Edukaizen

Menu
  • News
  • Hubbard
    • Hubbard 1D
      • Part 1: 1D Hubbard model
      • Part 2: Snake layout and fSWAP
      • Part 3: Qiskit and Fire Opal
      • Part 4: 120-qubit run
      • Part 5: Time-to-answer
      • Part 6: Tensor networks
      • Part 7: Majorana propagation
      • Part 8: Reading heatmaps
      • Part 9: Digital vs cold-atom labs
      • Part 10: Official Monoprop benchmark
    • Hubbard 2D
      • Part 1: 1D to 2D
      • Part 2: Cuprates
      • Part 3: 3×3
      • Part 4: Time
      • Part 5: 4×4
      • Part 6: 6×6 Fez
    • 2D Local Quantum Advantage
      • Deel 1: Doel en budget
      • Deel 2: Fermionmodel
      • Deel 3: Mapping en diepte
      • Deel 4: Pilots en shots
      • Deel 5: Foutmitigatie
      • Deel 6: 6×6-resultaten
      • Deel 7: Circa 20x
      • Deel 8: Google en Bonsai
      • Deel 9: Volgende stap
  • Hadron
    • Part 1: Hadron on a quantum processor
    • Part 2: Quarks and confinement
    • Part 3: SU(2) and LSH
    • Part 4: Hamiltonian and circuit
    • Part 5: Fire Opal
    • Part 6: Classical simulations
    • Part 7: Quantum advantage
  • Black Hole OLE
    • Part 1: What we ran
    • Part 2: How OLE works
    • Part 3: Fire Opal and Kingston
    • Part 4: The tensor-network challenge
    • Part 5: Hawking and scrambling
    • Part 6: What the result proves
    • Part 7: Local toy model
    • Part 8: QGSS26 compatibility
  • Random Graph
    • Start here
    • Part 1: Theory
    • Part 2: Circuit
    • Part 3: Qiskit
    • Part 4: Complexity
    • Part 5: Verification
    • Part 6: Workflow
    • Part 7: Conclusion
  • Floquet-Ising
    • Part 1: Floquet physics
    • Part 2: Ising cycle
    • Part 3: Two-qubit toy model
    • Part 4: Oscillation and entanglement
    • Part 5: Noise and error mitigation
    • Part 6: Toward 51 qubits
  • XXZham
    • Part 1: The XXZ model and imbalance
    • Part 2: From dynamics to a quantum circuit
    • Part 3: The classical simulation methods
    • Part 4: Error mitigation on real hardware
    • Part 5: Results and the classical comparison
    • Part 6: Original study and next steps
  • Work
    • QOS QML
      • Tutorial: UMI counts to a four-qubit circuit
      • Part 1: The QML task
      • Part 2: QOS theory
      • Part 3: Gene expression to 40 qubits
      • Part 4: JAX to hardware
      • Part 5: Readout and classifier
      • Part 6: 40-qubit result
      • Part 7: Route to quantum advantage
      • Part 8: 60-qubit result
    • Quantum Gold
      • Part 1: Why gold is a relativistic quantum problem
      • Part 2: Why the 2025 gold VQE study stalled
      • Part 3: From QE and spin–orbit coupling to Qiskit
      • Part 4: Twelve gold spinor modes on four qubits
      • Part 5: The 24-qubit route: an active window for transport
      • Part 6: 24 qubits on IBM and with Fire Opal
      • Part 7: The road to quantum advantage for gold
      • Part 8: 24 gold spinor modes on IBM with ZNE-PEA
      • Part 9: Forced gold colour on 56 qubits
    • HaPPY Gravity
      • Part 1: Gravity as a phase gate
      • Part 2: Bosons and convergence
      • Part 3: The dynamic HaPPY benchmark
      • Part 4: The N=145 classical audit
      • Part 5: MPS and Majorana baselines
      • Part 6: PEA/ZNE and the decisive test
    • Fibonacci Anyons
      • Part 1: Fusion and braiding
      • Part 2: The 3/5/9-qubit ladder
      • Part 3: Why nine qubits were too deep
      • Part 4: Structure-aware simplification
      • Part 5: IBM hardware diagnostic
      • Part 6: Results and open questions
  • Advantage List
  • Contact
Menu

Part 2: From dynamics to a quantum circuit

NederlandsEnglish

XXZham / Part 2 / 6

From time evolution to a quantum circuit

Exact evolution is described by U(t)=exp(-iHt). Neighbouring interaction terms generally do not commute, so we cannot replace this operator by a product of individual gates without introducing an approximation. Trotterization divides the evolution into smaller pieces.

Our quantum implementation uses the interaction picture with respect to the local field:

\[
U(t)=e^{-iH_ft}U_I(t),\qquad
H_I(t)=e^{iH_ft}H_{\mathrm{XXZ}}e^{-iH_ft}.
\]

The field has not disappeared from the physics. Its effect reappears as a time-dependent phase in the exchange interactions. The ZZ term remains unchanged. The imbalance commutes with the field, so the final field rotation does not change this observable. This helps us formulate a circuit specifically for the measurement we need.

Within each time interval, the interactions are divided into even and odd bonds and applied in a symmetric half-full-half sequence: half an even-bond layer, a full odd-bond layer, and another half even-bond layer. The source code uses interval-averaged interactions, including a sinc factor for the changing phase. This remains an approximation: time ordering and noncommuting interactions still require checks.

We use 20 Trotter steps for each requested final time. The step size is therefore t/20 and increases with the final time. The classical TEBD calculation instead uses a fixed smaller time step and reuses the state along the entire trajectory. Both methods target the same Hamiltonian dynamics, but they do not execute the same algorithm.

Previous: part 1OverviewNext: part 3

Recent Posts

  • Quantum computing-nieuws — 18 september 2026
  • A Call to Qiskit Advocates: Help Test Quantum Advantage
  • Quantum computing-nieuws — 11 september 2026
  • Quantum computing-nieuws — 4 september 2026
  • Quantum computing-nieuws — 28 augustus 2026

Recent Comments

  1. XXZham: simulating 80 spins with a NISQ quantum computer - Edukaizen on XXZham: quantumsimulatie van 80 spins

Archives

  • September 2026
  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • May 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • September 2024

Categories

  • 10
  • Quantum Computing
  • Uncategorized
©2026 Edukaizen | Theme by SuperbThemes