A Quantum Algorithm with Polylogarithmic Depth per Trotter Step for the Extended Hubbard Model
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2512.03898
\RequirePackage{etex}
\documentclass[aps,pra, 10pt,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4-2}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[ascii]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amsthm}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{braket}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{tikz-network}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage[version=4]{mhchem}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true, bookmarks=false, allcolors=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{orcidlink}
\usepackage{quantikz}
\usepackage[compat=<version>]{yquant}
%\usepackage{dblfloatfix}
\usepackage{pifont}
\usepackage{multirow}
\newcommand{\cmark}{\checkmark}
\newcommand{\xmark}{\ding{55}}
% omit "do" in algorithms
\algrenewcommand\algorithmicdo{}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.pathreplacing, decorations.text}
\DeclareMathOperator{\e}{e}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{Tr}
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{00F6}{\"o}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\abs{\lvert}{\rvert}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\norm{\lVert}{\rVert}
\setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{64}
\graphicspath{{figures/}}
\makeatletter
\def\input@path{{figures/}}
\makeatother
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright, singlelinecheck=false, font=small}
\begin{document}
\title{Polylogarithmic-Depth Quantum Algorithm for Simulating the Extended Hubbard Model on a Two-Dimensional Lattice Using the Fast Multipole Method}
\author{Yu Wang\,\orcidlink{0009-0004-3972-4388}}
\email{18yu.wang@tum.de}
\affiliation{Technical University of Munich, CIT, Department of Computer Science, Boltzmannstra{\ss}e 3, 85748 Garching, Germany}
% \affiliation{Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Schellingstra{\ss}e 4, 80799 M\"unchen, Germany}
\author{Martina Nibbi\,\orcidlink{0009-0001-6440-0498}}
%\email{martina.nibbi@tum.de}
\affiliation{Technical University of Munich, CIT, Department of Computer Science, Boltzmannstra{\ss}e 3, 85748 Garching, Germany}
\affiliation{Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Schellingstra{\ss}e 4, 80799 M\"unchen, Germany}
\author{Maxine Luo\,\orcidlink{0009-0001-0513-3959}}
%\email{man.luo@mpq.mpg.de}
\affiliation{Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Schellingstra{\ss}e 4, 80799 M\"unchen, Germany}
\affiliation{Max-Planck-Institute f\"ur Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Stra{\ss}e 1, 85748 Garching, Germany}
\author{Isabel~Nha~Minh~Le\,\orcidlink{0000-0001-6707-044X}}
%\email{isabel.le@tum.de}
\affiliation{Technical University of Munich, CIT, Department of Computer Science, Boltzmannstra{\ss}e 3, 85748 Garching, Germany}
\affiliation{Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Schellingstra{\ss}e 4, 80799 M\"unchen, Germany}
\author{Yanbin Chen\,\orcidlink{0000-0002-1123-1432}}
%\email{yanbin.chen@tum.de}
\affiliation{Technical University of Munich, CIT, Department of Computer Science, Boltzmannstra{\ss}e 3, 85748 Garching, Germany}
\author{J.~Ignacio Cirac\,\orcidlink{0000-0003-3359-1743}}
%\email{ignacio.cirac@mpq.mpg.de}
\affiliation{Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Schellingstra{\ss}e 4, 80799 M\"unchen, Germany}
\affiliation{Max-Planck-Institute f\"ur Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Stra{\ss}e 1, 85748 Garching, Germany}
\author{Christian B.~Mendl\,\orcidlink{0000-0002-6386-0230}}
%\email{christian.mendl@tum.de}
\affiliation{Technical University of Munich, CIT, Department of Computer Science, Boltzmannstra{\ss}e 3, 85748 Garching, Germany}
\affiliation{Technical University of Munich, Institute for Advanced Study, Lichtenbergstra{\ss}e 2a, 85748 Garching, Germany}
% \affiliation{Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Schellingstra{\ss}e 4, 80799 M\"unchen, Germany}
\date{\today}
\begin{abstract}
The extended Hubbard model on a two-dimensional lattice captures key physical phenomena, but is challenging to simulate due to the presence of long-range interactions. In this work, we present an efficient quantum algorithm for simulating the time evolution of this model. Our approach, inspired by the fast multipole method, approximates pairwise interactions by interactions between hierarchical levels of coarse-graining boxes. We discuss how to leverage recent advances in two-dimensional neutral atom quantum computing, supporting non-local operations such as long-range gates and shuttling. The resulting circuit depth for a single Trotter step scales polylogarithmically with system size.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
%contents
%\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Quantum simulation of strongly correlated electronic structure and condensed matter problems is a central and natural application of quantum computing due to the shared quantum mechanical description, and potentially offers an exponential computational advantage compared to classical methods~\cite{feynman1982, lloyd1996universal, McArdle2020RMP, Georgescu2014RMP, reiher2017elucidating, arute2020hartreefock, preskill2018nisq, lin2022heisenberg, monroe2021programmable}. %This is because electronic structure problems are fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics, leading to the ``curse of dimensionality'' for classical methods; whereas quantum computing offers a potentially powerful alternative~\cite{}.
Here, we focus on simulating the extended Fermi-Hubbard model~\cite{Hubbard1963, Arovas2022} with long-range (Coulomb) interactions on a two-dimensional (2D) lattice:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hubbard}
\hspace{-0.2cm}
H = \underbrace{t \sum_{\substack{\langle a,b \rangle\\ \sigma}} \hat{c}_{a, \sigma}^\dagger \hat{c}_{b, \sigma}}_{T}
+ \underbrace{V_0 \sum_{\substack{i\\\,}} \hat{n}_{a\uparrow} \hat{n}_{a\downarrow}}_{V_{\text{os}}}
+ \underbrace{\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\substack{a \ne b\\ \sigma,\sigma'}} V_{ab} \hat{n}_{a\sigma} \hat{n}_{b\sigma'}}_{V_C},
\end{equation}
where $a,b$ enumerate the lattice sites and $\sigma, \sigma'\in\{\downarrow,\uparrow\}$ denote the spins.
The nearest-neighbor hopping is described by $T$, where $\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{a,\sigma}$ and $\hat{c}_{a,\sigma}$ are fermionic creation and annihilation operators.
$V_{\text{os}}$ models the on-site interaction, with $\hat{n}_{a,\sigma}$ denoting the number operator, and the long-range (Coulomb) interaction is captured by $V_C$. Such a model plays a crucial role in investigating a variety of physical phenomena, including high-temperature superconductivity~\cite{Scalapino2012} and Mott insulator-metal transitions~\cite{Imada1998, Lee2006}. Moreover, it can be specialized for chemical systems, resulting in the Pariser-Parr-Pople (PPP) model~\cite{PariserParr1953b, Pople1953, Heeger1988}, which is widely applied to $\pi$-conjugated molecular systems, such as polyenes and aromatic hydrocarbons.
When simulating the time evolution of Eq.~\eqref{eq:hubbard} on a quantum computer, $V_{\text{os}}$ can be implemented using single-qubit gates in parallel. Moreover, it is well known that the hopping term $T$ on a 2D lattice can be realized with constant quantum circuit depth for a single Trotter step by employing local encoding methods, such as the Verstraete-Cirac encoding~\cite{verstraete2005mapping}, the Bravyi-Kitaev superfast encoding~\cite{bravyi2002fermionic}, and compact encoding~\cite{derby2021compact, clinton2021hamiltonian}. In contrast, simulating $V_C$ with all-to-all interaction is harder; when employing the fermionic SWAP network method~\cite{kivlichan2018quantum} or assuming all-to-all connectivity, the depth per Trotter step remains $\mathcal{O}(N)$, where $N$ is the number of lattice sites, and this scaling is conjectured to be optimal for generic $V_{ab}$ coefficients. Ameliorating the cost is possible when $V_C$ follows a power-law interaction $\propto 1/r^{\mu}$ ($\mu = 1$ in our case): namely, the interaction range can be truncated such that pairs $\{a,b\}$ separated by a distance $r$ greater than $\xi$ are neglected, with the truncation error chosen to be comparable to the Trotter error. Hence, the circuit depth can be further reduced to $\mathcal{O}(\xi^2)$ as there are $\mathcal{O}(\xi^2)$ terms per site. It has been proven that the value of $\xi$ can be chosen small for rapidly decaying interactions (large $\mu$)~\cite{tran2019locality, Childs2021PRXCommutator}, but still needs to be kept large for slowly decaying interactions (small $\mu$) to maintain the desired accuracy. In the latter case, $\mathcal{O}(\xi^2)$ would not significantly improve on the expensive $\mathcal{O}(N)$ scaling. % see Appendix \ref{app:spatial_trunc} for detailed derivation.
In this work, we introduce Q2FMM, an algorithm for simulating the time evolution of the second-quantized Fermi-Hubbard model which employs the \emph{fast multipole method (FMM)}~\cite{barnes1986hierarchical, ying2012pedestrian, greengard1987fast, darve2000fast} together with standard quantum arithmetic circuits~\cite{wang2025comprehensive, draper2006logarithmic, takahashi2009quantum, draper2006logarithmic, draper2000addition, remaud2025ancilla, draper2006logarithmic, dutta2018quantum, kepley2015quantum, orts2023improving}.
Specifically, Q2FMM targets an efficient implementation of the Coulomb potential. We also discuss how the \texttt{COPY} operation and unbounded fan-out gates~\cite{hoyer2005quantum} can further improve overall efficiency. While the Q2FMM framework is general, we illustrate its performance using a 2D neutral-atom quantum computer~\cite{hollerith2022distance, tao2024highfidelity, wei2023braneparity, graham2022multi, evered2023high, bluvstein2022processor, schmid2024compiler, bluvstein2024logical, evered2025kitaev, manetsch2025tweezer, chiu2025continuous3000, xu2025neutralhubbard}, which supports long-range entangling gates and hardware operations such as atom shuttling~\cite{graham2022multi, evered2023high, bluvstein2022processor, schmid2024compiler, bluvstein2024logical}. In this setting, Q2FMM implements the time evolution of the long-range Coulomb term $V_C$ with polylogarithmic circuit depth per Trotter step, $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\log(N))$. Here, the $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}$ notation indicates that additional polylogarithmic factors in the total electron number $Q$ are not explicitly reported. Additionally, we demonstrate that the gate complexity scales linearly with a given target accuracy. Consequently, the depth for simulating a single Trotter step of the full extended Hubbard model exhibits the same favorable scaling.
\section{Q2FMM using the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM}
\label{sec:FMM}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\input{expansion.tikz}
\caption{The expression that originally depends on the two target points $a$ and $b$ is rewritten in terms of local contributions around the centers $A$ and $B$, together with the interaction between the two centers.}
\label{fig:expansion}
\end{figure}
In this section, we first review the simplest variant of Q2FMM, referred to as the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM. A more advanced formulation is presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:higher_FMM}.
For simplicity, we neglect the spin, which will be reconsidered in Appendix~\ref{app:reconsider}. In this case, each site can only contain at most one fermion. Furthermore, in this work, we specifically consider the Coulomb interaction described by the kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cou_kernel}
K_C(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b) \coloneqq 1/\abs{\mathbf{r}_a - \mathbf{r}_b},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{r}_a$ and $\mathbf{r}_b$ denote the position of site $a$ and $b$, respectively. More generally, the FMM is applicable to a broad class of kernels, including Yukawa~\cite{greengard2002yukawa}, Helmholtz~\cite{cheng2006wideband, engquist2007directional, chew2001fastEM}, Stokes flow~\cite{tornberg2008stokes}, linear elasticity~\cite{liu2009fmbem, gimbutas2016mindlin}, polyharmonic~\cite{gumerov2006biharmonic}, and Riesz potentials~\cite{ying2004kifmm}.
Consequently, our Q2FMM implementation can potentially be extended to these models as well.
The FMM method for the Coulomb kernel given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:cou_kernel} is based on its multipole expansion~\cite{helgaker2000molecular}. We employ the regular and irregular solid harmonics~\cite{stone2013intermolecular}, defined as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:r_lm}
R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}) &\coloneqq
\sqrt{(\ell-m)!\,(\ell+m)!}\; r^{\ell}\, C_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi),
\end{align}
\begin{align}
I_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}) &\coloneqq
\sqrt{(\ell-m)!\,(\ell+m)!}\; r^{-(\ell+1)}\, C_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $C_{\ell m}(\theta,\phi)$ are the Racah-normalized spherical harmonics. Using these definitions, the Coulomb kernel can be expanded by the solid harmonic addition theorem~\cite{brink1968angular} as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kernel_expansion}
\begin{split}
K_C(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b)
&= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=-j}^{j}
(-1)^{j} \,
R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{aA}) \\
&\quad \times
I^{*}_{\ell+j,\, m+k}(\mathbf{r}_{AB}) \,
R_{jk}(\mathbf{r}_{bB}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $I^{*}(\mathbf{r}_{AB})$ denotes the complex conjugate of $I(\mathbf{r}_{AB})$, and $\mathbf{r}_{AB} = \mathbf{r}_A - \mathbf{r}_B$ denotes the distance between two centers. We refer to the textbook by Helgaker et al.~\cite{helgaker2000molecular} for a detailed derivation. This formula expresses $K_C(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b)$ in terms of local coordinates $\mathbf{r}_{aA}=\mathbf{r}_a-\mathbf{r}_A$ and
$\mathbf{r}_{bB}=\mathbf{r}_b-\mathbf{r}_B$ relative to
expansion centers $A$ and $B$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:expansion}.
To convey the core idea of our algorithm, we first present the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM based on the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM, in which we constrain the expansion order to $\ell = j = 0$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:kernel_expansion}. However, the accuracy of $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM is limited. We discuss extensions to higher-order FMM that enable systematically improvable accuracy in Sec.~\ref{sec:higher_FMM}.
\subsection{$0^\text{th}$-order FMM}
\label{sec:0th_fmm_theory}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{grid1.tikz}
\caption{Blue: interaction field of the target box $A$, handled at the current level. White: near field for box $A$. The distances to $A$ are too close to be considered at the current level and will be deferred to a finer level. Gray: far field, whose boxes have been considered at a coarser level, as shown on the right. Evaluating $K_C(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b)$ is approximated by $K_C(\mathbf{r}_A,\mathbf{r}_B)$ within interaction field at each level in the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM.}
\label{fig:point1}
\end{figure}
In this subsection, we follow the introduction by L.~Ying~\cite{ying2012pedestrian} to outline the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM. For simplicity, we focus on a square lattice, but extending to other geometries (e.g., rectangular lattices) is straightforward.
In such a approximation, for two well-separated regions $A$ and $B$ containing points $a\in A$ and $b\in B$, the pairwise kernel $K_C(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b)$ is approximated by the single representative value $K_C(\mathbf{r}_A,\mathbf{r}_B)$, where $\mathbf{r}_A$ and $\mathbf{r}_B$ denote the region centers (see Fig.~\ref{fig:point1}). Intuitively, this exploits the uniformity of the Coulomb potential. Hence, we shift the focus from evaluating each pairwise site-site interaction to capturing the collective interaction between electron distributions in distant regions. This is a good approximation for distant, small regions. Conversely, as the regions approach each other, the approximation becomes less accurate, necessitating a reduction in the size of each region to maintain the uniformity of the Coulomb potential between the two regions.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\input{2d_algo.tikz}
\caption{Illustration of the coarse-graining and time evolution algorithm. Each ball in the left diagram corresponds to a single qubit (lattice site) on the finest level. When reaching a coarser level (larger boxes), four child boxes are merged into one parent box. The time evolution phase is evaluated for all interacting pairs of boxes, displayed for one such pair in the center diagram. This procedure repeats until the coarsest level is reached. The ancilla qubits that record the occupation numbers are not drawn for visual clarity.}
\label{fig:2d_algo}
\end{figure*}
Fig.~\ref{fig:point1} illustrates this approach using a hierarchy of boxes, which serve as ``regions'' above, organized in a quadtree structure. As the hierarchy is refined, each large box is subdivided into four smaller boxes, with the larger box referred to as the \emph{parent box} and the smaller ones as \emph{child boxes}. The occupation number of a parent box can be obtained by summing the occupation numbers of its child boxes. In our method, the procedure starts from the finest level. Consequently, all parent boxes at coarser levels can reuse the occupation information from previous levels. For each box, all other boxes are classified into three categories based on their distance from the current box: neighbor boxes form the \emph{near field}, boxes not in the near field but whose parents are neighbors of the current box's parent form the \emph{interaction list}, and the remaining ones belong to the \emph{far field}, which is handled at coarser levels.
At each level, the summation of point-point interactions between box $A$ and box $B$ is approximated as:
\begin{equation}
V_{AB} \coloneqq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\substack{a\in A\\b\in B}} K_C(\mathbf{r}_a,\mathbf{r}_b)\hat{n}_a\hat{n}_b
\approx \frac{1}{2}K_C(\mathbf{r}_A,\mathbf{r}_B)\hat{N}_A\hat{N}_B,
\label{eq:HAB}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{N}_A = \sum_{a\in A}\hat{n}_a$. For each box, we only consider interactions with boxes within its interaction list that are sufficiently far away to ensure the accuracy of the approximation, while avoiding double-counting of interactions that have already been handled at coarser levels.
Consequently, for each level $L$, which contains $4^{L}$ boxes in total, we only calculate the box-box interactions in each box $A$'s interaction list $I(A)$:
\begin{equation}
V_{L} \coloneqq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{A} \sum_{B\in {I(A)}} K_C(\mathbf{r}_A,\mathbf{r}_B)\hat{N}_A\hat{N}_B.
\label{eq:Hl}
\end{equation}
Thus, we can approximate the Coulomb term as:
\begin{equation}
V_C = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{a \ne b} V_{ab} \hat{n}_{a} \hat{n}_{b} \approx \sum_{L=2}^{L_{\text{max}}} V_{L},
\label{eq:H_app}
\end{equation}
where $L_{\max}$ denotes the finest level of the hierarchy.
All interaction pairs are accounted for by systematically traversing all levels of the hierarchy in this manner.
\subsection{Implementing $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM with quantum arithmetic circuits}
\label{sec:time_evo_arith}
Following the Trotterization technique~\cite{Trotter1959Product, Suzuki1976Generalized, Berry2007Sparse, Childs2019LatticePF, Childs2021PRXCommutator}, we can approximate the time evolution of $H$ using the second-order Trotterization as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
U(t) &\coloneqq e^{-i t (T+V_\text{os}+V_C)} \\
&\approx \left( e^{-i\frac{\delta t}{2}(T+V_\text{os})} \, e^{-i\delta t V_C} \, e^{-i\frac{\delta t}{2}(T+V_\text{os})} \right)^d,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the number of Trotter steps and $\delta t = t/d$. As discussed in Sec.~\ref {sec:intro}, the circuit depth for simulating the on-site and hopping terms can be reduced to $\mathcal{O}(1)$; hence, we do not elaborate on it here.
In this work, we focus on the time evolution operator $e^{-i\delta t V_C}$ that corresponds to the Coulomb term, for which we employ the approximation from Eq.~\eqref{eq:H_app}, so that
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\delta t V_C} \approx \prod_{L=2}^{L_{\max}} e^{-i \delta t V_{L}}.
\label{eq:time_total}
\end{equation}
By inserting Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hl}, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:time_l}
e^{-i \delta t V_{L}} = \prod_{A} \prod_{B\in {I_{L}(A)}} e^{-i t^{\prime}_{AB} \hat{N}_A\hat{N}_B},
\end{equation}
where we absorbed all the coefficients into the effective time
\begin{equation}
t^{\prime}_{AB} = K_C(\mathbf{r}_A,\mathbf{r}_B)\delta t/ 2.
\end{equation}
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:time_l}, $I_L(A)$ denotes the interaction list associated with level $L$ and the boxes with corresponding size.
The evolution of each computational basis under $e^{-i \delta t V_L}$ depends on the product $N_A N_B$, where $N_A$ and $N_B$ are the respective occupation numbers of box $A$ and box $B$. %; note that $N_A$ and $N_B$ are now scalars and not anymore operators.
An efficient way to simulate $e^{-i \delta t V_L}$ consists of the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Calculate the occupation numbers $N_A$ and $N_B$ for boxes $A$ and $B$ separately.
\item Compute the product $N_A N_B$.
\item Compute the evolving phase $e^{- i t^{\prime}_{AB} {N}_A {N}_B}$.
\end{enumerate}
At the finest level of the hierarchy, $L = L_{\text{max}} = \log_4(N)$, the boxes coincide with the physical two-dimensional lattice.
At this resolution, each lattice site corresponds to a single qubit, where $\ket{1}$ denotes an occupied site and $\ket{0}$ an empty one.
Proceeding to the next level, the occupation number of each box is obtained as the arithmetic sum of the four qubits contained within it.
For all coarser levels, the occupation number of a box is recursively determined by summing the occupation numbers of its child boxes, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_algo}.
This summation can be carried out using a quantum adder, as exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig:adder}.
Several implementations of the quantum adder have been proposed in the literature~\cite{wang2025comprehensive, draper2006logarithmic, takahashi2009quantum, draper2000addition, remaud2025ancilla}, and in Sec.~\ref{subsec: imp_2d} we will further analyze the computational complexity of this procedure and its contribution to the overall cost of the algorithm.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\input{adder.tikz}
\caption{
An out-of-place quantum adder, in which the output $\ket{a+b}$ is recorded in ancilla qubits.}
\label{fig:adder}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\input{multiplier.tikz}
\caption{An $n$-bit quantum multiplication gate. The binary representation of the result $\ket{a \cdot b}$ is stored in an ancilla register. }
\label{fig:multiplier}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Conceptual illustration of out-of-place quantum adders and multipliers. In contrast, in-place designs overwrite the input registers with the results. The explicit circuit structure varies across different implementations.}
\end{figure}
To approach step 2, we employ a quantum multiplier~\cite{wang2025comprehensive, kahanamoku2024fast, draper2006logarithmic, dutta2018quantum, kepley2015quantum, orts2023improving}, as exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig:multiplier}.
The product $N_A N_B$ is encoded as a binary string on a \emph{product register} $\ket{N_A N_B}$ of $n$ ancillae. For every level $L$, the number of ancillae $n$ of the product register varies, as explained in Sec.~\ref{subsec: imp_2d}.
Finally, in step 3, the evolving phase $e^{- i t^{\prime}_{AB} {N}_A {N}_B}$ is implemented by applying single-qubit phase gates of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phase}
\begin{split}
P_b &= \ket{0}\bra{0}+e^{-it^{\prime}_{AB} \cdot 2^{b}}\ket{1}\bra{1} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & e^{-i t^{\prime}_{AB} \cdot 2^b}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
to each qubit $b$ of the product register $\ket{N_A N_B}$.
The cumulative action of the gates
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sequence_p}
U_{AB} = \prod_{b=0}^{n-1} P_b
\end{equation}
applies exactly the overall phase $e^{-i t^{\prime}_{AB} N_A N_B}$. Note that the gates $P_b$ can be applied in parallel. The obtained phase $e^{-i t^{\prime}_{AB} N_A N_B}$ is first imprinted on the ancilla qubits that record the product $N_A N_B$. We must uncompute the quantum multiplier to transfer the phase back to the qubits that represent the quantum state.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{adder_inverse.tikz}
\caption{Uncomputing the additions in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_algo} ``splits'' the boxes by applying the inverses of the adders. This operation proceeds from the coarsest to the finest level.}
\label{fig:box_uncompute}
\end{figure}
% , define the operator $\hat S$:
% \begin{equation}
% \hat S=\sum_{b=0}^{n-1}2^b\,\hat n_b,
% \end{equation}
% where $n_b$ is the number operator for $b$th bit, the product $N_A N_B$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $S$, i.e., $\hat{S}$ forms a bit-wise weighted sum
% , define the operator $\hat S$:
% \begin{equation}
% \hat S=\sum_{b=0}^{n-1}2^b\,\hat n_b,
% \end{equation}
% where $n_b$ is the number operator for $b$th bit, the product $N_A N_B$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $S$.
%so that
% \begin{equation}
% N_A N_B = \sum_{b=0}^{n} 2^b \cdot \ket{N_A N_B}_b,
% \end{equation}
% where $\ket{N_A N_B}_b$ denotes the bit value of $b$th bit in the binary string $\ket{N_A N_B}$, which is in superposition and entangled with the inputs.
To reuse already computed occupation numbers, we initiate Q2FMM from the finest level, where each box represents one lattice site. At this level, the time evolution is computed by the interaction between individual qubits that are in each other's interaction list. For the coarser levels, the occupation number of the boxes is obtained by summing the occupation numbers of their children. To avoid the premature erasure of information stored in ancilla qubits from previous levels, we defer uncomputing until all evolving phases have been evaluated.
Therefore, the full quantum circuit can be partitioned into a compute phase and an uncompute phase. In the compute phase, adapted to the 2D architecture, each level in Eq.~\eqref{eq:time_total} is implemented as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_algo}. At the finest level, where interactions are restricted to single grid points, we apply the time evolution operator directly.
For the other levels, we proceed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We first obtain the occupation number of each box at the current level by summing the values of its four children using quantum adders.
\item Subsequently, we implement the evolution in Eq.~\eqref{eq:time_l} with these occupation numbers by means of the quantum multiplier.
\end{enumerate}
This procedure is recursively repeated to transverse the entire hierarchy. Note that after the summation, every four child boxes are efficiently merged into their corresponding parent box, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_algo}.
Since the quantum adders and multipliers are reversible, the uncomputing merely decomposes the per-box sums and leaves the accumulated phase intact, so it is safe to perform. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:box_uncompute}, this operation must be applied to each box in the reverse order of their execution in the compute phase. As a concrete example, a quantum circuit for the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM is presented in Appendix~\ref{sec:overall_circuit}, shown for a one-dimensional lattice for illustrational simplicity.
\subsection{Advanced techniques for improving efficiency}
\label{sec:advance}
In this section, we describe three techniques that significantly enhance the efficiency of Q2FMM.
\subsubsection{The \texttt{COPY} operation}
% First, we consider the \texttt{COPY} operation exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig:copy_cnot}, where the quantum states of two qubits are copied onto two ancilla qubits. It is also commonly known as \emph{Transversal CNOT} \cite{Nielsen_2011, gottesman2009, Sahay_2025} or \emph{Element-wise CNOT}~\cite{dellachiara2025lcu}. Since the terms in Eq.~\eqref{eq:time_l} commute, the corresponding phases can be evaluated simultaneously for each interaction term within a given level. Intuitively, this follows from the fact that the time evolution governed by the Coulomb operator leaves the occupation numbers unchanged, as discussed earlier. Thus, an efficient strategy for computing the phases is to first \texttt{COPY} the occupation information and then execute the time evolution in parallel.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\input{copy_cnot.tikz}
\caption{``Copying'' occupation numbers to ancilla qubits via element-wise CNOTs, exemplified by a two-qubit state and two ancilla qubits. %For each computational basis of the control qubits, the CNOT gates produce exactly the same state entangled with the control qubits.
}
\label{fig:copy_cnot}
\end{figure}
%We illustrate an example of the \texttt{COPY} operation in Fig.~\ref{fig:copy_cnot}, where the quantum states of two qubits are copied onto two ancilla qubits. %It is worth noting that this operation does not violate the quantum no-cloning theorem, since the resulting state is not a product of identical pure states $\ket{\psi}\otimes\ket{\psi}$. For example, applying \texttt{COPY} to a single qubit state $$\ket{\psi} = \alpha \ket{0} + \beta\ket{1}$$ with an ancilla qubit produces the resulting state: $$\alpha \ket{00} + \beta\ket{11},$$ which is entangled and can not be written as product state $\ket{\psi} \otimes \ket{\psi}$. However, the
%While this differs from cloning the quantum state, the occupation information is faithfully replicated.
%: measuring the ancilla qubits outputs the same distribution as measurements of the control register.
%In general, each \texttt{COPY} gate has depth one because all CNOTs can be applied simultaneously.
%Concretely, we need to \texttt{COPY} the occupation information of each box $\abs{I(A)}$ times, where $\abs{I(A)}$ denotes the number of interaction terms involving box $A$. For each pairwise interaction between two boxes, we compute the resulting phase using Eq.~\eqref{eq:sequence_p} with the ``copies'' from each box, then we uncompute the \texttt{COPY} to disentangle the ancilla copies. All the operations above can be executed in parallel across all sites. Therefore, the circuit at each level effectively requires only a single round of time-evolution computation, rather than $\abs{I(A)}$ sequential layers.% hence, the circuit for each level consists of a single round of time evolution computation, rather than $\abs{I(A)}$ layers of time evolution computation.
% {
% \color{blue} }
% An example of the \texttt{COPY} operation is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:copy_cnot}, where the quantum states of two qubits are copied onto two ancilla qubits. It is worth noting that this operation does not violate the quantum no-cloning theorem, since the resulting state is not a product of identical pure states $\ket{\psi}\otimes\ket{\psi}$. For example, applying \texttt{COPY} to a single qubit state $$\ket{\psi} = \alpha \ket{0} + \beta\ket{1}$$ with an ancilla qubit produces the resulting state: $$\alpha \ket{00} + \beta\ket{11},$$ which is entangled and can not be written as product state $\ket{\psi} \otimes \ket{\psi}$. However, the occupation information is faithfully replicated: measuring the ancilla qubits outputs the same distribution as measurements of the control register. From Fig.~\ref{fig:copy_cnot}, it is clear that the depth of the \texttt{COPY} gate has depth one for a single ``copy'' of the occupation information.
% Concretely, we need to \texttt{COPY} the occupation information of each box $\abs{I(A)}$ times, where $\abs{I(A)} \le 27$ due to the geometric setup. Hence, the number of required \texttt{COPY} operations remains constant. With the ``copies'' of boxes, we can compute the evolving phase for each pairwise interaction between two boxes, then uncompute the \texttt{COPY} to disentangle the ancilla qubits. All the operations above can be executed in parallel across all sites. Therefore, the circuit at each level effectively requires only a single round of time-evolution computation, rather than $\abs{I(A)}$ sequential layers. The \texttt{COPY} operation is particularly advantageous for hardware architectures that support the shuttling of qubits. On such platforms, one can \texttt{COPY} the occupation number locally, gather the copies of the occupation number for an interaction pair, and compute all time-evolution operations within one round. We will demonstrate this in more detail in Sec.~\ref{subsec: imp_2d}.
Since the terms in Eq.~\eqref{eq:time_l} commute, the corresponding phases can be evaluated simultaneously for each interaction term within a given level. Intuitively, this follows from the fact that the time evolution governed by the Coulomb operator leaves the occupation numbers unchanged, as discussed earlier. Thus, an efficient strategy for computing the phases is to first \texttt{COPY} the occupation information and then compute the evolving phase in parallel.
The \texttt{COPY} operation, also commonly known as \emph{Transversal CNOT} \cite{Nielsen_2011, gottesman2009, Sahay_2025} or \emph{Element-wise CNOT}~\cite{dellachiara2025lcu}, is exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig:copy_cnot}. Concretely, in our case, we need to \texttt{COPY} the occupation information of each box $\abs{I(A)}$ times, where $\abs{I(A)} \le 27$ due to the geometric setup. Thus, the number of required ancilla qubits scales linearly with the number of boxes.
With these ``copies,'' the phase evolution for all interacting box pairs can be computed in parallel, after which the \texttt{COPY} operation is uncomputed to disentangle the ancilla registers. Therefore, the quantum circuit at each level effectively requires only a single round of time-evolution computation, rather than $\abs{I(A)}$ sequential layers.
\subsubsection{Bringing box information together: the shuttling operation}
The qubits encoding the occupation information of each box (and also their copies when \texttt{COPY} is utilized) are typically located at its corresponding geometric location. To evaluate the long-range interaction between two spatially separated boxes, either (i) the hardware must support long-range quantum gates or (ii) only local gates are available, and the relevant information must be brought together. Below, we discuss the latter case in detail.
Under the constraint of nearest-neighbor connectivity, the interaction is typically implemented through a series of SWAP gates that effectively ``move'' the ancilla qubits of the two boxes into proximity. The circuit depth associated with these SWAP operations scales linearly with the distance $r_{AB}$ between the boxes $A$ and $B$.
Alternatively, if hardware supports qubit shuttling, i.e., physically transporting qubits between regions, one replaces a SWAP chain of depth $\mathcal{O}(r_{AB})$ by only two shuttling operations, reducing the routing depth to $\mathcal{O}(1)$. Shuttling operations, or functionally equivalent long-range coupling, have been the subject of extensive theoretical proposals and experimental realizations in multiple quantum computing platforms, such as the neutral atom quantum computer~\cite{graham2022multi,evered2023high,bluvstein2022processor,bluvstein2024logical,schmid2024compiler} and the trapped-ion quantum computer~\cite{kielpinski2002architecture, blakestad2009xjunction, schoenberger2025shuttling, pino2021qccd, moses2023racetrack, guo2024siteresolved, li2023kzm_longrange_tfim}.
\subsubsection{The unbounded fan-out gate}
\label{sec:fanout}
The unbounded fan-out gate~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}, where a single qubit simultaneously controls multiple targets as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:fanout}, can also provide significant advantages. Here, ``unbounded'' means we treat the fan-out operation as a constant-depth primitive, independent of the number of targets. Recent experimental progress demonstrated the realization of the fan-out gate in shallow depth~\cite{khazali2020fast, young2021asymmetric, song2025constantdepth, baumermeasure}, enabling further optimizations of our quantum algorithm.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\input{fanout.tikz}
\caption{Definition of the fan-out gate illustrated with four qubits.}
\label{fig:fanout}
\end{figure}
It is worth noting that, without utilizing the FMM approximation, the unbounded fan-out gate can perform a single Trotter step for the long-range Coulomb term in depth $\mathcal{O}(1)$. As proven in~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}, the commuting gates can be applied to the same qubits simultaneously with unbounded fan-out gates. However, this procedure needs $\mathcal{O}(N)$ ancilla qubits per site and thus $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ ancilla qubits in total.
To mitigate the quadratic ancilla blow-up while preserving low depth, we integrate the fan-out gate into Q2FMM, achieving a more favorable ancilla-depth trade-off. Specifically, we can employ the unbounded fan-out gate in both the \texttt{COPY} operation and the arithmetic circuits. i.e., quantum adder and multiplier. For the \texttt{COPY} operation, the fan-out gate enables us to \texttt{COPY} the occupation information of each box for $\abs{I(A)}$ ``copies'' within with depth $1$.
For arithmetic operations, P.~H\o yer and R.~\v{S}palek~\cite{hoyer2005quantum} proved that the depth of the arithmetic circuits can be reduced to $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star} n)$ by employing the unbounded quantum fan-out gate, where $\log^{\star} n$ (the iterated logarithm) is the number of times the logarithm must be applied to $n$ to reduce it to at most $1$. Here, $n$ is the operand bit length. The iterated logarithm function $\log^{\star}n$ is a sublogarithmic function that grows very slowly with $n$. Even for input sizes as large as the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe, $\log^{\star}n \le 5$. Consequently, $\log^{\star}n$ can be treated as a \emph{constant} for all practical input sizes. As detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_fanout} and Table~\ref{tab:fanout_table}, integrating the fan-out gate into the arithmetic circuits of Q2FMM yields a more balanced trade-off between ancilla-qubit usage and circuit depth.
We present the ancilla-depth trade-off with and without Q2FMM in Table~\ref {tab:fanout_table}, where we allow the shuttling operation and assume it admits depth $\mathcal{O}(1)$; we discuss the detailed derivation in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_fanout}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{The circuit depth and overall ancilla qubits needed to carry out a single Trotter step for the Coulomb term using the unbounded fan-out gate.}
\label{tab:fanout_table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.95}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
\small
\begin{tabular}{cccc c}
\hline\hline
Method & Circuit Depth & \# Ancillae\\
\hline
Fan-out only
& $\mathcal{O}(1) $
& $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ \\
Q2FMM + Fan-out
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
& $\mathcal{O}(N)$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
%As for the ancilla qubits, fan-out-based quantum multiplier requires $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ ancilla qubits, whereas a quantum adder needs only $\mathcal{O}(n)$, which is detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_fanout}.
% A key building block of Q2FMM is the arithmetic quantum circuit. P.~H\o yer and R.~\v{S}palek~\cite{hoyer2005quantum} showed that the depth of the arithmetic circuits can be reduced significantly by employing the unbounded quantum fan-out gate. Our strategy is straightforward: we use unbounded fan-out gates to implement all quantum adders and multipliers. We present the ancilla-depth trade-off with and without Q2FMM in Table~\ref {tab:fanout_table}, where we allow the shuttling operation and assume it admits depth $\mathcal{O}(1)$; we discuss the detailed derivation in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_fanout}.
%which achieve a depth of $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star} n)$~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}, where $n$ denotes the operand bit-length, and $\log^{\star} n$ (the iterated logarithm) is the number of times the logarithm must be applied to $n$ to reduce it to at most $1$. The iterated logarithm function $\log^{\star}n$ is a sublogarithmic function that grows very slowly with $n$. Even for input sizes as large as the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe, $\log^{\star}n \le 5$. Consequently, $\log^{\star}n$ can be treated as a \emph{constant} for all practical input sizes. Since there are $\log_4 N$ levels, the overall circuit depth scales as $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log^{*}(\log Q))$, which can be further simplified to $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$.
%%For instance, applying this method to a $100 \times 100$ lattice requires around $10^{8}$ ancilla qubits overall. Such a prohibitive ancilla requirement renders the above method infeasible in practice for large systems.
%To be concrete, at each site, we apply an $(N-1)$-target fan-out to copy the local occupation onto $(N-1)$ ancilla qubits. Then, as discussed above, we compute the phase for each interacting pair with ancilla qubits. Finally, we reverse the fan-out so that the phases are ``kicked'' back onto the physical qubits.
%constant-depth with so-called threshold circuits~\cite{hoyer2005quantum, siu1993depth}. Importantly, with the unbounded fan-out gates, the quantum threshold circuits can be implemented in depth $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star}n)$~\cite{hoyer2005quantum},
% Therefore, both quantum adder and multiplier can be performed within depth $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star}n)$ if the unbounded fan-out gate is allowed.
%Because the ancilla qubits, used to store occupation numbers (when in-place adders or multipliers are employed) and to execute arithmetic circuits, can be recycled across coarser levels, the total ancilla demand is governed by the peak usage over all levels. Since a fan-out-based quantum multiplier requires $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ ancilla qubits, whereas a quantum adder needs only $\mathcal{O}(n)$ (here $n$ is the operand bit length), we count only the multiplier. At a level where each box contains $\beta$ grid points, the lattice is partitioned into $N/\beta$ boxes, and each box needs at most $\mathcal{O}(\log_2^2(\beta+1))$ ancilla qubits for the multiplier. Therefore, the total ancilla count scales as $\mathcal{O}((N/\beta)\log_2^2(\beta+1))$. With $\beta \in \{1, \dots, 4^L\}$, this expression is maximized at $\beta=4$, yielding an overall $\mathcal{O}(N)$ ancilla requirement.
%We present the ancilla-depth trade-off with and without Q2FMM in Table~\ref {tab:fanout_table}, where we assume the long-range operation admits depth $\mathcal{O}(1)$, which we discuss in more detail in Sec.~\ref{subsec: imp_2d}.
% \begin{table}[htbp]
% \centering
% \caption{The circuit depth and overall ancilla qubits needed to carry out a single Trotter step for the Coulomb term using unbounded fan-out gates, without and with Q2FMM.}
% \label{tab:fanout_table}
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.95}
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
% \small
% \begin{tabular}{lccc c}
% \hline\hline
% Q2FMM & Overall Circuit Depth & \# Overall Ancilla\\
% \hline
% \xmark
% & $\mathcal{O}(1) $
% & $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ \\
% \checkmark
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log_4 N \cdot \log^{*}(\log Q))$
% & $\mathcal{O}(N)$ \\
% \hline\hline
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log^{*}(\log Q))$
%Similarly, the total number of ancilla qubits required to record the occupation numbers also scales as $\mathcal{O}(N)$.
% logic: the quantum adders and multipliers admit constant-depth with threshold. (see p.83)
% and the threshold admits depth log_star (see fanout paper p.98 table)
%Draw a sheet about the cost using different tech or fan-out (approx. or not).
% How do fan-out gates lower the depth?
% 1. Do all the arithmetic circuits in constant depth
% 2. help do the ``copy''.
%Note: the arithmetic gate using fan-out gate needs sublogarithmic depth. The approximation version needs constant depth.
%\subsection{Optimization}
%It helps, but doesn't help a lot
\subsection{Circuit depth for $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM}
\label{subsec: imp_2d}
% \begin{table*}[htbp]
% \centering
% \caption{Total circuit depth with different arithmetic circuit choices for $0^\text{th}$-order FMM, where $Q$ denotes the total electron number. Only a subset of the developed quantum arithmetic circuits is listed. The ancilla qubit count excludes the ancilla qubits used for storing occupation numbers and the results of the arithmetic circuits. Note that the ancilla qubits used in the fan-out gate can be reused at the next levels; hence, the number of ancilla qubits for the fan-out gate does not accumulate.}
% \label{tab:depth_table}
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.95}
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
% \small
% \begin{tabular}{lccc c}
% \hline\hline
% Adder & Multiplier & Circuit Depth & Shuttling Depth & \# Overall Ancilla\\
% \hline
% QFT-based~\cite{draper2000addition}
% & QFT-based~\cite{ruizperez2017qftarith}
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log^2 Q)$
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N )$
% & $0$ \\
% Remaud et al.~\cite{remaud2025ancilla}
% & Kahanamoku-Meyer et al.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast}
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log Q)$
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N )$
% & $0$\\
% Fan-out~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}
% & Fan-out~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log^{\star} (\log Q))$
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N )$
% & $\mathcal{O}(N)$ \\
% \hline\hline
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table*}
So far, we have introduced the basic algorithm founded on the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM to convey the core idea in the simplest setting. Before turning to the higher-order Q2FMM, we first analyze the circuit depth of the $0^\text{th}$-order scheme. This not only highlights why our algorithm achieves favorable complexity but also provides intuition for the higher-order case, whose scaling follows a similar structure.
The circuit depth achieved by Q2FMM is architecture-dependent, since it is determined by the native operations supported by each platform. In what follows, we focus on three representative cases: (i) a 2D neutral-atom quantum computer allowing shuttling, (ii) a 2D neutral-atom quantum computer further allowing unbounded fan-out gates, and (iii) a 2D architecture that only allows nearest connectivity.
\subsubsection{Depth with shuttling}
% Here, we take a 2D neutral-atom quantum computer~\cite{hollerith2022distance, tao2024highfidelity, wei2023braneparity, graham2022multi,evered2023high,bluvstein2022processor,schmid2024compiler, bluvstein2024logical} as a representative example, which supports the shuttling operation, and analyze the resulting circuit depth. Recently, the neutral-atom quantum computing platform has been identified as a strong candidate for long-range operations and fault-tolerant architectures. Realized through optimized Rydberg-blockade gate schemes and experimental techniques mitigating dominant error sources, it allows flexible and parallel entangling operations between distant neutral-atom qubits, thereby enabling long-range two-qubit gates at cost $\mathcal{O}(1)$~\cite{graham2022multi,evered2023high,bluvstein2022processor,schmid2024compiler}. Additionally, \emph{atom shuttling} can be implemented using optical tweezers on neutral atom platforms.
% Shuttling enables rearranging the position of the atoms, which effectively allows for connectivity between distant qubits with high parallelism~\cite{bluvstein2022processor,bluvstein2024logical,evered2023high,schmid2024compiler}. In our algorithm, we can take advantage of shuttling to bring distant qubits together for local arithmetic circuits.
Here, we take a 2D neutral-atom quantum computer~\cite{hollerith2022distance, tao2024highfidelity, wei2023braneparity, graham2022multi, evered2023high, bluvstein2022processor, schmid2024compiler, bluvstein2024logical} as a representative example and analyze the resulting circuit depth. In such platforms, \emph{atom shuttling} can be implemented using optical tweezers, enabling the rearranging of the position of the atoms, which effectively allows for connectivity between distant qubits with high parallelism~\cite{bluvstein2022processor,bluvstein2024logical,evered2023high,schmid2024compiler}. In our algorithm, we can take advantage of shuttling to bring distant qubits together for local arithmetic circuits. Furthermore, the recent advances in neutral atom quantum computing demonstrate a tweezer reload rate of $300000$ atoms per second and the initialization of over $30000$ qubits per second~\cite{chiu2025continuous3000}, underscoring the platform's scalability and the availability of abundant temporary ancilla qubits. Although the COPY operation requires many qubits, the ability to rapidly prepare large qubit strings enables such COPY gates to be practical. This enables a high degree of parallelism by allowing multiple target pairs within a box to be evaluated concurrently, significantly reducing the circuit depth, rather than simulating each interaction term sequentially.
%In our algorithm, we can take advantage of shuttling to bring distant qubits together for local arithmetic circuits. Furthermore, the recent advances in neutral atom quantum computing demonstrate a tweezer reload rate of $300000$ atoms per second and the initialization of over $30000$ qubits per second~\cite{chiu2025continuous3000}, underscoring the platform's scalability and the availability of abundant temporary ancilla qubits. Although the COPY operation requires many qubits, i.e., \texttt{COPY}ing a qubit string of length $J$ for $D$ times consumes $J D$ ancilla qubits, the ability to rapidly prepare large qubit strings enables such COPY gates to be practical. This enables a high degree of parallelism by allowing multiple target pairs within a box to be evaluated concurrently, significantly reducing the circuit depth, rather than simulating each interaction term sequentially.
% While the \texttt{COPY} gates require a large number of qubits, i.e., \texttt{COPY} a qubit string of $J$ qubits for $D$ times requires $J \cdot D$ ancilla qubits, the capability of preparing many qubits enable the implementation of \texttt{COPY} gates, allowing for the simultaneous computation of all target pairs within a box in a single step, rather than scaling with the number of interactions in its list.
% More specifically, they enable the use of \texttt{COPY} operation, which allows all target pairs to be computed in a single step, rather than scaling with the number of terms in a box's interaction list.
%Thus, at any given level, the phases for all target pairs can be computed in a single step, rather than scaling with the number of terms in a box's interaction list.
%Consequently, with the help of shuttling and \texttt{COPY} operation, the most significant contribution to the overall circuit depth arises from the quantum arithmetic circuits, and in particular from the dominant component between the quantum adder and the time evolution, the latter implemented via a quantum multiplier.
By exploiting atom shuttling and an efficient implementation of the \texttt{COPY} operation, the most significant contribution to the overall circuit depth arises then from the quantum arithmetic circuits, particularly from the dominant component between the quantum adder and the time evolution, which is implemented via a quantum multiplier. In this regard, Q2FMM offers substantial flexibility in choosing among different arithmetic implementations at each step. For instance, the addition or multiplication operation can be implemented using various quantum adders~\cite{wang2025comprehensive, draper2000addition, draper2006logarithmic, takahashi2009quantum, remaud2025ancilla} or multipliers~\cite{wang2025comprehensive, kahanamoku2024fast, draper2006logarithmic, dutta2018quantum, kepley2015quantum, orts2023improving}, each offering different trade-offs between circuit depth and ancilla qubit requirements. In practice, the optimal choice depends on the characteristics of the underlying hardware platform.
As a rule, we can first select a quantum multiplier, which typically dominates the computational cost, and then choose a quantum adder whose scaling remains strictly better than that of the multiplier. For simplicity, we omit a detailed discussion on the specific choice of quantum adders, as they are generally less costly.
% For instance, the depth scales as $\mathcal{O}(\log Q)$ per level when using the quantum multiplier proposed by Kahanamoku-Meyer et al.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast}, in which no ancilla qubits are needed.
We assume an input length of $n = \log_2(Q+1)$, corresponding to the largest possible value in our calculation, where $Q$ denotes the number of electrons of the system.
Selecting an efficient quantum multiplier is crucial for maintaining a favorable circuit depth scaling.
For instance, the depth of the quantum multiplier proposed by Kahanamoku-Meyer et al.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast} is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(D_{\text{QFT}}(n))$ if allows a few ancilla qubits, where $D_{\text{QFT}}$ is the circuit depth of the quantum Fourier transformation (QFT) for $n$-bit input; selecting such a quantum multiplier leads to depth $\mathcal{O}(\log Q)$ if we consider the standard QFT circuit implementation~\cite{maslov2007lineardepth}, and other advanced implementation could further reduces the depth~\cite{kahanamoku-meyer2025optimisticqft, cleve2000fast, barenco1996aqft}. Since there are $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$ levels that we need to run the quantum arithmetic circuits in total, the overall circuit depth of the algorithm exhibits a polylogarithmic scaling, $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log Q)$, when the quantum multiplier of Ref.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast} is employed. As shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_general}, Q2FMM for higher-order FMM retains a similar favorable depth scaling. We summarize the total circuit depth of the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM under different hardware capacities in Table~\ref{tab:depth_table_all}.
%the depth can be further reduced to $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star} \log Q)$ by incorporating the unbounded fan-out gates, as discussed before. Since there are $\mathcal{O}(\log (N))$ levels that we need to run the quantum arithmetic circuits in total, the overall circuit depth of the algorithm exhibits a polylogarithmic scaling, $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log Q)$, when the quantum multiplier of Ref.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast} is employed. As shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_general}, Q2FMM for higher-order FMM retains a similar favorable depth scaling. We summarize the total circuit depth of the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM under different hardware capacities in Table~\ref{tab:depth_table_all}. %To the best of our knowledge, this is the first quantum algorithm capable of simulating long-range Coulomb interactions within polylogarithmic depth.
%\subsection{Errors}
% In the context of error analysis, the total error consists of two components: one originating from Trotterization and the other from the FMM approximation. Although the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM is relatively inaccurate~\cite{ying2012pedestrian}, the FMM error decreases geometrically with increasing expansion order $p$. We discuss these in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_general}.
\subsubsection{Depth with the unbounded fan-out gate}
\label{sec:depth_fanout}
As a further improvement, the fan-out gate can be employed to efficiently implement the quantum arithmetic circuits in Q2FMM. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:fanout}, the depth of both the quantum adder and multiplier is reduced to $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star} n)$. Considering the input length $n=\log_2(Q+1)$, this corresponds to a depth of $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star}\log Q)$. Since the algorithm involves $\log_4 N$ hierarchical levels, the overall circuit depth scales as $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log^{\star}\log Q)$, which can be further simplified to $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$, as the iterated logarithm can be regarded as a constant.
Since a fan-out-based quantum multiplier requires $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ ancilla qubits, whereas a quantum adder needs only $\mathcal{O}(n)$~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}, the total ancilla requirement for employing fan-out-based arithmetic circuits can be estimated as follows. Because the ancilla qubits used in the arithmetic circuits can be recycled across coarser levels, the overall demand is determined by the peak usage among all levels. At level $l$, where each box contains $4^l$ grid points, the lattice is partitioned into $4^{L-l}$ boxes, and each box requires at most $\mathcal{O}(\log_2^2(4^l+1))$ ancilla qubits for the multiplier. Consequently, the total ancilla count scales as $\mathcal{O}((N/\beta)\log_2^2(\beta+1))$. With $\beta \in \{1, \dots, 4^L\}$, this expression attains its maximum at $\beta=4$,
yielding an overall $\mathcal{O}(N)$ ancilla requirement.
Therefore, the fan-out gate not only accelerates Q2FMM, but Q2FMM in turn enables the fan-out-based approach to achieve a more favorable balance between ancilla qubit usage and circuit depth, as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:fanout}.
% \begin{table}[htbp]
% \centering
% \caption{The circuit depth and overall ancilla qubits needed to carry out a single Trotter step for the Coulomb term using the unbounded fan-out gate.}
% \label{tab:fanout_table}
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.95}
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
% \small
% \begin{tabular}{cccc c}
% \hline\hline
% Method & Circuit Depth & \# Ancillae\\
% \hline
% Fan-out only
% & $\mathcal{O}(1) $
% & $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ \\
% Q2FMM + Fan-out
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
% & $\mathcal{O}(N)$ \\
% \hline\hline
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
% As a further improvement, we can utilize the fan-out gate to efficiently implement the quantum arithmetic circuit in our Q2FMM. With the unbounded fan-out gate, it can be proven that both quantum adder and quantm multiplier admit a depth of $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star} n)$~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}, where $n$ denotes the operand bit-length, and $\log^{\star} n$ (the iterated logarithm) is the number of times the logarithm must be applied to $n$ to reduce it to at most $1$. The iterated logarithm function $\log^{\star}n$ is a sublogarithmic function that grows very slowly with $n$. Even for input sizes as large as the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe, $\log^{\star}n \le 5$. Consequently, $\log^{\star}n$ can be treated as a \emph{constant} for all practical input sizes. Since there are $\log_4 N$ levels, the overall circuit depth scales as $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log^{*}(\log Q))$, which can be further simplified to $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$.
% Because the ancilla qubits, used to store occupation numbers (when in-place adders or multipliers are employed) and to execute arithmetic circuits, can be recycled across coarser levels, the total ancilla demand is governed by the peak usage over all levels. Since a fan-out-based quantum multiplier requires $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ ancilla qubits, whereas a quantum adder needs only $\mathcal{O}(n)$ (here $n$ is the operand bit length), we count only the multiplier. At a level where each box contains $\beta$ grid points, the lattice is partitioned into $N/\beta$ boxes, and each box needs at most $\mathcal{O}(\log_2^2(\beta+1))$ ancilla qubits for the multiplier. Therefore, the total ancilla count scales as $\mathcal{O}((N/\beta)\log_2^2(\beta+1))$. With $\beta \in \{1, \dots, 4^L\}$, this expression is maximized at $\beta=4$, yielding an overall $\mathcal{O}(N)$ ancilla requirement.
\subsubsection{Depth when constrained to nearest connectivity}
Our algorithm remains efficient even without the shuttling or fan-out gate. When constrained to the nearest connectivity, the dominant contribution to the circuit depth arises from using SWAP gates to ``move'' the ancilla qubits of two boxes together. The number of required SWAP gates depends on the distance between the two target boxes, i.e., the number of sites between these two boxes. The distance $\rho_L$ between boxes in each other's interaction list is:
\begin{equation}
\rho_L = \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\text{max}}/2^{L}),
\end{equation}
where $\xi_{\text{max}}$ is the linear size of the 2D lattice, i.e., $\xi_{\text{max}}^2 = N$. Therefore, the total depth of executing SWAP gates across all levels scales as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{L=2}^{L_{\text{max}}-1} \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\text{max}}/2^{L}) = \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\text{max}}) = \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N}).
\end{equation}
Asymptotically, $\sqrt{N}$ grows faster than the polylogarithmic depth of the quantum arithmetic circuits. Thus, the overall circuit depth for simulating a single Trotter step is $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})$, without the use of long-range gates or shuttling. This depth scaling outperforms the $\mathcal{O}(N)$ depth required by the fermionic SWAP network~\cite{kivlichan2018quantum}. %even when truncation is applied, especially for interactions that decay slowly with distance (e.g., algebraic $1/r^\mu$ with small $\mu$). For rapidly decaying interactions (e.g., large $\mu$), which are effectively short-range, the SWAP network considering truncation is already sufficiently efficient.
\subsubsection{Error analysis}
In the context of error analysis, the total error originates from two main sources: Trotterization and the FMM approximation. Although the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM is relatively inaccurate~\cite{ying2012pedestrian}, its accuracy can be improved by tightening the acceptance criterion, i.e., increasing the minimum separation required for interaction pairs. Furthermore, the approximation error decreases geometrically with increasing expansion order $p$, and we discuss these in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_general}.
\section{Q2FMM for higher-order FMM}
\label{sec:higher_FMM}
In this section, we extend Q2FMM to higher-order FMM, which is essential for achieving better accuracy. The resulting quantum circuit retains a structure similar to that of the $0^\text{th}$-order case.
\subsection{Higher-order FMM formulas}
Assuming two well-separated boxes $A$ and $B$, the box-box interaction in the higher-order FMM can be calculated by summing up all the interaction pairs as given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:kernel_expansion}:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:expansion_box}
\sum_{a \in A} \sum_{b \in B} \abs*{\frac{q_a q_b}{\mathbf{r}_a - \mathbf{r}_b}} %
\approx \sum_{\ell=0}^{p} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \sum_{j=0}^{p-\ell} \sum_{k=-j}^{j} \left(\sum_{a \in A} R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{aA}) q_a\right) \\
\times I_{\ell+j,\, m+k} (\mathbf{r}_{AB}) \, \left(\sum_{b \in B}R_{jk}(\mathbf{r}_{bB}) q_b\right)(-1)^{j}.
\end{multline}
The infinite series over $\ell$ and $j$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:kernel_expansion} is truncated such that $\ell+j \le p$, where $p$ denotes the FMM truncation order, controlling the trade-off between accuracy and computational cost. Here, $q_a \in \{0,1\}$ represents the electron number at point $a$. Assuming that each box contains $\kappa$ grid points, Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box} reduces the computational effort from evaluating all $\kappa^2$ point-to-point interactions to only $\mathcal{O}(\kappa (p+1)^2)$ local terms, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:expansion1}. Note that the case $p=0$ corresponds exactly to the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:FMM}. The expansion converges for well-separated boxes, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\max\{\norm{\mathbf{r}_{aA}}, \norm{\mathbf{r}_{bB}}\} < \norm{\mathbf{r}_{AB}},
\end{equation}
and the interaction-list criterion in our hierarchical structure automatically satisfies this condition.
Incorporating Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box} into the hierarchical framework discussed in Sec.~\ref {sec:FMM} yields the higher-order Q2FMM, in which box-box interactions are evaluated using Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box}.
The overall procedure is analogous to the $0^\text{th}$-order case: we first evaluate the energy on the second finest level, where each box contains only four grid points. From there, the energies of coarser levels are aggregated. At each level, we compute box-box interactions, perform the time-evolution, and then proceed to the next coarser level, traversing the hierarchy from finest to coarsest. Techniques such as the \texttt{COPY} operation can be seamlessly incorporated into the higher-order formulation as well. What differs from the $0^\text{th}$-order scheme is the specific formulation of the interaction evaluation and the mechanism by which each coarser level reuses information computed on the finer levels, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:m_to_m}.
\subsection{Implementation of higher-order FMM on a quantum computer}
% Following a similar approach to Sec.~\ref{sec:0th_fmm_theory}, we define the operator $V_{AB}$ by replacing $q_a \mapsto \hat{n}_a$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box}. % defines the interaction operator $V_{AB}$, which consists solely of products of number operators.
% As in the $0^\text{th}$-order case, $V_{AB}$ consists solely of products of number operators; consequently,
Replacing $q_a \mapsto \hat{n}_a$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box} defines the interaction operator $V_{AB}$, which consists solely of products of number operators, as in the $0^\text{th}$-order case. Consequently, any configuration $\ket{c_{AB}}$ (i.e., computational basis state of box $A$ and $B$) is an eigenstate of $V_{AB}$:
\begin{equation}
V_{AB} \ket{c_{AB}} = E^{c}_{AB}\ket{c_{AB}},
\end{equation}
where $E^{c}_{AB}$ denotes the corresponding eigenvalue computed via Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box}.
The time evolution governed by $V_{AB}$ therefore results only in phase changes for each configuration $\ket{c_{AB}}$:
\begin{equation}
e^{-itV_{AB}}\ket{c_{AB}} = e^{-itE^{c}_{AB}}\ket{c_{AB}}.
\end{equation}
Hence, our task reduces to evaluating the Coulomb potential between $A$ and $B$ for each configuration using Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box} and generating the corresponding evolving phase through single-qubit projector gates, as discussed in Eq.~\eqref{eq:phase} for the $0^\text{th}$-order case.
%If either $A$ or $B$ is empty in $\ket{c_{AB}}$, the interaction energy is zero.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{expansion_single}
\caption{Illustration of higher-order FMM, Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box}: The overall pairwise sum is obtained by first calculating per-box local information and then evaluating box-box interactions.}
\label{fig:expansion1}
\end{figure}
%Top: the interaction between two target grid points $a$ and $b$ is reduced to local computations (local expansions).
%Bottom:
As discussed for the $0^\text{th}$-order FMM in Sec.~\ref{sec:FMM}, box-box interactions at each level are obtained from calculations performed on the immediately finer level. To illustrate this procedure, we begin with the second finest level, where each box contains four grid points of the physical Fermi-Hubbard lattice, and consequently discuss how the computed information propagates to coarser levels. We first simplify Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box} by defining the multipole expansion $M^A_{\ell m}$ and $M^B_{jk}$:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:M}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MA}
M^A_{\ell m} \coloneqq \sum_{a \in A} \,
R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{aA}) q_a,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MB}
M^B_{jk} \coloneqq \sum_{b \in B} \,
R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{bB}) q_b,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
so that Eq.~\eqref{eq:expansion_box} can be rewritten as:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:Eab}
E_{AB} = \sum_{a \in A} \sum_{b \in B}
\left|\frac{q_a q_b}{\mathbf{r}_a - \mathbf{r}_b} \right|
\approx \sum_{\ell=0}^{p} \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}
\sum_{j=0}^{p-\ell} \sum_{k=-j}^{j}
\,{M^A_{\ell m}} \\
\times I^{*}_{\ell +j,\, m+k} (\mathbf{r}_{AB}) \,
{M^B_{jk}} (-1)^{j}.
\end{multline}
An efficient way to compute $M^A_{\ell m}$ and $M^B_{jk}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:M} is to encode the binary representation of $R_{\ell m} (\mathbf{r}_{aA})$, classically precomputed by Eq.~\eqref{eq:r_lm}, as a sequence of CNOT gates conditioned on $\ket{q_a}$. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:rq_circuit}, if the register storing the result of $R_{\ell m} (\mathbf{r}_{aA}) q_a$ is initialized to $\ket{00\cdots0}$, applying these CNOT gates yields the final state that correctly encodes the product $R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{aA})q_a$. Because computational basis states natively encode integers, we use fixed-point scaling for non-integer values; for example, for a decimal $b_1 b_2.b_3 b_4$, we store $b_1 b_2 b_3 b_4$ and carry a scale factor $10^{-2}$; equivalently, the extra factor $10^{-2}$ is absorbed into the time duration during the time evolution step. The quantity $M^A_{\ell m}$ is then obtained by accumulating the $R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{aA})q_a$ terms using quantum adders.
After obtaining $M^A_{\ell m}$ and $M^B_{jk}$, the evaluation of $E_{AB}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Eab} becomes straightforward: each term in the sum is computed with quantum multiplication and accumulated with quantum addition. Similar to the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM, the resulting time evolution phase is obtained by applying the phase gates as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sequence_p}.
Note that, for a fixed FMM order $p$, the depth of this stage is independent of the system size $N$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\input{rq_circuit.tikz}
\caption{Computation of $R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{aA}) q_a$ using CNOT gates, illustrated for the case where $R_{\ell m}(\mathbf{r}_{aA})$ is encoded in the integer form $\ket{1101}$. A CNOT gate is applied to each qubit corresponding to a nonzero bit of $R_{\ell m}$. When $q_a=0$, the output state is $\ket{0000}$; when $q_a=1$, the output state is $\ket{1101}$, both of these two cases correctly encoding the product $R_{\ell m} q_a$. Note that we might need more qubits to reach the desired precision.}
\label{fig:rq_circuit}
\end{figure}
% \begin{table*}[t!]
% \centering
% \caption{Circuit depth \emph{per level} with different arithmetic circuit choices for $p$th-order FMM. Here, we assume an input length $N_{\epsilon}= \log_2(Q+1)+\log_2(1/\epsilon)$ for both quantum adders and multipliers. The ancilla qubit count excludes both the output qubit and the ancilla qubits used for storing occupation numbers. The peak ancilla usage for the fan-out gate occurs at the second finest level, resulting in a \emph{constant} ancilla requirement per site for any fixed and practical precision, e.g., $\epsilon \le 10^{-3}$.}
% \label{tab:depth_table_higher}
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.95}
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
% \small
% \begin{tabular}{lccc c}
% \hline\hline
% Adder & Multiplier & Circuit Depth & Shuttling Depth & \# Overall Ancilla\\
% \hline
% QFT-based~\cite{draper2000addition}
% & QFT-based~\cite{ruizperez2017qftarith}
% & $\mathcal{O}((\log Q+\log({1}/{\epsilon}))^2)$
% & $2$
% & $0$ \\
% Remaud et al.~\cite{remaud2025ancilla}
% & Kahanamoku-Meyer et al.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast}
% & $\mathcal{O}((\log Q+\log({1}/{\epsilon})))$
% & $2$
% & $0$\\
% Fan-out~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}
% & Fan-out~\cite{hoyer2005quantum}
% & $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star} (\log Q+\log({1}/{\epsilon})))$
% & $2$
% & $\mathcal{O}(N)$ \\
% \hline\hline
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table*}
\subsection{Translation of multipole expansions}
\label{sec:m_to_m}
So far, we have only discussed how to calculate the time evolution for the second finest level, where each box contains four grid points. Similar to the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:FMM}, computations for coarser levels can leverage information from the child boxes.
%(Draw a picture about translation)
For the higher-order case, the parent box's multipole expansion is obtained by applying a multipole-to-multipole (M2M) translation to each child. In other words, the child box's multipole expansion $M_{\ell m}$ can be reused by shifting its expansion origin from the child's center to the parent's center. The parent box's multipole expansion is then obtained by summing the shifted expansions from all child boxes.
For example, let $\mathbf{x}_C$ and $\mathbf{x}_P$ be the centers of a child $C$ and its parent $P$, respectively, and define the displacement
$\mathbf{d} \coloneqq \mathbf{x}_P - \mathbf{x}_C$ (from child to parent).
The translation from the multipole expansion of the child box $M^C_{\ell m}$ to the one of parent center $M^{C\rightarrow P}_{\ell m}$ can be obtained by the addition theorem~\cite{helgaker2000molecular}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:translation}
M^{C\rightarrow P}_{\ell m} = \sum_{j=0}^\ell \sum_{k=-j}^j R_{\ell -j,m-k}(-\mathbf{d}) M^C_{jk}.
\end{equation}
A parent's total multipole expansions are then obtained by summation over all its child boxes' contributions:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:c_to_p}
M^{P}_{\ell m} = \sum_{C} M^{C\rightarrow P}_{\ell m}.
\end{equation}
This process is repeated at each coarser level. The Coulomb interaction between parent boxes is then computed from their multipole expansions as given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Eab}. Similar to the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM, uncomputing is needed to transfer the accumulated phases back to the qubits. In practice, we defer the uncomputing so that the computed multipole expansions can be reused at the next coarser level, just as in the $0^\text{th}$-order scheme.
\subsection{Error analysis and resources estimation}
\label{sec:depth_general}
We first estimate the error introduced by the FMM approximation, which also allows us to determine the required FMM order $p$ for achieving a desired error. For an arbitrary state $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i \alpha_i \ket{i}$, the higher-order Q2FMM introduces an error $\epsilon^{i}_F$ to the overall Coulomb interaction for a given Fock basis state $\ket{i}$. When computing the time evolution governed by the Coulomb interaction, such an energy error leads to the time evolution error of basis state $\ket{i}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\abs*{e^{-i\delta t(E^i_C+\epsilon^{i}_F)}-e^{-i\delta t E^i_C}}
&= \abs*{e^{-i \delta tE^i_C}} \abs*{e^{-it\epsilon^{i}_F}-1} \\
&= \abs*{e^{-i\delta t\epsilon^{i}_F}-1} \\
&\le \delta t \, \abs{\epsilon^{i}_F}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with a small $\delta t$, where we denote the overall Coulomb interaction of $\ket{i}$ by $E^i_C$. Therefore, the overall time evolution error incurred by Q2FMM for an arbitrary state $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i \alpha_i \ket{i}$ is bounded by:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{F,\delta t} \le \sum_i \abs{\alpha_i}^2 \, \abs{\epsilon^{i}_F} \, \delta t.
\end{equation}
The FMM errors $\epsilon^i_F$ scales as $\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{p+1}$~\cite{greengard1987fast, helgaker2000molecular}, where $R$ denotes the center-center distance between interacting boxes and $r$ the box radius at a given level. Hence, the time evolution error scales as:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{F,t} \sim \mathcal{O}\left(t \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)^{p+1}\right)
\end{equation}
for a total time duration $t$. Importantly, this error decreases rapidly with increasing expansion order $p$, exhibiting geometric convergence. From the above equation, we can also realize that the truncation order $p$ scales as:
\begin{equation}
p \sim \mathcal{O}(\log(1/\epsilon_{F,t})),
\end{equation}
which means, $p$ is \emph{constant} for a target error $\epsilon_{F,t}$.
Following the outline presented in Sec.~\ref{subsec: imp_2d} for $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM and likewise assuming a 2D neutral atom quantum hardware, the circuit depth for higher-order Q2FMM is similarly dominated by quantum arithmetic circuits, especially the quantum multipliers. Concretely, Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Eab} --~\eqref{eq:c_to_p} are implemented in a quantum device using quantum addition and quantum multiplication. Note that Eq.~\eqref{eq:translation} is local to each child box and can be executed in parallel across children.
For each child, and with fixed truncation order $p$, executing both Eq.~\eqref{eq:Eab} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:translation} requires $\mathcal{O}(p^4)$ multiplications. In other words, the number of multiplications is \emph{constant} as $p$ is considered constant. Furthermore, these multiplications can be parallelized with the \texttt{COPY} operation, which significantly reduces the circuit depth.
The depth of the quantum multiplier used in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Eab} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:translation} is governed by the input length, i.e., the bit length of the ancilla register that stores the multipole coefficients $M^A_{\ell m}$ for box $A$, which satisfy the bound:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\big|M^A_{\ell m}\big| &= \Big|\sum_{i=1}^{Q_b} q_i\, R_{\ell m}(\mathbf r_{iA})\Big| \\
&\le\; \sum_{i=1}^{Q_b} |q_i|\, \big|R_{\ell m}(\mathbf r_{iA})\big| \\
&\le\; Q_b \max_{1\le i\le Q_b}\big|R_{\ell m}(\mathbf r_{iA})\big| \\
&\le\; Q_b \sqrt{(\ell-m)!\,(\ell+m)!}\; r_A^{\,\ell},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $r_A$ is the radius of box $A$ (the upper bound of $r_{iA}$), and $Q_b$ denotes the number of electrons in a given box. After scaling $M^A_{\ell m}$ by $\ell! \, r_A^{\ell }$, the resulting value is strictly less than $Q$ and can be encoded as a binary fixed-point number. Hence, to represent $M^A_{\ell m}$ within binary precision $\epsilon_b$, we need at most:
\begin{equation}
n_{\epsilon_b, \text{max}} = \log_2(Q+1)+\log_2(1/\epsilon_b)
\end{equation}
bits, where the first term encodes the integer range and the second term encodes the binary fractional precision.
As summarized in Table.~\ref{tab:depth_table_all}, using the multiplier proposed by Kahanamoku-Meyer et al.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast}, the circuit depth \emph{per level} scales asymptotically as $\mathcal{O}((\log Q+\log({1}/{\epsilon_b})))$, which is reduced to $\mathcal{O}(\log^{\star} (\log Q+\log(\frac{1}{\epsilon_b})))$ if fan-out gates are available. Since there are $\log (N)$ levels in total, the total depth for simulating a single Trotter step remains \emph{polylogarithmic}. For instance, when the quantum multiplier of Ref.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast} is selected, the overall circuit depth scales as $\mathcal{O}(\log(N) \cdot (\log Q+\log({1}/{\epsilon_b})))$; other widely known quantum multipliers such as QFT-based~\cite{ruizperez2017qftarith} multiplier also help reach logarithmic depth scaling. %When realized on a platform that only allows nearest connectivity, the higher-order Q2FMM admits depth scaling $\sqrt{N}$ which is still low-scaling, as shown in Appendix~\ref{app:depth_no_shuttling}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{The asymptotic scaling of circuit depth and ancilla requirements to carry out a single Trotter step for the Coulomb term with the $0^\text{th}$-order and higher-order Q2FMM under different hardware capacity assumptions. The abbreviation ``NA'' denotes neutral-atom quantum computers, and all hardware configurations are assumed to be implemented on a 2D architecture. For the $0^\text{th}$-order case, we assume an input length of $\log_2 (Q+1)$ for the quantum adders and multipliers, whereas for the higher-order case we assume an input length $n_{\epsilon_b}=\log_2(Q+1)+\log_2(1/\epsilon_b)$.
The circuit depth for the NA with only shuttling is estimated using the multiplier proposed by Kahanamoku-Meyer et al.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast} as an example. The iterated logarithm related to the fan-out gate is regarded as a constant. Although the \texttt{COPY} operation reduces the circuit depth, it does not affect the asymptotic depth scaling, so the \texttt{COPY} operation is not included here. Both the spinless and spinful cases of Q2FMM share the same asymptotic scaling.}
\label{tab:depth_table_all}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.95}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\small
\begin{tabular}{lcccc c}
\hline\hline
Q2FMM & Error & Hardware Capacity & Circuit Depth & Shuttling Depth & \# Ancillae \\
\hline
%0th-order section
\multirow{3}{*}{$0^\text{th}$-order}
& \multirow{3}{*}{$\mathcal{O}(r/R)$}
& NA with shuttling
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log Q)$
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
& \multirow{3}{*}{$\mathcal{O}(N)$} \\
&
& NA with shuttling \& Fan-out
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
& \\
&
& Only Nearest connectivity
& $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})$
& N/A
& \\
\hline
%pth-order section
\multirow{3}{*}{$p^\text{th}$-order}
& \multirow{3}{*}{$\mathcal{O}(r/R)^{p+1}$}
& NA with shuttling
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot (\log Q + \log(1/\epsilon_b)))$
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
& \multirow{3}{*}{$\mathcal{O}(N)$} \\
&
& NA with shuttling \& Fan-out
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
& $\mathcal{O}(\log N)$
& \\
&
& Only Nearest connectivity
& $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})$
& N/A
& \\
% \hline
% Not used
% & N/A
% & Fan-out
% & $\mathcal{O}(1)$
% & N/A
% & $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%$\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot \log^{\star} \log Q)$
%$\mathcal{O}(\log N \cdot (\log^{\star} (\log Q+\log({1}/{\epsilon}))))$
The gate complexity of the higher-order Q2FMM can be estimated by summing the gates required at each hierarchical level. As mentioned earlier, the quantum multiplier is the dominant cost contributor. Thus, focusing solely on the cost of the quantum multipliers is sufficient to determine the asymptotic scaling of gate complexity. Let the number of bits required to store a single coefficient with absolute precision $\epsilon_b$ be
\begin{equation}
n_{\epsilon_b, \beta} = \log_2(\beta+1) + \log_2(1/\epsilon_b),
\end{equation}
where $\beta \in \{1, \dots, 4^L\}$ denotes the number of grid points contained in a box at a given level (so that $\beta=1$ corresponds to the finest level). Note that $n_{\epsilon_b, \beta}$ is capped at $\log_2(Q+1) + \log_2(1/\epsilon_b)$. Still selecting the quantum multiplier in Ref.~\cite{kahanamoku2024fast}, its gate complexity scales as $\mathcal{O}(n^{1.3})$ with input length $n$. Considering there are $N/\beta$ boxes at a level with box size $\beta$, the total number of gates scales asymptotically as:
% \begin{equation}
% N_G = \sum_l \frac{N}{4^l} \cdot \mathcal{O}(\log(4^l) + \log(1/\epsilon))^{1.3} = \mathcal{O}(N \cdot \log^{1.3}(1/\epsilon)).
% \end{equation}
\begin{equation}
N_G = \sum_\beta \frac{p^4 N}{\beta} \cdot \mathcal{O}(n_{\epsilon_b,\beta})^{1.3}
= \mathcal{O}(p^4 N \cdot \log^{1.3}(1/\epsilon_b)).
\end{equation}
To ensure a balanced trade-off between the binary precision and the FMM error, we choose $\epsilon_b = \epsilon_{F,t}$, which allows us to simplify the above expression to:
\begin{equation}
N_G
= p^{5.3}\mathcal{O}(N).
\end{equation}
Recall that $p \sim \mathcal{O}(\log(1/\epsilon_{F,t}))$ can be treated as a constant determined solely by the desired FMM accuracy, and is therefore independent of the system size $N$. This implies that the gate complexity scales linearly; however, note that the prefactor can be large due to the high power.
Similar to the analysis in Sec.~\ref{sec:depth_fanout}, we estimate the qubit requirement for storing multipole expansions as follows. Given $M_{\ell m}$ contains $(p+1)^2$ coefficients, the total number of ancilla qubits needed at that level scales as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
N_s &\propto \frac{N}{\beta}(p+1)^2\,n_{\epsilon_b,\beta} \\
&= \frac{N}{\beta}(p+1)^2\bigl(\log_2(\beta+1)+\log_2(1/\epsilon_b)\bigr)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Even under a large error tolerance $\epsilon_b \le 10^{-3}$ to represent a decimal, a direct maximization shows that $N_s$ is largest at the finest level $\beta=1$. In this case,
$n_{\epsilon_b, 1}=1+\log_2(1/\epsilon_b)$, so storing all $(p+1)^2$ terms in $M_{\ell m}$ for one site requires $(p+1)^2\bigl(1+\log_2(1/\epsilon_b)\bigr)$ qubits. Hence, for fixed $p$ and $\epsilon_b$, the per-site ancilla cost of storing the multipole expansion is \emph{constant}, and the total number of ancilla qubits scales with the number of sites $N$. We summarize the comparison of circuit depth and ancilla requirements for the $0^\text{th}$-order and higher-order Q2FMM under various hardware assumptions in Table.~\ref{tab:depth_table_all}.
% For an arbitrary state $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i \alpha_i \ket{i}$, the higher-order Q2FMM introduces an error $\epsilon^{i}_F$ to the overall Coulomb interaction for a given Fock basis state $\ket{i}$. When computing the time evolution governed by the Coulomb interaction, such an energy error leads to the time evolution error of basis state $\ket{i}$:
% \begin{equation}
% \begin{aligned}
% \abs*{e^{-i\delta t(E^i_C+\epsilon^{i}_F)}-e^{-i\delta t E^i_C}}
% &= \abs*{e^{-i \delta tE^i_C}} \abs*{e^{-it\epsilon^{i}_F}-1} \\
% &= \abs*{e^{-i\delta t\epsilon^{i}_F}-1} \\
% &\le \delta t \, \abs{\epsilon^{i}_F}
% \end{aligned}
% \end{equation}
% with a small $\delta t$, where we denote the overall Coulomb interaction of $\ket{i}$ by $E^i_C$. Therefore, the overall time evolution error incurred by Q2FMM for an arbitrary state $\ket{\psi} = \sum_i \alpha_i \ket{i}$ is bounded by:
% \begin{equation}
% \epsilon_{\delta t} \le \sum_i \abs{\alpha_i}^2 \, \abs{\epsilon^{i}_F} \, \delta t.
% \end{equation}
% The FMM errors $\epsilon^i_F$ scales as $\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^{p+1}$~\cite{greengard1987fast, helgaker2000molecular}, where $R$ denotes the center-center distance between interacting boxes and $r$ the box radius at a given level. Hence, the time evolution error scales as:
% \begin{equation}
% \epsilon_{\delta t} \sim \mathcal{O}\left(\delta t \left( \frac{r}{R} \right)^{p+1}\right)
% \end{equation}
% for a single time evolution step with duration $\delta t$. Importantly, this error decreases rapidly with increasing expansion order $p$, exhibiting geometric convergence.
%scales as $\mathcal{O}(\abs{\delta t \epsilon_F})$.
% For any computational basis state $|i\rangle$, denote $E_C^i$ its exact Coulomb energy and let $\epsilon_F^i$ be the energy error from Q2FMM, the resulting time evolution error of basis $\ket{i}$ is:
% \begin{equation}
% \begin{aligned}
% \abs*{e^{-i\delta t(E^i_C+\epsilon_F)}-e^{-i\delta t E^i_C}}
% &= \abs*{e^{-i \delta tE^i_C}} \abs*{e^{-it\epsilon_F}-1} \\
% &= \abs*{e^{-i\delta t\epsilon_F}-1} \\
% &\le \delta t \abs{\epsilon_F}.
% \end{aligned}
% \end{equation}
% Therefore, for an arbitrary state $\ket{\psi} = \alpha_i \ket{i}$
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
In this work, we present a quantum algorithm with polylogarithmic depth for simulating the extended Hubbard model. This algorithm builds upon the FMM, which reformulates the computation of pairwise interactions into inter-box interactions, thereby reducing the overall computational complexity. Furthermore, Q2FMM leverages recent advances in 2D neutral-atom quantum computing platforms, where long-range gates and shuttling are experimentally supported. It is worth emphasizing that, although we describe Q2FMM within the FMM framework, the workflow is not strictly FMM. Rather, it is more appropriately viewed as a multipole expansion algorithm with a hierarchical structure, which is inspired by FMM.
% In this work, we present a quantum algorithm with polylogarithmic depth for simulating the extended Hubbard model. To the best of our knowledge, our Q2FMM is the first quantum algorithm to achieve polylogarithmic depth scaling for this task. This improvement builds upon the FMM, which reformulates the computation of pairwise interactions into inter-box interactions, thereby reducing the overall computational complexity. Furthermore, Q2FMM is a general efficient framework, and leveraging recent advances in 2D neutral-atom quantum computing platforms achieves polylogarithmic circuit depth for simulating a single Trotter step. It is worth emphasizing that, although we describe Q2FMM within the FMM framework, the workflow is not strictly FMM. Rather, it is more appropriately viewed as a multipole expansion algorithm with a hierarchical structure, which is inspired by FMM.
% In this work, we present a quantum algorithm with polylogarithmic depth for simulating the extended Hubbard model, which is crucial in describing various physical phenomena on a 2D lattice. To the best of our knowledge, our Q2FMM is the first quantum algorithm to achieve polylogarithmic depth scaling for this task. This improvement builds upon the FMM, which reformulates the computation of pairwise interactions into inter-box interactions, thereby reducing the overall computational complexity. Furthermore, Q2FMM leverages recent advances in 2D neutral-atom quantum computing platforms, where long-range gates and shuttling are experimentally supported. It is worth emphasizing that, although we describe Q2FMM within the FMM framework, the workflow is not strictly FMM. Rather, it is more appropriately viewed as a multipole expansion algorithm with a hierarchical structure, which is inspired by FMM.
We noticed that the interaction-picture algorithm within the block-encoding framework proposed by G.~H.~Low and N.~Wiebe~\cite{low2018interactionpicture} has already achieved the polylogarithmic gate complexity $O(N \log N \,\mathrm{polylog}(1/\epsilon_p))$, where $\epsilon_p$ denotes the target phase error. In comparison, ours exhibits a linear scaling $\mathcal{O}(N)$ in gate complexity, but with a high-power prefactor $p^{5.3}$, indicating it could be too costly for small systems. However, we note that methods based on the block-encoding typically also come with sizable constant prefactors in the gate count as well. %We expect that our method can use fewer gates on large systems and provide a more direct approach to simulating time evolution, since $p$ is independent of the system size for a given accuracy.
Q2FMM is not limited to the extended Hubbard model; it is also potentially applicable to ab initio molecular Hamiltonians discretized on real-space grids, as discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:discretization}. Extending the algorithm to this setting would profit from a corresponding three-dimensional quantum hardware topology layout, which might become available in the future. Additionally, the truncation of the power-law interaction (which decays with distance) can also be incorporated into Q2FMM. The number of levels can be reduced by terminating Q2FMM at a level where the distance between boxes exceeds the chosen truncation distance $\xi$. This yields a total number of levels $\mathcal{O}(\log \xi)$ to be executed. %It also deserves discussing the placement of the ancilla qubits, whose arrangement could affect the efficiency of the algorithm.
We have been aware that a recent work by D.~W.~Berry et al.~\cite{berry2025qfmm} also utilizes the FMM for quantum simulation in the context of quantum chemistry. The authors employ a real-space first-quantized representation of the molecular Hamiltonian, whereas our work is based on a second-quantized formulation. %Although both approaches utilize the FMM, the methodologies are fundamentally distinct: our work is based on a second-quantized formulation, whereas theirs is formulated in the first-quantized framework.
It would be of particular interest to extend their framework to the 2D extended Hubbard model and compare its performance directly with that of Q2FMM.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Dominic W.~Berry for pointing out Ref.~\cite{low2018interactionpicture} and helpful discussions. This research is part of the Munich Quantum Valley, which is supported by the Bavarian State Government with funds from the Hightech Agenda Bayern Plus. We also thank the Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology. The packages \texttt{quantikz}~\cite{kay2018quantikz} and \texttt{yquant}~\cite{desef2020yquant} were used for drawing the quantum circuit diagrams.
\end{acknowledgments}
\appendix
% \section{Spatial truncation of long-range terms}
% \label{app:spatial_trunc}
% The truncation of the Hamiltonian does not systematically increase the total error, provided that the truncation error and the Trotter error are of the same order. For pairwise interactions that decay with distance, it is reasonable to truncate interaction pairs ${i,j}$ whose inter-site distance $\mathbf{r_{ij}}$ exceeds a distance cutoff $\xi$, where $\xi$ is chosen such that the resulting truncation error matches the order of the Trotter error.
% We denote the truncated Hamiltonian as $H_{\le \xi} = H - V_{\text{trunc}}$, where $V_{\text{trunc}}$ is the truncated pairwise interaction. The time-evolution error introduced by the truncation over a duration $t$ satisfies
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:trunc_t_error}
% \|e^{-itH} - e^{-itH_{\le \xi}} \| \le \abs{t} \|H-H_{\le \xi} \| = \abs{t} \|V_{\text{trunc}}\|,
% \end{equation}
% where $\| \cdot \|$ denotes the spectral norm. For a single site $i$, the number of sites located at a distance $r$ from $i$ scales approximately as $2\pi r$. Thus, exemplified by the Coulomb kernel $K_C(\mathbf{r}_i,\mathbf{r}_j) = 1/\abs{\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j}$ we focus on in this work, the truncation error associated with site $i$ can be estimated as:
% \begin{equation}
% \|V^i_{\text{trunc}}\| \le \sum_{\xi < \|\mathbf{r_{ij}} \| < \xi_{\text{max}}} \frac{1}{\mathbf{r}_{ij}} \|n_i n_j \| = \mathcal{O}(2\pi(\xi_{\text{max}}- \xi)),
% \end{equation}
% where $\xi_{\text{max}}$ is the linear size of the 2D lattice, i.e., $\xi_{\text{max}}^2 = N$, and $\mathbf{r}_{ij} = \abs{\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j}$ is the distance between two sites. Hence, the total truncation error can be expressed as:
% \begin{equation}
% \|V_{\text{trunc}}\| \le \sum_i \|V^i_{\text{trunc}}\| = \mathcal{O}(2\pi N(\xi_{\text{max}}- \xi)).
% \end{equation}
% Inserting the above equation into Eq.~\eqref{eq:trunc_t_error} yields the time-evolution error induced by truncating the interaction:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:trunc_error_xi}
% \epsilon_{\text{trunc}} = \mathcal{O}(tN(\xi_{\text{max}}- \xi)).
% \end{equation}
% where we omit the factor $2\pi$. Therefore, the truncation error $\epsilon_{\text{trunc}}$ increases linearly as $\xi$ decreases. Intuitively, to maintain high accuracy, \emph{the truncation distance $\xi$ should be chosen of the same order as $\xi_{\text{max}}$}.
% Quantitatively, we compare the truncation error $\epsilon_{\text{trunc}}$ with the Trotter error and ensure that they are of the same order of magnitude. It is important to note that the Trotter error should be evaluated using the truncated Hamiltonian $H_{\le \xi}$, since this is the Hamiltonian actually simulated after truncation, rather than the exact Hamiltonian $H$. We employ the results in~\cite{Childs2021PRXCommutator} and follow its notations to calculate the Trotter error for the truncated Hamiltonian $H_{\le \xi}$: for a $k$-local Hamiltonian (i.e., $2$-local Hamiltonian in our case), the Trotter error for $p$th-order Trotterization over time $t$ is given by:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:k_local_error}
% \epsilon_{\text{Trotter}}(t) = \mathcal{O}( |\!|\!|H_{\le \xi}|\!|\!|^\Gamma_1 \|H_{\le \xi}\|_1 \, t \, \delta t^\Gamma ),
% \end{equation}
% where $\delta t$ is the time step size, $\Gamma$ is the Trotter order, and $|\!|\!|H_{\le \xi}|\!|\!|_1$ is the induced 1-norm of $H_{\le \xi}$, which is given by:
% % \begin{equation}
% % |\!|\!|H_{\le \xi}|\!|\!|_1 \le 1+ \max_i \sum_{0<\abs{\mathbf{r}_{ij}} \le \xi} \frac{1}{~\abs{\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j}^2}
% % \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:induced_1_norm}
% \begin{aligned}
% |\!|\!|H_{\le \xi}|\!|\!|_1 & \le 4\abs{t}+ \abs{V_0}+ \max_i \sum_{0<\abs{\mathbf{r}_{ij}} \le \xi} \frac{1}{\abs{\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j}}\\
% &= 4\abs{t}+ \abs{V_0}+\mathcal{O}(2\pi\xi)
% \end{aligned}
% \end{equation}
% and $\|H_{\le \xi}\|_1$ is the 1-norm of $H_{\le \xi}$, which is given by:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:1_norm}
% \begin{aligned}
% \|H_{\le \xi}\|_1 &\le \sum_i \Big(4\abs{t}+ \abs{V_0}+ \sum_{0<\abs{\mathbf{r}_{ij}} \le \xi}\frac{1}{\abs{\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j}} \Big)\\
% &=N \Big(4\abs{t}+ \abs{V_0}+\mathcal{O}(2\pi\xi) \Big).
% \end{aligned}
% \end{equation}
% where the pre-factor has been omitted. For simplicity, we retain only the terms associated with the truncation distance $\xi$. By substituting Eq.~\eqref{eq:induced_1_norm} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:1_norm} into Eq.~\eqref{eq:k_local_error}, we obtain:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:trotter_error_xi}
% \epsilon_{\text{Trotter}}(t) = \mathcal{O}(N \xi^{\Gamma+1} \, t \,\delta t^{\Gamma} + C^{\Gamma+1}),
% \end{equation}
% where we define $C=4\abs{t}+\abs{V_0}$. To ensure that the truncation error and the Trotter error are of the same asymptotic order, we set Eq.~\eqref{eq:trunc_error_xi} and Eq.~\eqref{eq:trotter_error_xi} to be equal, which yields:
% % \begin{equation}
% % \mathcal{O}(\xi^{\Gamma+1} \delta t^{\Gamma}) = \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\text{max}}- \xi)
% % \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{O}\Big((\xi \delta t)^{\Gamma} + \frac{C^{\Gamma+1}}{\xi} \Big) = \mathcal{O} \Big(\frac{\xi_{\text{max}}}{\xi}-1 \Big).
% \end{equation}
% From this relation, we observe that as the Trotter order $\Gamma$ increases or the time step $\delta t$ decreases, the truncation distance $\xi$ must correspondingly increase to maintain the balance between the two sides. This implies that achieving higher accuracy requires retaining a larger truncation distance $\xi$ for the Coulomb interaction.
% which can be approximated as:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{O}(\xi \delta t)^{\Gamma} = \mathcal{O} \Big(\frac{\xi_{\text{max}}}{\xi} \Big),
% \end{equation}
% \begin{equation}
% \|H_{\le \xi}\|_1 = \sum_i \big(1+ \sum_{0<\abs{\mathbf{r}_{ij}} \le \xi} \frac{1}{~\abs{\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j}^2} \big)
% \end{equation}
% \sum_j \frac{1}{\mathbf{r_{ij}} \|n_i n_j \|
\section{Generalization to the spinful Fermi-Hubbard model}
\label{app:reconsider}
Restoring the spin allows each site to host up to two fermions (one per spin), and only slightly modifies the long-range term:
\begin{equation}
V_C = \sum_{a\ne b} V_{ab}\,\hat{n}_{a}\hat{n}_{b},
\end{equation}
where we rewrite the number operators as
\begin{equation}
\hat{n}_{a}= \sum_{\sigma\in\{\uparrow,\downarrow\}} \hat{n}_{a\sigma},\qquad
\hat{n}_{a\sigma}= \hat{c}^\dagger_{a\sigma}\hat{c}_{a\sigma}.
\end{equation}
Adapted to Q2FMM, each site $i$ is now encoded by \emph{two} adjacent physical qubits. The only change to the circuit appears at the second finest level $L=\log_4(N)-1$, where each site's information is propagated to their parent boxes. Here, we simply apply the method illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:rq_circuit} to account for the contributions from the \emph{two} qubits representing a site. Consequently, at the finest level, there are eight qubits (corresponding to four sites) that are merged into their parent box. Accordingly, we require one additional ancilla qubit to store the information for each box.
% \section{Circuit depth without shuttling}
% \label{app:depth_no_shuttling}
% %Within each level $L$, these SWAP gates can be executed in parallel, especially when \texttt{COPY} is employed.
% Our algorithm remains efficient even without the use of long-range gates or shuttling. In this setting, the dominant contribution to the circuit depth arises from using SWAP gates to ``move'' the ancilla qubits of two boxes together for further calculation using quantum arithmetic circuits. The distance $\rho_L$ between boxes in each other's interaction list is then
% \begin{equation}
% \rho_L = \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\text{max}}/2^{L}),
% \end{equation}
% where $\xi_{\text{max}}$ is the linear size of the 2D lattice, i.e., $\xi_{\text{max}}^2 = N$. Therefore, the total depth of executing SWAP gates across all levels scales as
% \begin{equation}
% \sum_{L=2}^{L_{\text{max}}-1} \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\text{max}}/2^{L}) = \mathcal{O}(\xi_{\text{max}}) = \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N}).
% \end{equation}
% Asymptotically, $\sqrt{N}$ grows faster than the polylogarithmic depth of the quantum arithmetic circuits. Thus, the overall circuit depth for simulating a single Trotter step is $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})$, without the use of long-range gates or shuttling. This depth scaling outperforms the $\mathcal{O}(N)$ depth required by the fermionic SWAP network~\cite{kivlichan2018quantum} even when truncation is applied, especially for interactions that decay slowly with distance (e.g., algebraic $1/r^\mu$ with small $\mu$). For rapidly decaying interactions (e.g., large $\mu$), which are effectively short-range, the SWAP network considering truncation is already sufficiently efficient.
\section{Overall quantum circuit exemplified by a one-dimensional lattice}
\label{sec:overall_circuit}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\input{1D_lattice}
}
\caption{One-dimensional lattice geometry and hierarchy of boxes used for the circuit instantiation in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_circuit}.}
\label{fig:1d_lattice}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\input{overall_circuit_1D.tikz}
\caption{The overall quantum circuit implementing the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM, instantiated for a 1D lattice (see Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_lattice}) for visual clarity. The qubits corresponding to physical sites are labeled by $\ket{q_i}$, while the ancilla registers are labeled by $\ket{a_i}$ and represented by blue bundle lines. The kinetic and on-site time evolution operator $e^{-i t (T+V_\text{os})}$ and the so-called grid-grid evolution only act on physical sites but not on the ancilla registers. The \texttt{Evo} gates acting on different boxes can be executed in parallel (but are displayed sequentially in this circuit diagram).}
\label{fig:overall_circuit}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\input{evo_inside.tikz}
\caption{An example of the \texttt{Evo} gate applied to the ancilla registers $\ket{a^A}$ and $\ket{a^B}$ corresponding to boxes $A$ and $B$, respectively. The additional ancilla qubits (red) are immediately discarded in a 2D neutral atom quantum computer after use, since uncomputing the quantum multiplier resets them to the $\ket{0}$ state. For this reason, they are not drawn in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_circuit}.}
\label{fig:evo_gate}
\end{figure}
We illustrate the structure of the $0^\text{th}$-order Q2FMM in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_circuit}. For visual clarity, the circuit corresponds to a one-dimensional (1D) lattice with 16 sites, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1d_lattice}, and ignores spin degrees of freedom. The overall quantum circuit for a single Trotter step is composed of three main components: the time evolution $e^{-i t (T+V_\text{os})}$ for the hopping term $T$ and the on-site term $V_{\text{os}}$, the compute phase, and the uncompute phase, which are separated by red slices in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_circuit}. A detailed description of the compute and uncompute phases, which aim to evaluate the time evolution governed by the long-range Coulomb term, is provided in Sec.~\ref{sec:time_evo_arith}.
The compute phase begins by evaluating the time evolution at the finest level, where only near-neighbor interactions are involved and can be implemented straightforwardly; hence, we do not detail it here. When reaching a coarser level, we employ quantum adders to ``merge'' the boxes (grids at the finest level), as illustrated in Sec.~\ref{sec:time_evo_arith} and Fig.~\ref{fig:2d_algo} of the main text. The blue bundle lines denote the ancilla registers, which are used to store the results of quantum adders, i.e., the summation of occupation numbers. The time evolution between boxes at a given level is then evaluated by the \texttt{Evo} gate, which is displayed as non-adjacent multi-qubit gates connected by a wave line. We omit the non-participating qubits between the two halves of the \texttt{Evo} gate and place the participating ancilla registers next to each other to illustrate the \texttt{Evo} gate in Fig.~\ref{fig:evo_gate}. We first employ a quantum multiplier, where extra ancilla qubits (highlighted in red) are introduced to record the result, to compute the product $N_A N_B$ of two boxes $A$ and $B$. Then, we use the phase gates in Eq.~\eqref{eq:phase} to generate the phases, and finally uncompute the multiplier, which is realized by its inverse gate. All pairs of ancilla registers on which \texttt{Evo} is applied are determined by the interaction list of each box, as detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:0th_fmm_theory}. The compute phase terminates upon completing the level that contains four boxes on a 1D lattice.
%Since uncomputing the quantum multiplier resets the ancilla qubits to the $\ket{0}$ state, these extra qubits can be discarded after use, which is why we do not draw them in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_circuit}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{uncompute.tikz}
\caption{Applied in reverse order, the uncompute procedure first ``splits'' the largest boxes, as also illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:box_uncompute}, and continues until the finest level is reached.}
\label{fig:uncompute}
\end{figure}
The final step is to execute the uncompute phase, which transfers the phase back to the qubits representing the quantum state. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:time_evo_arith}, this is achieved by applying the inverses of the quantum arithmetic circuits in the reverse order. Since the multipliers have already been uncomputed in this example, it suffices to apply the inverses of the quantum adders, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:uncompute}.
%As depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall_circuit}
%\newpage
% \begin{figure}[b]
% \centering
% \input{multiplier.tikz}
% \caption{CC}
% \label{fig:multiplier}
% \end{figure}
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
% \centering
% \input{adder.tikz}
% \caption{MPS form of a quantum state.}
% \label{fig:mps}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill
% \begin{subfigure}{0.45\textwidth}
% \centering
% \input{multiplier.tikz}
% \caption{BBB.}
% \label{fig:mpo}
% \end{subfigure}
% \caption{BBB}
% \end{figure}
\section{Grid discretization for ab initio molecular Hamiltonians}
\label{app:discretization}
R.~White et al.\ have proposed a local real-space Gausslet basis set discretization with applications to quantum chemistry, with a favorable trade-off between sparsity and smoothness \cite{white2017gausslets, stoudenmire2017sliced, white2019multisliced}.
%The grid discretization is applied to the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method~\cite{whitedmrgprl, whitedmrgprb} in quantum chemistry, by combining it with a proper basis set~\cite{stoudenmire2017sliced, white2019multisliced}.
Here, we illustrate how to apply a grid discretization to the following real-space representation of a molecular Hamiltonian (within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation):
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
H = T + V = \sum_{\sigma} \int d\mathbf{r} \, \hat{\psi}^\dagger_{\mathbf{r} \sigma} \left( -\frac{1}{2} \nabla^2 + v(\mathbf{r}) \right) \hat{\psi}_{\mathbf{r} \sigma} \\
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\sigma, \sigma'} \int d\mathbf{r} d\mathbf{r'} \, \hat{\psi}^\dagger_{\mathbf{r} \sigma} \hat{\psi}^\dagger_{\mathbf{r'} \sigma'} \frac{1}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r'}| } \hat{\psi}_{\mathbf{r'} \sigma'} \hat{\psi}_{\mathbf{r} \sigma},
\end{split}
\label{eq:continuum_H}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\psi}_{\mathbf{r}\sigma}$ and $\hat{\psi}_{\mathbf{r}\sigma}^{\dagger}$ are annihilation and creation operator for spin $\sigma$ at position $\mathbf{r}$, respectively. Employing the grid approximation, we replace the operator $\hat{\psi}_{\mathbf{r}\sigma}$ with grid annihilation operators:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\psi}_{\mathbf{r} \sigma} \rightarrow \sum_{i=1}^N \delta(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_i) \hat{a}_{i \sigma}
\label{eq:grid_op}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{a}_{i \sigma}$ is the annihilation operator for grid point $i$, $r_i$ is the position of grid point $i$, and $N$ is the total number of grid points. Inserting Eq.~\eqref{eq:grid_op} into the Hamiltonian Eq.~\eqref{eq:continuum_H}, the Coulomb term $V$ can be re-written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:grid_cou}
V = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i \neq j} \frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_u| } \hat{n}_i \hat{n}_u,
\end{equation}
which only contains the grid-grid Coulomb interaction. The kinetic term $T$ only contains nearest-neighbor hopping terms by replacing $\nabla^2$ by finite difference approximations.
The difficulty in simulating Eq.~\eqref{eq:grid_cou} using Q2FMM lies in the need for a three-dimensional grid setting to capture the electron's motion in three-dimensional space. For plane- or chain-structured molecules, electrons move freely in the first two dimensions, but their motion in the third dimension is highly confined. In such cases, it is feasible to map the three-dimensional lattice onto a two-dimensional quantum device. However, simulating general molecules with fully three-dimensional geometries still requires a quantum device with a genuine three-dimensional structure or all-to-all connectivity.
\newpage
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}
\begin{tikzpicture}
% \draw (0,0) -- (3.6,-1.6);
% \draw[->, >=stealth', red!50!black, line width=1pt] (0,0) -- (-0.6,0.8) ;
% \draw[->, >=stealth', red!50!black, line width=1pt] (3.6,-1.6) -- (4.2,-0.8);
% \node at (0.2,0.2) {$A$};
% \node at (3.5,-1.2) {$B$};
% \fill[red!50!black] (0,0) circle (1.5pt);
% \fill[red!50!black] (3.6,-1.6) circle (1.5pt);
% \node at (-0.8,0.8) {$a$};
% \node at (4.4,-0.8) {$b$};
%\begin{scope}[yshift=-3.5cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (3.6,-1.6);
\draw (0,0) -- (-0.4,0.8);
\fill[red!50!black] (-0.4,0.8) circle (2pt);
\draw (0,0) -- (-0.7,-0.3);
\fill[red!50!black] (-0.7,-0.3) circle (2pt);
\draw (0,0) -- (-0.7,-0.7);
\fill[red!50!black] (-0.7,-0.7) circle (2pt);
\draw (0,0) circle [radius=1.1cm];
\draw (3.6,-1.6) -- (4.2,-0.8);
\fill[red!50!black] (4.2,-0.8) circle (2pt);
\draw (3.6,-1.6) -- (4.0,-1.5);
\fill[red!50!black] (4.0,-1.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (3.6,-1.6) -- (3.7,-2.5);
\fill[red!50!black] (3.7,-2.5) circle (2pt);
\draw (3.6,-1.6) circle [radius=1.1cm];
\node at (0.2,0.2) {$A$};
\node at (3.5,-1.3) {$B$};
\fill[red!50!black] (0,0) circle (1.5pt);
\fill[red!50!black] (3.6,-1.6) circle (1.5pt);
%\end{scope}
% \draw[densely dashed, gray]
% (-1,-2) -- (5,-2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.pathreplacing}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.4, >=stealth]
\tikzset{qubit/.style={
shade, circle,
ball color=blue!50!white,
shading angle=45,
minimum size=3mm,
inner sep=0pt, outer sep=0pt}}
\foreach \i in {0,...,15}{
\node[qubit] (q\i) at (2*\i,0) {};
}
\draw[thick, rounded corners]
($(q0)+(-0.8,-1.2)$) rectangle ($(q3)+(0.8,1.2)$);
\draw[thick, rounded corners]
($(q4)+(-0.8,-1.2)$) rectangle ($(q7)+(0.8,1.2)$);
\draw[thick, rounded corners]
($(q8)+(-0.8,-1.2)$) rectangle ($(q11)+(0.8,1.2)$);
\draw[thick, rounded corners]
($(q12)+(-0.8,-1.2)$) rectangle ($(q15)+(0.8,1.2)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed]
($(q0)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q1)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed]
($(q2)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q3)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed]
($(q4)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q5)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed]
($(q6)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q7)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed,]
($(q8)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q9)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed]
($(q10)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q11)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed]
($(q12)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q13)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\draw[very thick, rounded corners, dashed]
($(q14)+(-0.6,-0.8)$) rectangle ($(q15)+(0.6,0.8)$);
\end{tikzpicture}