Time-evolving block decimation
Factor local time evolution into gates and control Trotter and entanglement-truncation errors separately.
On this page
The question for today
What you’ll understand
- Construct a second-order even-odd time step for nearest-neighbor interactions.
- Separate unitary real-time propagation from normalized imaginary-time filtering.
- Design convergence tests in both time step and bond dimension.
Time-evolving block decimation uses locality to evolve an MPS through a sequence of small gates. A gate is easy to apply to a neighboring pair, but it can enlarge the bond needed to describe their entanglement with the rest. Compression controls that growth and introduces a different error from approximating the full exponential by a gate sequence. Reliable dynamics therefore needs simultaneous attention to time discretization, retained Schmidt spectrum, conservation laws, and the longest time over which observables remain converged.
Split the Hamiltonian into commuting layers
For an open nearest-neighbor chain, group alternating bonds into even and odd Hamiltonians. Terms within one layer act on disjoint site pairs and commute, so that layer’s exponential factorizes into two-site gates. Even and odd layers generally do not commute with one another. A symmetric composition with a half step of one layer around a full step of the other gives a second-order approximation. Boundary terms must be assigned consistently; long-range couplings need a modified strategy rather than being silently omitted.
For sufficiently controlled local operators, the one-step operator error is cubic in the time step and the accumulated error at fixed final time is quadratic before truncation. The coefficient depends on commutators and energy scales. Halving the step should produce an approximately fourfold decrease of the leading error only after entering that asymptotic regime. This convergence statement does not include MPS compression, floating-point error, or a physical approximation already made when choosing the Hamiltonian.
A two-site gate can enlarge entanglement
Contract neighboring tensors with a gate, reshape the resulting center as a matrix across their bond, and perform a singular-value decomposition. Keeping every nonzero singular value preserves the gated state; retaining only a selected number introduces a Schmidt truncation. In a canonical environment, the omitted squared singular values have the one-cut meaning developed earlier. Renormalizing the MPS afterwards restores unit norm but cannot restore discarded correlations or undo a wrong gate sequence.
After a generic global quench, entanglement across cuts often grows with time, so maintaining a fixed truncation threshold can require rapidly increasing bond dimension. A converged short-time trace is therefore not evidence for arbitrary long-time accuracy. Monitor target observables under increasing dimension, and track norm, energy, conserved charges, and discarded weights as complementary diagnostics. A symmetry-preserving implementation can conserve a charge exactly while other correlations are already inaccurate, so a single conserved quantity is never a complete fidelity test.
Imaginary time filters instead of rotating phases
Replacing the real-time phase exponential by gives nonunitary imaginary-time evolution, where delta tau has inverse-energy units here. Higher-energy coefficients shrink relative to lower-energy ones. Repeated normalization prevents overall underflow and makes a state representation convenient, but the limiting state depends on nonzero overlap with the lowest accessible sector. Degenerate ground components are filtered together, while symmetries can prohibit reaching a lower state in another sector.
When studying real-time spectra, a finite observation window also limits frequency resolution. Windowing changes spectral features and must not be confused with an intrinsic decay rate. For either real or imaginary evolution, vary time step at fixed sufficiently large bond dimension, then vary dimension with a sufficiently small step, and finally examine physical size and final time. The pure two-state instrument precesses a phase coherently; it cannot apply two-site gates, create a tensor-chain light cone, or carry out normalized imaginary-time filtering.
Work it through
Filter an excited component
A two-level state begins with equal normalized amplitudes in energies and . Evolve in imaginary time to and renormalize. Find the excited-state probability and energy expectation.
The amplitude factors are one and . Before renormalizing, the two amplitudes are and ; the smaller factor acts on amplitude, not probability.
Their unnormalized squared weights are one half and one eighth. Divide by their total, five eighths, to get probabilities four fifths and one fifth.
The normalized energy expectation is therefore . It decreased from the initial through nonunitary filtering, not unitary relaxation of an isolated two-level system.
At the specified imaginary time, the excited probability is 0.2 and the energy expectation is Δ/5.
The living notebook
Explore the model
Interactive lab · quantum
A real-time phase baseline
Reset and set mixing angle , relative phase . After one Step the clock is 0.5, so predict Bloch x and unchanged equal populations. Repeat from Reset with both controls , to reverse the initial x direction. This is pure-state phase precession, not a TEBD or imaginary-time solver.
- Probability |0⟩
- 71.1%
- Probability |1⟩
- 28.9%
- Bloch (x, y, z)
- 0.78, 0.45, 0.42
A normalized two-level pure state, not an interacting field simulation. Playback adds one radian per second to the relative phase; basis probabilities stay fixed. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.
Look forUnitary phase motion can leave basis populations fixed, while imaginary-time energy filtering changes their ratios.
Pause & reason
Check your understanding
Your turn
Try it yourself
At a fixed final time, a converged-bond calculation has leading second-order time-step error at step . Predict it at . A separate bond-dimension comparison changes the observable by 0.003; explain whether the smaller step alone establishes 0.001 accuracy.
Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.
Give me a hint
Use quadratic scaling only for the specified discretization contribution, then compare the independent truncation sensitivity.
Compare with the solution
Halving the step predicts a factor-four decrease of the leading Trotter contribution, to 0.001, assuming the asymptotic scaling remains valid. The 0.003 bond-dimension sensitivity is larger, so the smaller step alone does not establish 0.001 total accuracy. Increase retained dimension and compare the target observable again, with additional checks for finite size and accumulated long-time errors.
Keep the idea
Take it with you
- Even-odd factorization controls a time-step error separate from tensor compression.
- Real-time gates are unitary before truncation; imaginary-time filtering must be normalized and needs overlap.
- Entanglement growth can set the accessible time even when the time-step expansion is well controlled.
Read further
Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.
Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.
Lesson not marked complete.