Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Uncomputability of phase diagrams

Johannes Bausch, Toby S. Cubitt, James D. Watson

Published Mar 10, 2020• 18 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract: The phase diagram of a material is of central importance in describing the properties and behaviour of a condensed matter system. In this work, we prove that the task of determining the phase diagram of a many-body Hamiltonian is in general uncomputable, by explicitly constructing a continuous one-parameter family of Hamiltonians H(φ), where φ∈R, for which this is the case. The H(φ) are translationally-invariant, with nearest-neighbour couplings on a 2D spin lattice. As well as implying uncomputablity of phase diagrams, our result also proves that undecidability can hold for a set of positive measure of a Hamiltonian’s parameter space, whereas previous results only implied undecidability on a zero measure set. This brings the spectral gap undecidability results a step closer to standard condensed matter problems, where one typically studies phase diagrams of many-body models as a function of one or more continuously varying real parameters, such as magnetic field strength or pressure.

DOI
10.17863/cam.63563

Related papers

Uncomputability of phase diagrams

Johannes Bausch, Toby S. Cubitt, James D. Watson

The phase diagram of a material is of central importance in describing the properties and behaviour of a condensed matter system. In this work, we prove that the task of determining the phase diagram of a many-body Hamiltonian is in general uncomputable, by explicitly constructing a continuous one-parameter family of Hamiltonians H(φ), where [Formula: see text], for which this is the case. The H(φ) are translationally-invariant, with nearest-neighbour couplings on a 2D spin lattice. As well as implying uncomputablity of phase diagrams, our result also proves that undecidability can hold for a set of positive measure of a Hamiltonian's parameter space, whereas previous results only implied undecidability on a zero measure set. This brings the spectral gap undecidability results a step closer to standard condensed matter problems, where one typically studies phase diagrams of many-body models as a function of one or more continuously varying real parameters, such as magnetic field strength or pressure.

arXiv:1910.01631•Nature Communications•Jan 19, 2021•20 citations

Chaitin Phase Transition

James Purcell, Zhi Li, Toby S. Cubitt

We construct a family of Hamiltonians whose phase diagram is guaranteed to have a single phase transition, yet the location of this phase transition is uncomputable. The Hamiltonians $H(ϕ)$ describe qudits on a two-dimensional square lattice with translationally invariant, nearest-neighbour interactions tuned by a continuous parameter $ϕ\in(0,1]$. For all $ϕ\in(0,1]$, $H(ϕ)$ is in one of two phases, one a gapless phase, the other a gapped phase. The phase transition occurs when $ϕ$ equals the Chaitin's constant $Ω$, a well-defined real number that encodes the Halting problem, and hence is uncomputable for Turing machines and undecidable for any consistent recursive axiomatization of mathematics. Our result implies that no general algorithm exists to determine the phase diagrams even under the promise that the phase diagram is exceedingly simple, and illustrates how uncomputable numbers may manifest in physical systems.

arXiv:2410.02600•Oct 3, 2024•1 citation

Undecidability of the Spectral Gap

Toby S. Cubitt, David Pérez-Garcı́a, Michael M. Wolf

Abstract We construct families of translationally invariant, nearest-neighbour Hamiltonians on a 2D square lattice of d-level quantum systems (d constant), for which determining whether the system is gapped or gapless is an undecidable problem. This is true even with the promise that each Hamiltonian is either gapped or gapless in the strongest sense: it is promised to either have continuous spectrum above the ground state in the thermodynamic limit, or its spectral gap is lower-bounded by a constant. Moreover, this constant can be taken equal to the operator norm of the local operator that generates the Hamiltonian (the local interaction strength). The result still holds true if one restricts to arbitrarily small quantum perturbations of classical Hamiltonians. The proof combines a robustness analysis of Robinson’s aperiodic tiling, together with tools from quantum information theory: the quantum phase estimation algorithm and the history state technique mapping Quantum Turing Machines to Hamiltonians.

arXiv:1502.04573•Forum of Mathematics Pi•Jan 1, 2022•14 citations

Undecidability of the spectral gap in rotationally symmetric Hamiltonians

Laura Castilla-Castellano, Angelo Lucia

The problem of determining the existence of a spectral gap in a lattice quantum spin system was previously shown to be undecidable for one [] or more dimensions []. In these works, families of nearest-neighbor interactions are constructed whose spectral gap depends on the outcome of a Turing machine halting problem, therefore making it impossible for an algorithm to predict its existence. While these models are translationally invariant, they are not invariant under the other symmetries of the lattice, a property which is commonly found in physically relevant cases. This poses the question of whether the spectral gap problem could be decidable for Hamiltonians with stronger symmetry constraints. We give a negative answer to this question, in the case of models with four-body (plaquette) interactions on the square lattice satisfying rotation, but not reflection, symmetry: rotational symmetry is not enough to make the problem decidable.

arXiv:2410.13589•Physical Review Research•Dec 4, 2025•1 citation

Undecidability of the Spectral Gap Problem via Halting Problem Encoding — E8 Intelligence Research

Andrew Stewart Caldin

FINDING: Undecidability in the spectral gap problem for quantum many-body systems proves that determining whether a system is gapped or gapless is algorithmically impossible in general. | MATH: The spectral gap problem is mapped to the halting problem via translationally invariant Hamiltonians on a 2D lattice; the set of gapped Hamiltonians is Π₂-complete in the arithmetic hierarchy. Key constants: no specific numerical constants emerge, but the proof relies on encoding Turing machine states into local Hamiltonian terms. | CONNECTION: No direct geometric harmony ratios (0.382, 0.618, etc.) appear. However, the lattice structure (2D square lattice) and translational invariance connect to crystallographic symmetry groups (p4m wallpaper group). The undecidability result implies that spectral gaps—which determine whether a system is an insulator (gapped) or conductor (gapless)—cannot be universally predicted, breaking the dream of a complete mathematical description of matter. | DEPTH: 9/1 Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com

•Jul 20, 2026•0 citations

Spectral Gap Problem Undecidable: Turing Limits in Quantum Many-Body Physics — E8 Intelligence Research

Andrew Stewart Caldin

FINDING: The spectral gap problem is undecidable in general — no algorithm can determine whether a quantum many-body Hamiltonian has a spectral gap or is gapless, establishing a Gödel/Turing-style limit inside physics itself. | MATH: Given a translation-invariant, nearest-neighbour Hamiltonian H on a 2D spin lattice, the ground-state energy density and the question "is Δ = E₁ − E₀ > 0?" are undecidable (Cubitt, Pérez-García, Wolf, Nature 2015). The construction encodes a universal Turing machine into the low-energy spectrum; the spectral gap's presence/absence maps to halting/non-halting. | CONNECTION: No direct golden-ratio or crystallographic constant appears in the undecidability result itself. The relevant symmetry structure is the 2D lattice translation group ℤ² and the local SU(2)/finite-group gauge structure of the spin Hamiltonian — a lattice/crystallographic setting, but the undecidability is a logical (computability) property, not a geometric-harmony ratio. | DEPTH: 9 FINDIN Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com

•Oct 28, 2026•0 citations
Abstract: The phase diagram of a material is of central importance in describing the properties and behaviour of a condensed matter system. In this work, we prove that the task of determining the phase diagram of a many-body Hamiltonian is in general uncomputable, by explicitly constructing a continuous one-parameter family of Hamiltonians H(φ), where φ∈R, for which this is the case. The H(φ) are translationally-invariant, with nearest-neighbour couplings on a 2D spin lattice. As well as implying uncomputablity of phase diagrams, our result also proves that undecidability can hold for a set of positive measure of a Hamiltonian’s parameter space, whereas previous results only implied undecidability on a zero measure set. This brings the spectral gap undecidability results a step closer to standard condensed matter problems, where one typically studies phase diagrams of many-body models as a function of one or more continuously varying real parameters, such as magnetic field strength or pressure.
The phase diagram of a material is of central importance in describing the properties and behaviour of a condensed matter system. In this work, we prove that the task of determining the phase diagram of a many-body Hamiltonian is in general uncomputable, by explicitly constructing a continuous one-parameter family of Hamiltonians H(φ), where [Formula: see text], for which this is the case. The H(φ) are translationally-invariant, with nearest-neighbour couplings on a 2D spin lattice. As well as implying uncomputablity of phase diagrams, our result also proves that undecidability can hold for a set of positive measure of a Hamiltonian's parameter space, whereas previous results only implied undecidability on a zero measure set. This brings the spectral gap undecidability results a step closer to standard condensed matter problems, where one typically studies phase diagrams of many-body models as a function of one or more continuously varying real parameters, such as magnetic field strength or pressure.
We construct a family of Hamiltonians whose phase diagram is guaranteed to have a single phase transition, yet the location of this phase transition is uncomputable. The Hamiltonians H(ϕ)H(ϕ)H(ϕ) describe qudits on a two-dimensional square lattice with translationally invariant, nearest-neighbour interactions tuned by a continuous parameter ϕ∈(0,1]ϕ\in(0,1]ϕ∈(0,1]. For all ϕ∈(0,1]ϕ\in(0,1]ϕ∈(0,1], H(ϕ)H(ϕ)H(ϕ) is in one of two phases, one a gapless phase, the other a gapped phase. The phase transition occurs when ϕϕϕ equals the Chaitin's constant ΩΩΩ, a well-defined real number that encodes the Halting problem, and hence is uncomputable for Turing machines and undecidable for any consistent recursive axiomatization of mathematics. Our result implies that no general algorithm exists to determine the phase diagrams even under the promise that the phase diagram is exceedingly simple, and illustrates how uncomputable numbers may manifest in physical systems.
Abstract We construct families of translationally invariant, nearest-neighbour Hamiltonians on a 2D square lattice of d-level quantum systems (d constant), for which determining whether the system is gapped or gapless is an undecidable problem. This is true even with the promise that each Hamiltonian is either gapped or gapless in the strongest sense: it is promised to either have continuous spectrum above the ground state in the thermodynamic limit, or its spectral gap is lower-bounded by a constant. Moreover, this constant can be taken equal to the operator norm of the local operator that generates the Hamiltonian (the local interaction strength). The result still holds true if one restricts to arbitrarily small quantum perturbations of classical Hamiltonians. The proof combines a robustness analysis of Robinson’s aperiodic tiling, together with tools from quantum information theory: the quantum phase estimation algorithm and the history state technique mapping Quantum Turing Machines to Hamiltonians.
The problem of determining the existence of a spectral gap in a lattice quantum spin system was previously shown to be undecidable for one [] or more dimensions []. In these works, families of nearest-neighbor interactions are constructed whose spectral gap depends on the outcome of a Turing machine halting problem, therefore making it impossible for an algorithm to predict its existence. While these models are translationally invariant, they are not invariant under the other symmetries of the lattice, a property which is commonly found in physically relevant cases. This poses the question of whether the spectral gap problem could be decidable for Hamiltonians with stronger symmetry constraints. We give a negative answer to this question, in the case of models with four-body (plaquette) interactions on the square lattice satisfying rotation, but not reflection, symmetry: rotational symmetry is not enough to make the problem decidable.
FINDING: Undecidability in the spectral gap problem for quantum many-body systems proves that determining whether a system is gapped or gapless is algorithmically impossible in general. | MATH: The spectral gap problem is mapped to the halting problem via translationally invariant Hamiltonians on a 2D lattice; the set of gapped Hamiltonians is Π₂-complete in the arithmetic hierarchy. Key constants: no specific numerical constants emerge, but the proof relies on encoding Turing machine states into local Hamiltonian terms. | CONNECTION: No direct geometric harmony ratios (0.382, 0.618, etc.) appear. However, the lattice structure (2D square lattice) and translational invariance connect to crystallographic symmetry groups (p4m wallpaper group). The undecidability result implies that spectral gaps—which determine whether a system is an insulator (gapped) or conductor (gapless)—cannot be universally predicted, breaking the dream of a complete mathematical description of matter. | DEPTH: 9/1 Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com
FINDING: The spectral gap problem is undecidable in general — no algorithm can determine whether a quantum many-body Hamiltonian has a spectral gap or is gapless, establishing a Gödel/Turing-style limit inside physics itself. | MATH: Given a translation-invariant, nearest-neighbour Hamiltonian H on a 2D spin lattice, the ground-state energy density and the question "is Δ = E₁ − E₀ > 0?" are undecidable (Cubitt, Pérez-García, Wolf, Nature 2015). The construction encodes a universal Turing machine into the low-energy spectrum; the spectral gap's presence/absence maps to halting/non-halting. | CONNECTION: No direct golden-ratio or crystallographic constant appears in the undecidability result itself. The relevant symmetry structure is the 2D lattice translation group ℤ² and the local SU(2)/finite-group gauge structure of the spin Hamiltonian — a lattice/crystallographic setting, but the undecidability is a logical (computability) property, not a geometric-harmony ratio. | DEPTH: 9 FINDIN Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com