← Atlas

Algorithms · Product-formula Hamiltonian simulation

Trotter–Suzuki Hamiltonian simulation

Approximates the time evolution of a Hamiltonian with non-commuting terms by alternating their individual exponentials.

Strong empiricalUpdated

Open on the mapView frozen graph

A small worked example, computed in your browser. It is not a result from this record's papers.

2 Trotter steps of a transverse-field Ising chain

4 qubits starting at |0000⟩, J=1, h=0.5, dt=0.3, 2 first-order Trotter steps.

q0q1q2q3Step 1 of 2 · Ising Trotter step(4)Ising Trotter step(4)Step 2 of 2 · Ising Trotter step(4)Ising Trotter step(4)

Step 1 of 2 · Ising Trotter step(4)

Probability of each outcome after this step

  • 000091%
  • 00012%
  • 00102%
  • 01002%
  • 10002%
  • 00110%
  • 01010%
  • 01100%
  • 8 more outcomes0%
Amplitude and phase after this step
OutcomeProbabilityRelative phase
000091.4%0
00012.1%3π/2
00102.1%3π/2
01002.1%3π/2
10002.1%3π/2
00110.0%π
01010.0%π
01100.0%π

8 more outcomes (0.1% between them)

Phases are measured against the largest amplitude. A global phase is not observable, so only the differences carry meaning.

  1. First Trotter step: RZZ(2*J*dt) couples each neighbouring pair on the line, then RX(2*h*dt) applies the transverse field to every qubit.

    Probability spreads from 1 outcome to 16.

  2. Second Trotter step, identical to the first. Together the two steps approximate exp(−i·H·2·dt) for this chain's Hamiltonian.

    Probability moves between the same 16 outcomes. Up: 0001 2.1% → 6.4%, 1000 2.1% → 6.4%. Down: 0000 91.4% → 75.2%. This is the step that entangles the qubits: from here on no single qubit has a state of its own, only the register as a whole does.

Readout The state spreads from |0000⟩ across several nearby basis states. The exact split is a regression value from this file's own simulator, not a claim about a real material.

Open in Studio
  • Steps3
  • Wires1
  • Qubits1 (toy instance)
  • Trotter stepsr = 4 (shown)
  • Error scalingO(t²/r) first order
  • Papers2

Simulating e−iHte^{-iHt} for a Hamiltonian H=∑jAjH=\sum_j A_j with non-commuting terms AjA_j cannot generally be done by exponentiating each term separately, since e−i(A+B)t≠e−iAte−iBte^{-i(A+B)t}\neq e^{-iAt}e^{-iBt} unless [A,B]=0[A,B]=0. The first-order Trotter formula approximates it anyway by splitting the evolution into rr short steps:

e−iHt≈(∏je−iAjt/r)r,e^{-iHt} \approx \left(\prod_j e^{-iA_j t/r}\right)^{r},

with error O(t2/r)O(t^2/r) per Lloyd's original analysis (1996); tighter, commutator-dependent bounds (Childs, Su, Tran, Wiebe, Zhu, 2019) show the error scales with ∑i<j∥[Ai,Aj]∥\sum_{i<j}\|[A_i,A_j]\|, vanishing exactly when the terms commute. Suzuki's symmetric (even-order) product formulas reduce the error to O(tp+1/rp)O(t^{p+1}/r^p) for order pp, at the cost of more exponentials evaluated per step.

Exactly solvable small instance. Take the single-qubit Hamiltonian H=X+Z=2 n^⋅σ⃗H=X+Z=\sqrt2\,\hat n\cdot\vec\sigma with n^=(1,0,1)/2\hat n=(1,0,1)/\sqrt2, and note [X,Z]=−2iY≠0[X,Z]=-2iY\neq0, so a Trotter error genuinely exists here. Exact evolution from ∣0⟩|0\rangle gives

e−iHt∣0⟩=[cos⁡(2t)−isin⁡(2t)2]∣0⟩−isin⁡(2t)2∣1⟩,e^{-iHt}|0\rangle = \left[\cos(\sqrt2 t) - i\frac{\sin(\sqrt2 t)}{\sqrt2}\right]|0\rangle - i\frac{\sin(\sqrt2 t)}{\sqrt2}|1\rangle,

so P(∣0⟩)=1−12sin⁡2(2t)P(|0\rangle) = 1-\tfrac12\sin^2(\sqrt2 t) and P(∣1⟩)=12sin⁡2(2t)P(|1\rangle)=\tfrac12\sin^2(\sqrt2 t). Choosing t=π/(22)t=\pi/(2\sqrt2) makes 2t=π/2\sqrt2 t=\pi/2, giving P(∣0⟩)=P(∣1⟩)=0.5P(|0\rangle)=P(|1\rangle)=0.5 exactly — a concrete analytic target that the first-order Trotter circuit (alternating RXR_X and RZR_Z layers) converges to as the number of steps rr grows, with discrepancy shrinking as O(t2/r)O(t^2/r).

Where it is used. Trotterization is the default way to run digital Hamiltonian simulation on gate-based hardware, and underlies quantum chemistry, condensed-matter, and QITE/VarQITE pipelines that need e−iHte^{-iHt} or e−Hτe^{-H\tau} as a subroutine.

References

  • Universal Quantum Simulators

    Seth Lloyd · 1996

    Original proof that a quantum computer can efficiently simulate local Hamiltonians via Trotterization, with the O(t²/r) error bound.

  • A Theory of Trotter Error

    Andrew M. Childs, Yuan Su, Minh C. Tran, Nathan Wiebe, Shuchen Zhu · 2019

    Tighter Trotter error bounds in terms of nested commutators, sharpening the resource estimates used in practice.

Strong empirical
  • Verified by construction
  • Small-instance agreement
  • Peer-reviewed paper
Method
The circuit alternates RX/RZ layers implementing a first-order Trotter step for H=X+Z. The exact (non-Trotterized) evolution e^{-iHt}|0> is derived analytically at a specific t and compared against the target the Trotter circuit approximates.
Result
Pass · at t=π/(2√2), exact evolution under H=X+Z gives P(|0>)=P(|1>)=0.5 exactly, the target the Trotter circuit converges to as the step count r grows.
Caveat
This record verifies the product-formula construction and an exact target state at one qubit; it does not measure the actual Trotter error at finite r on hardware.
Universal Quantum Simulators ↗
Kind
curated reference
Reviewed by
Leona Quantum curation pass
License
CC BY 4.0-compatible reference metadata
hamiltonian simulationtrotterproduct formulatime evolution
  • Simulating molecular and materials Hamiltonians for chemistry
  • Quantum dynamics of spin chains and lattice models
  • Subroutine inside QITE and other time-dependent simulation methods

Atlas stars stay in the public catalog. Saving this entry to your workspace starts an unstarred private copy.