Researchers report digital quantum simulation of 2D Fermi-Hubbard model on 72 qubits

Original title: Programmable digital quantum simulation of 2D Fermi-Hubbard dynamics using 72 superconducting qubits

In one sentence

A preprint describes simulating 2D Fermi-Hubbard electron dynamics on a 72-qubit superconducting processor, benchmarked against classical methods.

What were the researchers trying to find out?

The researchers set out to test whether a general-purpose digital quantum computer could simulate the time dynamics of the 2D Fermi-Hubbard model, a simplified model of interacting electrons in solids, at a scale beyond exact classical computation, and to compare the results against leading approximate classical simulation methods.

What did they find?

  1. The authors report simulating the 2D Fermi-Hubbard model on lattice sizes up to 6×6 using 72 qubits on Google's Willow processor, across varying interaction strengths and magnetic flux values.

    From the paper: We implement simulations of this model on lattice sizes up to 6×6 using 72 qubits on Google's Willow quantum processor · Abstract

  2. The study finds evidence of magnetic polaron formation, dynamical breaking of stripe-order symmetry, and charge-carrier attraction on a valence bond solid background.

    From the paper: study phenomena including formation of magnetic polarons · Abstract

  3. According to the authors, a holon stripe broke apart quickly even at the largest interaction strength tested, contradicting mean-field predictions of oscillation around its initial position.

    From the paper: we observe that the stripe quickly breaks apart, even for the largest interaction strengths considered · Physics simulation results

  4. The authors report that classical tensor network and operator propagation methods, run using over 100 CPU years, often matched hardware results but sometimes disagreed on more complex many-body quantities.

    From the paper: These classical computations took over 100 CPU years on the Google Cloud Platform · Benchmarking against approximate classical simulation methods

Why we're watching this

This work matters because it pushes digital quantum simulation of interacting electron models into territory where exact classical checks are impossible, using a general-purpose programmable processor rather than a bespoke analogue simulator. It builds on growing efforts to benchmark quantum hardware against tensor network and operator propagation methods rather than claiming outright quantum advantage. Readers working in quantum hardware, materials simulation, or condensed matter physics should watch how the gap between quantum and classical approximations evolves as system sizes grow, and whether the error mitigation techniques described here generalise to other many-body models relevant to real materials.

What should you keep in mind?

  • The authors note that simulation quality degrades gradually as system size and gate count increase, a known constraint of current pre-fault-tolerant hardware. (stated by the authors)
  • The authors state it remains unclear which method, quantum or classical, is more accurate once interactions are switched on, since no exact comparison is possible in that regime. (stated by the authors)
  • This entry is based on the sections reviewed, and the introduction was not available, so some framing and prior-work context may be missing. (TechiesJournal observation)

About this source

Format
Preprint
Peer review
Not peer reviewed
Publisher
Phasecraft and Google (develops the technology discussed)
Released
23 Sep 2026
Version covered
arXiv v3 · 23 Sep 2026
Added
28 Sep 2026

Authors

Faisal Alam, Jan Lukas Bosse, Ieva \v{C}epait\.e, Adrian Chapman, Laura Clinton and 39 others

Show all 44 authors
  1. Faisal Alam
  2. Jan Lukas Bosse
  3. Ieva \v{C}epait\.e
  4. Adrian Chapman
  5. Laura Clinton
  6. Marcos Crichigno
  7. Elizabeth Crosson
  8. Toby Cubitt
  9. Charles Derby
  10. Oliver Dowinton
  11. Paul K. Faehrmann
  12. Steve Flammia
  13. Brian Flynn
  14. Filippo Maria Gambetta
  15. Ra\'ul Garc\'ia-Patr\'on
  16. Max Hunter-Gordon
  17. Glenn Jones
  18. Abhishek Khedkar
  19. Joel Klassen
  20. Michael Kreshchuk
  21. Edward Harry McMullan
  22. Lana Mineh
  23. Ashley Montanaro
  24. Caterina Mora
  25. John J. L. Morton
  26. Dhrumil Patel
  27. Pete Rolph
  28. Raul A. Santos
  29. James R. Seddon
  30. Evan Sheridan
  31. Wilfrid Somogyi
  32. Marika Svensson
  33. Niam Vaishnav
  34. Sabrina Yue Wang
  35. Gethin Wright
  36. Dmitry Abanin
  37. Mohammed Alghadeer
  38. Jaehong Choi
  39. Tyler Cochran
  40. Gaurav Gyawali
  41. Shashwat Kumar
  42. Ricky Oliver
  43. Eliott Rosenberg
  44. Pedram Roushan

Prepared from the original research with automated assistance and reviewed by a TechiesJournal editor before publication.

Report a correction

Corrections go to the editor and are never published automatically. No account needed.