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

Solving free fermion problems on a quantum computer

Maarten Stroeks1,2,*, Daan Lenterman3, Barbara M. Terhal1,2, and Yaroslav Herasymenko2,4,†

  • 1QuTech, TU Delft, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ Delft, The Netherlands
  • 2Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, TU Delft, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
  • 3Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland
  • 4QuSoft and CWI, Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  • *Contact author: m.e.h.m.stroeks@tudelft.nl
  • Contact author: yaroslav@cwi.nl

Phys. Rev. Research 7, 043176 – Published 18 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/zmwm-gdmw

Abstract

Simulating noninteracting fermion systems is a common task in computational many-body physics. In the absence of translational symmetries, modeling free fermions on N modes usually requires poly(N) computational resources. While often moderate, these costs can be prohibitive in practice when large systems are considered. We present several free fermion problems that can be solved by a quantum algorithm with substantially reduced computational costs. The memory costs are exponentially improved, polylog(N). The run-time improvement, compared to the best known classical algorithms, is either exponential or significantly polynomial, depending on the geometry of the problem. The simulation of free fermion dynamics belongs to the BQP-hard complexity class (i.e., as hard as any (decision) problem that can be solved on a quantum computer). This implies (under standard assumptions) that our algorithm yields an exponential speedup for any classical algorithm at least for some geometries. The key technique in our algorithm is the block encoding of objects such as correlation matrices and Green's functions into a unitary. We demonstrate how such unitaries can be efficiently realized as quantum circuits, in the context of dynamics and thermal states of tight-binding Hamiltonians. The special cases of disordered and inhomogeneous lattices, as well as large nonlattice graphs, are presented in detail. Finally, we show that our simulation algorithm generalizes to other promising targets, including free-boson systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (48)

  1. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996).
  2. B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032325 (2002).
  3. E. Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates, arXiv:quant-ph/0108033 [quant-ph].
  4. S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Inf. Comput. 5, 216 (2005).
  5. C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, Kwant: A software package for quantum transport, New J. Phys. 16, 063065 (2014).
  6. T. Kloss, J. Weston, B. Gaury, B. Rossignol, C. Groth, and X. Waintal, Tkwant: a software package for time-dependent quantum transport, New J. Phys. 23, 023025 (2021).
  7. R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, A. Miyake, and J. Watrous, Matchgate and space-bounded quantum computations are equivalent, Proc. R. Soc. A 466, 809 (2010).
  8. B. Kraus, Compressed quantum simulation of the ising model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 250503 (2011).
  9. G. Blázquez-Cruz and P.-L. Dallaire-Demers, Quantum supremacy regime for compressed fermionic models, arXiv:2110.09550 [quant-ph].
  10. B. Senjean, S. Yalouz, and M. Saubanère, Toward density functional theory on quantum computers? SciPost Phys. 14, 055 (2023).
  11. A. Barthe, M. Cerezo, A. T. Sornborger, M. Larocca, and D. García-Martín, Gate-based quantum simulation of Gaussian bosonic circuits on exponentially many modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 070604 (2025).
  12. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, in 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2015), pp. 792–809.
  13. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum 3, 163 (2019).
  14. A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '19 (ACM, New York, 2019).
  15. L. Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation, arXiv:2201.08309.
  16. P. Rall, Quantum algorithms for estimating physical quantities using block encodings, Phys. Rev. A 102, 022408 (2020).
  17. R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, R. Kothari, R. D. Somma, and N. Wiebe, Exponential quantum speedup in simulating coupled classical oscillators, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041041 (2023).
  18. S. Danz, M. Berta, S. Schröder, P. Kienast, F. K. Wilhelm, and A. Ciani, Calculating response functions of coupled oscillators using quantum phase estimation, arXiv:2405.08694 [quant-ph].
  19. R. D. Somma, R. King, R. Kothari, T. O’Brien, and R. Babbush, Shadow Hamiltonian simulation, Nat. Commun. 16, 2690 (2025).
  20. A. Montanaro and S. Stanisic, Compressed variational quantum eigensolver for the fermi-hubbard model, arXiv:2006.01179 [quant-ph].
  21. There are straightforward generalizations, using Majorana fermion language, to just parity-conserving free fermion Hamiltonians.
  22. A. Altland and B. D. Simons, Condensed Matter Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, UK, 2010), 2nd ed.
  23. A. Gilyén, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, arXiv:1806.01838 [quant-ph].
  24. K. S. Tikhonov, A. D. Mirlin, and M. A. Skvortsov, Anderson localization and ergodicity on random regular graphs, Phys. Rev. B 94, 220203 (2016).
  25. C. Vanoni, B. L. Altshuler, V. E. Kravtsov, and A. Scardicchio, Renormalization group analysis of the Anderson model on random regular graphs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2401955121 (2024).
  26. I. García-Mata, O. Giraud, B. Georgeot, J. Martin, R. Dubertrand, and G. Lemarié, Scaling theory of the Anderson transition in random graphs: Ergodicity and universality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 166801 (2017).
  27. I. García-Mata, J. Martin, R. Dubertrand, O. Giraud, B. Georgeot, and G. Lemarié, Two critical localization lengths in the Anderson transition on random graphs, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012020 (2020).
  28. O. Goldreich, S. Goldwasser, and S. Micali, How to construct random functions, J. ACM 33, 792 (1986).
  29. A. Banerjee, C. Peikert, and A. Rosen, in Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques (Springer, Germany, 2012), pp. 719–737.
  30. J. Chen and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum linear algebra for disordered electrons, arXiv:2411.00434 [quant-ph].
  31. L. N. Trefethen, Convergence for analytic functions, in Approximation Theory and Approximation Practice, Extended Edition (SIAM, USA, 2013), Chap. 8, pp. 55–62.
  32. M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge Series on Information and the Natural Sciences (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
  33. From this point onward, all considered states are free fermionic, unless stated otherwise.
  34. E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani, Quantum complexity theory, SIAM J. Comput. 26, 1411 (1997).
  35. D. Nagaj, Local Hamiltonians in quantum computation, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 2008.
  36. M. B. Hastings, Decay of correlations in fermi systems at nonzero temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 126402 (2004).
  37. C.-F. A. Chen, A. Lucas, and C. Yin, Speed limits and locality in many-body quantum dynamics, Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 116001 (2023).
  38. M. C. Tran, C.-F. Chen, A. Ehrenberg, A. Y. Guo, A. Deshpande, Y. Hong, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. Lucas, Hierarchy of linear light cones with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031009 (2020).
  39. P. C. S. Costa, S. Jordan, and A. Ostrander, Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012323 (2019).
  40. R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, M. Newman, C. Gidney, S. Boixo, and H. Neven, Focus beyond quadratic speedups for error-corrected quantum advantage, PRX Quantum 2, 010103 (2021).
  41. A. Kollár, M. Fitzpatrick, P. Sarnak, and A. Houck, Line-graph lattices: Euclidean and non-Euclidean flat bands, and implementations in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Commun. Math. Phys. 376, 1909 (2020).
  42. S. Bravyi and R. Koenig, Classical simulation of dissipative fermionic linear optics, Quantum Inf. Comput. 12, 925 (2012).
  43. K. Sakamoto and K. Fujii, On the quantum computational complexity of classical linear dynamics with geometrically local interactions: Dequantization and universality, arXiv:2505.10445 [quant-ph].
  44. K. Temme, T. J. Osborne, K. G. Vollbrecht, D. Poulin, and F. Verstraete, Quantum Metropolis sampling, Nature (London) 471, 87 (2011).
  45. J. Jiang and S. Irani, Quantum metropolis sampling via weak measurement, arXiv:2406.16023 [quant-ph].
  46. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).
  47. A. Peres, Reversible logic and quantum computers, Phys. Rev. A 32, 3266 (1985).
  48. S. Boixo, E. Knill, and R. Somma, Eigenpath traversal by phase randomization, Quantum Inf. Comput. 9, 833 (2009).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation