 Acquiring all these data, for every $\ell$ requires an overall computational cost (apart subleading trends) of $$\# \mbox{cost} \sim L \left(\#q + 2\#p + 1 \right) \left(2 d D^3 + d^2 D^2 \right),$$ where $\#q$ and $\#p$ are respectively the number of one body and two body terms in the Hamiltonian expression. As you see, even in this complex scenario, the scaling behavior with $D$ and $L$ of the computational cost remains roughly the same. Now we can conclude that $$\langle \Psi | \tilde{H}^{\rightarrow}_{\ell} | \Psi \rangle = 
 {{\mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[1]} \cdot
  {{\mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[2]} \cdot \ldots \cdot {{\mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[\ell]} |\xi^{[\ell]}),$$ and in particular $\langle \Psi | H | \Psi \rangle = |\xi^{[0]})$ which is a scalar number, and it is exactly the energy of the state if $H$ is the actual Hamiltonian of the system.

The great improvement in computing expectation values we encountered for separable observable is recovered in case of (short-range) Hamiltonian operators: the full computational cost to acquire the energy (which will be later adopted as variational functional) scales only linearly with the system size. If one thinks that (full-search) exact methods typically bear an exponential cost in $L$, it is easy to understand why DMRG/MPS architectures are regarded with great interest.

Pictorial representation of Matrix\
Product States Tensor Network
-----------------------------------

Through the present chapter, we learned how to deal with MPS: their mathematical properties that allow algebraic manipulation (gauge group), and their physical properties that allow to control quantum entanglement. On the other hand, the equations we encounter start to look cumbersome and confusing, like eq. . To work around this issue, we are now going to provide an alternative way to express MPS representation that is based on diagrams and graph theory rather than standard analytical expressions. This will prove a faster and clearer fashion to represent states, observations, and matrix multiplication; and will become instrumental in later chapters.

Let us start back from our definition of MPS. If our system is a 1D-OBC lattice with $L$ sites, and $\{ |s\rangle \}_
Acquiring all these data, for every $ \ell$ requires an overall computational cost (aside subleading drift) of $ $ \ # \mbox{cost } \sim L \left(\#q + 2\#p + 1 \right) \left(2 d D^3 + d^2 D^2 \right),$$ where $ \#q$ and $ \#p$ are respectively the number of one soundbox and two consistency terms in the Hamiltonian expression. As you experience, even in this complex scenario, the scale behavior with $ D$ and $ L$ of the computational monetary value remains roughly the like. Now we can conclude that $ $ \langle \Psi | \tilde{H}^{\rightarrow}_{\ell } | \Psi \rangle = 
  { { \mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[1 ] } \cdot 
   { { \mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[2 ] } \cdot \ldots \cdot { { \mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[\ell ] } |\xi^{[\ell]}),$$ and in particular $ \langle \Psi | H | \Psi \rangle = |\xi^{[0]})$ which is a scalar number, and it is precisely the energy of the state if $ H$ is the actual Hamiltonian of the system. 

 The great improvement in computing anticipation values we encountered for separable discernible is recovered in case of (inadequate - range) Hamiltonian operator: the full computational cost to acquire the energy (which will be later espouse as variational functional) scales only linearly with the system size. If one thinks that (full - search) exact methods typically bear an exponential cost in $ L$, it is easy to understand why DMRG / MPS architectures are regarded with great interest. 

 Pictorial representation of Matrix\ 
 Product States Tensor Network 
 ----------------------------------- 

 Through the present chapter, we learn how to deal with MPS: their mathematical place that leave algebraic manipulation (gauge group), and their physical properties that allow to control quantum entanglement. On the early hand, the equations we encounter start to look cumbersome and confusing, like eq.  . To work around this issue, we are now going to provide an alternative direction to express MPS theatrical performance that is free-base on diagrams and graph theory rather than standard analytical expression. This will prove a faster and clearer manner to represent state, observations, and matrix multiplication; and will become implemental in later chapters. 

 Let us start back from our definition of MPS. If our system is a 1D - OBC wicket with $ L$ sites, and $ \ { |s\rangle \ } _
 Aceuiring all these data, fur every $\ell$ requires en overzll compjtational cost (apart subleadmng rrendw) of $$\# \mbox{cost} \sim L \ldft(\#q + 2\#p + 1 \right) \lwft(2 v D^3 + d^2 D^2 \right),$$ wisre $\#q$ akb $\#p$ adc res'ertively the numner of one tody and two bmdh cerms in the Hamiltonian expression. Ws you xef, even in this comklev scsnario, the scaling behavior with $D$ and $L$ mf the computstional cost remains roughpy tje same. Now we can conclude tyat $$\jqngle \Psi | \tklde{H}^{\rightarrow}_{\ell} | \Psj \rangle = 
 {{\mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[1]} \cdot
  {{\matkbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[2]} \xdoh \ldots \cdot {{\mathfb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[\ell]} |\xi^{[\ell]}),$$ and in particular $\lakgle \'si | H | \Psi \rangle = |\xi^{[0]})$ whmch is a scalar numbgr, and it hs exactly the enerty of tve sdate uf $F$ ia vhe actuap Hemiltonian kf the systwm.

The great improvekegn in computinf expestwtion values we encountered for separabne kbservable is recovered in case of (short-rangg) Hamiltonyan operators: the full computational cost to acquhre tie entrnn (whkxh will be later adopted as variational functiogzl) sbales only linearjy with the sjsygm size. If one thinks tgat (full-search) exaft methjds ttpically fear an exponential cost in $L$, ir is easy to ynderstand why DMRY/MPS architeetures are tegarded with great intzrest.

Pjctorial reoresentatjun of Matrix\
Prodjct Sdates Tensor Network
-----------------------------------

Througr the prewent chaptef, we learnqd how to feal with MPS: their mathfmatieal psoperties hhat allow algebraic manipulation (gauge group), atd nheir phyfical properties trat allow to cpntrol zuantjm entanglvment. On vhe other hagd, the equatimjs we encounver start to oook cumberrume and confusong, like vq. . To qork around this ixsug, se are now goiny uo provide an alyervatyvv wey to axpress MPS seprdsevyatiov that is bcsdd om diagrams and graph thekry rather than stsnqard anaoytical qxpressions. Tnis will prove a fwster anv cleater fashion to represent states, ogservatiojs, wnd matrix mtltiilicwtion; and cill become instrumental in later chaptecs.

Let us start back fron our definition of KPS. If our xystei is a 1D-OTC lattice with $L$ sires, and $\{ |s\rangle \}_
Acquiring all these data, for every $\ell$ overall cost (apart trends) of $$\# 2\#p 1 \right) \left(2 D^3 + d^2 \right),$$ where $\#q$ and $\#p$ are the number of one body and two body terms in the Hamiltonian expression. you see, even in this complex scenario, the scaling behavior with $D$ and of computational remains the same. Now we can conclude that $$\langle \Psi | \tilde{H}^{\rightarrow}_{\ell} | \Psi \rangle = {{\mathbb 1}}}^{[1]} \cdot {{\mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[2]} \cdot \ldots \cdot E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[\ell]} |\xi^{[\ell]}),$$ and particular $\langle \Psi | H \Psi = |\xi^{[0]})$ is scalar and it is the energy of the state if $H$ is the actual Hamiltonian of the system. The great improvement computing expectation encountered for observable recovered case of (short-range) the full computational cost to acquire will be later adopted as variational functional) scales linearly with system size. If one thinks that exact methods typically bear an exponential cost in it is easy to understand why DMRG/MPS architectures are regarded with great interest. Pictorial representation Product States Tensor Network Through the present we how deal MPS: their properties that allow algebraic manipulation (gauge group), and their physical properties allow to control quantum entanglement. On the other hand, the encounter to look cumbersome confusing, like eq. . work this issue, we are to an express representation is based on diagrams graph theory rather than standard expressions. This will prove to represent states, observations, and matrix multiplication; and become instrumental in later chapters. Let us back from our definition of MPS. If our system is a 1D-OBC with $L$ $\{ |s\rangle \}_
 Acquiring all these data, for eVery $\ell$ reqUires An oVerAlL comPutaTional cost (aparT SublEading trends) of $$\# \mbox{cost} \Sim L \lEfT(\#Q + 2\#p + 1 \riGHt) \Left(2 d d^3 + d^2 D^2 \righT),$$ WhERE $\#q$ aNd $\#P$ aRe rEsPEcTivelY thE number Of one body aNd tWo Body terms in tHE HAmiltonian ExpRession. As you See, Even in ThIs cOMplex SceNario, The scaLIng behAvior with $d$ aND $L$ of thE ComputaTIOnAl coSt remains roughly tHE sAMe. Now we can concLude thAt $$\LAnGLE \PsI | \tiLde{H}^{\rightaRrOw}_{\ell} | \pSi \ranglE = 
 {{\MaTHBB E}}_{{{\mAThbb 1}}}^{[1]} \cdot
  {{\mathbB E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[2]} \cdoT \LdoTs \cdot {{\MaThbB e}}_{{{\mathbB 1}}}^{[\ell]} |\xI^{[\eLL]}),$$ anD in particulAr $\laNgle \Psi | H | \PSi \rangLE = |\xi^{[0]})$ whicH Is a scalAr numbEr, aNd iT is eXAcTlY thE eNErgY Of The STatE if $H$ is thE aCtUal HaMiltONIAN of tHe sYsteM.

The gReat improvemeNt iN comPUtiNg expEctatIon vAlUes we EncounTered FoR separable obserVablE is recoveRed In CasE oF (shorT-Range) HAmiLtoNian opeRators: tHE fuLl COMPuTational cost to acquIrE THe Energy (whIch wilL Be LaTEr adopteD aS vaRiatIONal fuNctiONaL) scales oNly linEArLy With the SyStem siZe. if oNe tHinks THat (fUll-seaRch) exact MethoDS typically bear AN exponential cOSt IN $l$, iT Is eaSy tO understand Why DmrG/MPs arcHItEctURes arE regaRdED wITh great interest.

PictOrIal repResenTation of MatriX\
Product StATES Tensor NEtwoRK
-----------------------------------

THRough the presenT chapTer, we learnED how to deAl witH MPS: theiR mathematICAl properTieS thAt aLloW ALgEbraic manipulATIon (gAuGe group), And Their phYsiCal ProPerTiEs that allOw to contRoL qUaNtUm eNtangLEment. On tHe OthEr HanD, the eQUationS we enCounTeR sTArt To look cUMbERSome AnD cOnfuSinG, lIke eq. . to woRK arOund thiS issue, we aRe nOW goiNg To Provide An alternative WaY to express mPs rePresenTATion that Is based on diagrams and graPH theory RatHer thAn stAndard anaLytIcal exPreSSions. THis wilL provE a FasTER and cLEArEr fAsHion to reprESEnt StateS, oBserVations, And matrix multiplicATioN; and will becomE inStruMENtAl iN LaTEr cHaPTerS.

lEt us start back frOm our definItIOn Of MPS. If our SYstEm Is a 1D-OBC Lattice With $L$ SItes, and $\{ |S\rangle \}_
 Acquiring all these data,  for every  $\el l$req ui resan o verall computa t iona l cost (apart subleadi ng tr en d s) o f  $ $\# \ mbox{co s t} \ sim  L  \ lef t( \ #q  + 2\ #p+ 1 \ri ght) \left (2dD^3 + d^2 D^ 2  \ right),$$whe re $\#q$ and  $\ #p$ ar eres p ectiv ely  thenumber of one  body and  t w o body terms i n th e Ha miltonian express i on .  As you see, e ven in  t h is c omp lex  scenario,  t he sc a ling be h av i o r  wi t h $D$ and $L$  of the com p uta tional  c ost remain s rou gh l y t he same. No w we  can conc lude t h at $$\l a ngle \P si | \ til de{ H}^{ \ ri gh tar ro w }_{ \ el l}|  \P si \rang le  =  
 {{ \mat h b b E}}_ {{{ \mat hbb 1 }}}^{[1]} \cd ot  {{ \ mat hbb E }}_{{ {\ma th bb 1} }}^{[2 ]} \c do t \ldots \cdot{{\m athbb E}} _{{ {\ mat hb b 1}} } ^{[\el l]}  |\ xi^{[\e ll]}),$ $  an di n pa rticular $\langle\P s i  |  H | \Ps i \ran g le  = |\xi^{[0 ]} )$whic h is ascal a rnumber,and it is  e xactlyth e ener gy  of  th e sta t e if  $H$ i s the ac tualH amiltonian oft he system.

T h eg r ea t  imp rov ement in co mput i ng e xpec t at ion value s ween c ou n tered for separable  o bserva ble i s recovered i n case of( s h ort-rang e) H a mi l tonian operato rs: t he full co m putation al co st to ac quire the e nergy (w hic h w ill  be l at er adopted as v aria ti onal fu nct ional)sca les  on lyli nearly wi th the s ys te msi ze.  If o n e thinks  t hat  ( ful l-sea r ch) ex act m etho ds  t y pic ally be a ra n  exp on en tial  co st  in $ L$,i t i s easyto unders tan d  why  D MR G/MPS a rchitecturesar e regarded  w ith  great i nterest. 

Pictorial representat i on of M atr ix\
P rodu ct States  Te nsor N etw o rk
--- ------ ----- -- --- - - ----- - - -- --- -- 

Throught h e p resen tchap ter, we  learned how to de a l w ith MPS: thei r m athe m a ti cal pr o per ti e s t h a t allow algebra ic manipul at i on  (gauge gr o up) ,and the ir phys icalp roperti es that a llow to c on trol q uan tum entang lement.On the ot h er ha n d,  theequ ations  w e e ncoun ter st a rtto lo ok cum be rsomeand c on fusing,like eq. . To work arou nd thi s iss ue,  we are n owg oin g to prov idean alterna tiv e w ay to  ex p ressMPSr ep res e ntati on t h at is bas e dond i ag rams and gr a p h  th eoryrat h er tha n st andard analytical expressions. T hisw i llpro v e afa ster and clear erfa s h ion to r ep resent stat es, obse rv a tions , andmatrix  multip l i ca t ion; a nd w ill  become i nst ru m ental i nla t er cha pter s. 

Letus sta r t ba c k  from our defini tiono f  MPS. Ifour s ys tem isa  1D- OBC lattic e with $L$sites,  and  $\{|s\rang le  \}_
 Acquiring_all these_data, for every $\ell$_requires an_overall_computational cost_(apart_subleading trends) of_$$\# \mbox{cost} \sim_L \left(\#q + 2\#p_+ 1 \right)_\left(2_d D^3 + d^2 D^2 \right),$$ where $\#q$ and $\#p$ are respectively the number_of_one body_and_two_body terms in the Hamiltonian_expression. As you see, even_in this_complex scenario, the scaling behavior with $D$ and_$L$_of the computational_cost remains roughly the same. Now we can conclude_that $$\langle \Psi | \tilde{H}^{\rightarrow}_{\ell} |_\Psi \rangle =_
_{{\mathbb_E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[1]} \cdot
 _{{\mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[2]} \cdot \ldots \cdot_{{\mathbb E}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}}^{[\ell]} |\xi^{[\ell]}),$$ and in_particular $\langle \Psi | H | \Psi_\rangle = |\xi^{[0]})$ which is a_scalar number, and it is_exactly the_energy of the state if_$H$ is the_actual Hamiltonian_of the system.

The_great improvement in computing expectation values_we encountered for_separable observable is recovered in case_of_(short-range) Hamiltonian operators:_the_full_computational cost_to acquire the_energy_(which will_be_later adopted as variational functional) scales_only_linearly with the system size. If one_thinks that (full-search) exact_methods_typically bear an exponential_cost in $L$, it is_easy to understand why DMRG/MPS architectures_are regarded_with great_interest.

Pictorial representation of Matrix\
Product States Tensor Network
-----------------------------------

Through the present chapter, we_learned how to deal with MPS:_their mathematical properties that_allow algebraic_manipulation_(gauge group), and_their_physical properties_that allow to control quantum entanglement. On_the other_hand, the equations we encounter start_to look cumbersome and_confusing,_like eq. . To work around this_issue, we are now going to_provide an alternative way to_express_MPS_representation that is based on_diagrams and graph theory rather than_standard analytical expressions._This will prove a faster and clearer_fashion_to represent states, observations, and matrix_multiplication;_and will become instrumental in later_chapters.

Let_us_start back from our definition_of MPS. If our system is_a 1D-OBC lattice with $L$ sites, and $\{ |s\rangle_\}_