, Phys.Lett. A 337, 22 (2005). · arXiv
  29. P.W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verstraete, F., Wolf, M. M., Perez-Garcia, D., & Cirac, J. I.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (DE)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2006-06-06
Volume
96
Issue
22
Pages
220601-220601
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W2035298342
Cited by
580
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 22
FWCI
13.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
Keywords
projected entangled pair states, area law, entanglement entropy, quantum criticality, topological phases, classical spin systems, thermal states, NP-hard problems, quantum computing, two-dimensional lattice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review