- 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

Direct estimation of the density of states for fermionic systems

Matthew L. Goh1,2,3,* and Bálint Koczor4,1,3,†

  • *Contact author: matthew.goh@quantummotion.tech
  • †Contact author: koczor@maths.ox.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013250 – Published 6 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/h8l5-87zt

Abstract

Simulating time evolution is one of the most natural applications of quantum computers and is thus one of the most promising prospects for achieving practical quantum advantage. Here, we develop quantum algorithms to extract thermodynamic properties by estimating the density of states (DOS), which is a central object in quantum statistical mechanics. We introduce several key innovations that significantly improve the practicality and extend the generality of previous techniques. First, our approach allows one to estimate the DOS only for a specific subspace of the full Hilbert space. This is crucial for fermionic systems, since both canonical and grand canonical ensemble thermal equilibrium properties depend on subspaces of fixed number. Second, in our approach, by time evolving very simple, random initial states, such as randomly chosen computational basis states, we can exactly recover the DOS on average. Third, due to circuit-depth limitations, we only reconstruct the DOS up to a convolution with a Gaussian window—thus all imperfections that shift the energy levels by less than the width of the convolution window will not significantly affect the estimated DOS. For these reasons, we find the approach is a promising candidate for early quantum advantage as even short-time, noisy dynamics can yield a semiquantitative reconstruction of the DOS (convolution with a broad Gaussian window), while early fault-tolerant devices will likely enable higher-resolution DOS reconstruction through longer time evolutions. We demonstrate the practicality of our approach in representative Fermi-Hubbard and spin models and indeed find that our approach is highly robust against algorithmic errors in the time evolution and against gate noise. We further demonstrate that our approach is compatible with noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computing NISQ-friendly variational techniques, introducing and leveraging a technique for variational time evolution.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (73)

  1. C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models, Nature (London) 569, 355 (2019).
  2. D. Jafferis, A. Zlokapa, J. D. Lykken, D. K. Kolchmeyer, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, H. Neven, and M. Spiropulu, Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor, Nature (London) 612, 51 (2022).
  3. Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. Sawaya, et al., Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chem. Rev. 119, 10856 (2019).
  4. S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
  5. B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quantum materials science, Chem. Rev. 120, 12685 (2020).
  6. M. Motta and J. E. Rice, Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 12, e1580 (2022).
  7. D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, Commun. Math. Phys. 270, 359 (2007).
  8. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017).
  9. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019).
  10. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015).
  11. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, et al., Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023).
  12. Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045005 (2023).
  13. B. Koczor, Exponential error suppression for near-term quantum devices, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031057 (2021).
  14. G. Boyd and B. Koczor, Training variational quantum circuits with COVAR: Covariance root finding with classical shadows, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041022 (2022).
  15. E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approximate optimization algorithm, arXiv:1411.4028.
  16. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014).
  17. S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 032001 (2021).
  18. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021).
  19. K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, et al., Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022).
  20. H. H. S. Chan, R. Meister, M. L. Goh, and B. Koczor, Algorithmic shadow spectroscopy, PRX Quantum 6, 010352 (2025).
  21. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017).
  22. M.-C. Chen, M. Gong, X. Xu, X. Yuan, J.-W. Wang, C. Wang, C. Ying, J. Lin, Y. Xu, Y. Wu, S. Wang, H. Deng, F. Liang, C.-Z. Peng, S. C. Benjamin, X. Zhu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Demonstration of adiabatic variational quantum computing with a superconducting quantum coprocessor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180501 (2020).
  23. A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, The kernel polynomial method, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 275 (2006).
  24. R. E. Belardinelli and V. D. Pereyra, Fast algorithm to calculate density of states, Phys. Rev. E 75, 046701 (2007).
  25. M. S. Shell, P. G. Debenedetti, and A. Z. Panagiotopoulos, An improved Monte Carlo method for direct calculation of the density of states, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 9406 (2003).
  26. S. Kong, F. Ricci, D. Guevarra, J. B. Neaton, C. P. Gomes, and J. M. Gregoire, Density of states prediction for materials discovery via contrastive learning from probabilistic embeddings, Nat. Commun. 13, 949 (2022).
  27. B. Brown, S. T. Flammia, and N. Schuch, Computational difficulty of computing the density of states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 040501 (2011).
  28. S. Lu, M. C. Banuls, and J. I. Cirac, Algorithms for quantum simulation at finite energies, PRX Quantum 2, 020321 (2021).
  29. A. Schuckert, A. Bohrdt, E. Crane, and M. Knap, Probing finite-temperature observables in quantum simulators of spin systems with short-time dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 107, L140410 (2023).
  30. K. Ghanem, A. Schuckert, and H. Dreyer, Robust extraction of thermal observables from state sampling and real-time dynamics on quantum computers, Quantum 7, 1163 (2023).
  31. A. Summer, C. Chiaracane, M. T. Mitchison, and J. Goold, Calculating the many-body density of states on a digital quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013106 (2024).
  32. A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1963).
  33. L. V. Keldysh, Diagram technique for nonequilibrium processes, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515 (1964).
  34. L. Hedin, New method for calculating the one-particle Green's function with application to the electron-gas problem, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965).
  35. A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971).
  36. G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2013).
  37. B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A. J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Hybrid quantum-classical approach to correlated materials, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031045 (2016).
  38. I. Rungger, N. Fitzpatrick, H. Chen, C. Alderete, H. Apel, A. Cowtan, A. Patterson, D. M. Ramo, Y. Zhu, N. H. Nguyen, et al., Dynamical mean field theory algorithm and experiment on quantum computers, arXiv:1910.04735.
  39. S. Endo, I. Kurata, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Calculation of the Green's function on near-term quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033281 (2020).
  40. F. Jamet, A. Agarwal, C. Lupo, D. E. Browne, C. Weber, and I. Rungger, Krylov variational quantum algorithm for first principles materials simulations, arXiv:2105.13298.
  41. F. Jamet, L. P. Lindoy, Y. Rath, C. Lenihan, A. Agarwal, E. Fontana, F. Simkovic, IV, B. A. Martin, and I. Rungger, Anderson impurity solver integrating tensor network methods with quantum computing, APL Quantum 2, 016121 (2025).
  42. I. Zintchenko and N. Wiebe, Randomized gap and amplitude estimation, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062306 (2016).
  43. K. J. Ferris, Z. Wang, I. Hen, A. Kalev, N. T. Bronn, and V. Vlcek, Exploiting maximally mixed states for spectral estimation by time evolution, arXiv:2312.00687.
  44. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Power of one bit of quantum information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5672 (1998).
  45. A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, Deterministic preparation of Dicke states, in International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2019), pp. 126–139.
  46. K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, Matchgate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation, Commun. Math. Phys. 404, 629 (2023).
  47. F. J. Harris, On the use of windows for harmonic analysis with the discrete Fourier transform, Proc. IEEE 66, 51 (1978).
  48. G. Wang, D. S. França, R. Zhang, S. Zhu, and P. D. Johnson, Quantum algorithm for ground state energy estimation using circuit depth with exponentially improved dependence on precision, Quantum 7, 1167 (2023).
  49. M. Larocca, P. Czarnik, K. Sharma, G. Muraleedharan, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Diagnosing barren plateaus with tools from quantum optimal control, Quantum 6, 824 (2022).
  50. V. Kliuchnikov, K. Lauter, R. Minko, A. Paetznick, and C. Petit, Shorter quantum circuits via single-qubit gate approximation, Quantum 7, 1208 (2023).
  51. B. Koczor, Sparse probabilistic synthesis of quantum operations, PRX Quantum 5, 040352 (2024).
  52. J. Foldager and B. Koczor, Can shallow quantum circuits scramble local noise into global white noise? J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57, 015306 (2024).
  53. C. Cîrstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational fast forwarding for quantum simulation beyond the coherence time, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 82 (2020).
  54. S. Barison, F. Vicentini, and G. Carleo, An efficient quantum algorithm for the time evolution of parameterized circuits, Quantum 5, 512 (2021).
  55. N. F. Berthusen, T. V. Trevisan, T. Iadecola, and P. P. Orth, Quantum dynamics simulations beyond the coherence time on noisy intermediate-scale quantum hardware by variational Trotter compression, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023097 (2022).
  56. M. L. Goh, M. Larocca, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and F. Sauvage, Lie-algebraic classical simulations for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033266 (2025).
  57. D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Many-body localization edge in the random-field Heisenberg chain, Phys. Rev. B 91, 081103 (2015).
  58. A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9456 (2018).
  59. C. Kiumi and B. Koczor, TE-PAI: Exact time evolution by sampling random circuits, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10, 045071 (2025).
  60. Z. Zimborás, B. Koczor, Z. Holmes, E.-M. Borrelli, A. Gilyén, H.-Y. Huang, Z. Cai, A. Acín, L. Aolita, L. Banchi, et al., Myths around quantum computation before full fault tolerance: What no-go theorems rule out and what they don't, arXiv:2501.05694.
  61. Y. Yang, A. Christianen, M. C. Bañuls, D. S. Wild, and J. I. Cirac, Phase-sensitive quantum measurement without controlled operations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 220601 (2024).
  62. T. Jones, A. Brown, I. Bush, and S. C. Benjamin, Quest and high performance simulation of quantum computers, Sci. Rep. 9, 10736 (2019).
  63. T. Jones and S. Benjamin, QuESTlink—Mathematica embiggened by a hardware-optimised quantum emulator, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 034012 (2020).
  64. A. Richards, University of Oxford advanced research computing, Zenodo (2015), http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22558.
  65. Z. Cai, Resource estimation for quantum variational simulations of the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014059 (2020).
  66. H. Jnane, B. Undseth, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and B. Koczor, Multicore quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 044064 (2022).
  67. F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and J. I. Latorre, Quantum circuits for strongly correlated quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 79, 032316 (2009).
  68. I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 110501 (2018).
  69. A. Ijaz, C. H. Alderete, F. Sauvage, L. Cincio, M. Cerezo, and M. L. Goh, More buck-per-shot: Why learning trumps mitigation in noisy quantum sensing, Mater. Today Quantum 6100042 (2025).
  70. E. Van Den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, Probabilistic error cancellation with sparse Pauli–Lindblad models on noisy quantum processors, Nat. Phys. 19, 1116 (2023).
  71. S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Pollmann, Real-and imaginary-time evolution with compressed quantum circuits, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021).
  72. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).
  73. M. L. Goh, Protocols and applications for imperfect quantum devices, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 2024.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013250– Published 6 March, 2026
  • Received 17 July 2024
  • Accepted 5 February 2026
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