Krylov complexity and fidelity susceptibility in two-band Hamiltonians

Introduction.— Understanding how quantum states reorganize across phase transitions is a central theme in condensed matter physics [30, 47, 39, 38, 52, 44, 51, 50, 31, 32, 54, 3, 43, 18, 45]. These reorganizations are commonly probed through order parameters [28], topological invariants [4, 8, 5], and fidelity susceptibility [1, 19, 41, 27], which characterize symmetry breaking, underlying topology, or changes in the ground state geometry. Quantum complexity [26, 23, 24, 6, 34, 17, 43] offers a complementary perspective by quantifying the difficulty of preparing a target state from a chosen reference state. This viewpoint has motivated recent work on Krylov spread complexity [16, 10, 11, 9, 37, 7, 12, 40, 20] as a diagnostic of phases of matter, suggesting that the structure of state preparation may encode signatures of criticality and topology [13, 15, 14, 35, 36].

In practice, evaluating the Krylov spread complexity of ground states in generic quantum systems possesses a significant technical obstruction. This is due to the requirement of a circuit Hamiltonian that connects the reference state to the target ground state. Such a Hamiltonian is generally not unique and is difficult to construct [15, 14, 35, 36]. In addition, the spread complexity depends explicitly on the choice of reference state, making it a potentially ambiguous probe of phase transitions. In particular, topological phase transitions are accompanied by a gap closing [52, 8, 4, 5], however, not all gap closings involve a change of topology [44]. It is therefore important to determine whether spread complexity detects only topological phase transitions, or if it is sensitive to all gap closings.

In this article, we address this ambiguity by studying generic two-band Hamiltonians. We obtain a geometric expression for the ground state Krylov spread complexity in terms of Bloch sphere data, without explicitly constructing the circuit Hamiltonian. This formulation makes the reference state dependence of the complexity evident. For generic reference states, the derivative of the spread complexity becomes singular at gap closings. We relate this response to fidelity susceptibility through a general bound, establishing the derivative of the complexity as a probe of gap closings rather than topology alone. We illustrate these results in two settings, the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model [48, 49, 25], where the gap closing accompanies a topological phase transition, and a topologically trivial massive Dirac model. We further show that a non-unitary duality in the SSH model constrains both the complexity and fidelity susceptibility across the two phases.

Krylov spread complexity for two-band models.— We begin with a reference state $\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}$ and choose a circuit Hamiltonian $H_{\rm C}$ such that the unitary operator $e^{-iH_{\rm C}t}$ maps $\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}$ to the target state $\ket{\psi_{\rm target}}$ in unit time, i.e., $e^{-iH_{\rm C}}\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}=\ket{\psi_{\rm target}}$ [15, 36]. The Krylov spread complexity is a measure of the distance between $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}$ and $\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}$ in the Hilbert space. This is quantified by expanding $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}$ in terms of orthogonal basis vectors called the Krylov basis states. The Krylov basis states are obtained by a Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization [29, 42] of states $\{\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}},H_{\text{C}}\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}},H_{\text{C}}^{2}\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}},\cdots\}$. We denote the Krylov basis states as $\{\ket{\mathcal{K}_{0}},\ket{\mathcal{K}_{1}},\ket{\mathcal{K}_{2}},\cdots\}$ where $\ket{\mathcal{K}_{0}}=\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}$. We now expand the target state in the Krylov basis as $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}=\sum_{n}\psi_{n}\ket{\mathcal{K}_{n}}$ where $\sum_{n}|\psi_{n}|^{2}=1$. Finally, the Krylov spread complexity of $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}$ with respect to $\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}$ and with the circuit Hamiltonian $H_{\text{C}}$ is,

In general, given a reference state $\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}$ and a target state $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}$, it is a difficult problem to find the circuit Hamiltonian $H_{\text{C}}$ such that $e^{-iH_{c}}\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}=\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}$. However, for a two-band Hamiltonian, the spread complexity is independent of the choice of $H_{\text{C}}$ [2, 46, 12]. We work with a two-band Hamiltonian, $H=\sum_{k}\mathbb{d}(k)\cdot\bm{\sigma}$ where $\mathbb{d}(k)=[d_{x}(k),\,d_{y}(k),\,d_{z}(k)]$ encapsulates all the details of the system and $\bm{\sigma}=(\sigma_{x},\,\sigma_{y},\,\sigma_{z})$ are the Pauli matrices. We choose the ground state of the Hamiltonian as our target state, $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}=\otimes_{k}\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}$, where $\mathbb{d}(k)\cdot\bm{\sigma}\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}=-|\mathbb{d}(k)|\cdot\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}$ and $|\mathbb{d}(k)|=\sqrt{d_{x}^{2}(k)+d_{y}^{2}(k)+d_{z}^{2}(k)}$. The Bloch sphere vector corresponding to the ground state $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}$ is $-\left[d_{x}(k),\,d_{y}(k),\,d_{z}(k)\right]/|\mathbb{d}(k)|$.

Next, we choose a reference state $\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}=\otimes_{k}\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}_{k}$, where $\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}_{k}=\alpha\ket{\uparrow}_{k}+\beta\ket{\downarrow}_{k}$ is a momentum-independent vector on the Bloch sphere, with $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}$ satisfying $|\alpha|^{2}+|\beta|^{2}=1$. From here on, we drop the $k$ label on $\ket{\uparrow}_{k}$ and $\ket{\downarrow}_{k}$ for clarity. The states $\ket{\uparrow}$ and $\ket{\downarrow}$ are the eigenstates of $\sigma_{z}$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $\pm 1$ respectively. On the Bloch sphere, $\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}_{k}$ corresponds to the vector $(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\,\cos\theta)$, where $\alpha=\cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)$ and $\beta=e^{i\phi}\sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)$. The direct product structure of the reference and the target state allows us to find a circuit Hamiltonian $H_{\text{C}}(k)$ for each $k$ such that $e^{-iH_{\text{C}}(k)}\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}_{k}=\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}$, and hence, we have $e^{-iH_{\text{C}}}=\otimes_{k}e^{-iH_{\text{C}}(k)}$. For each $k$, the Hilbert space is $2-$dimensional and thus the Krylov subspace is also $2-$dimensional. With $\ket{\mathcal{K}_{0}}_{k}=\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}_{k}$, we now identify the second Krylov basis vector $\ket{\mathcal{K}_{1}}_{k}$ as $\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}^{\perp}}_{k}$ up to a phase such that ${}_{k}\!\braket{\psi_{\text{ref}}^{\perp}|\psi_{\text{ref}}}_{k}=0$. Thus, the explicit form of $H_{\text{C}}$ is not required for determining the full Krylov basis for two-band models.

Expanding the target state in the Krylov basis, we have $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}=\psi_{0}\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}_{k}+\psi_{1}\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}^{\perp}}_{k}$, with $|\psi_{0}|^{2}+|\psi_{1}|^{2}=1$. By using Eq. (1), we find $C_{k}=1-|\psi_{0}|^{2}=1-|{}_{k}\!\braket{\psi_{\text{ref}}|\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}|^{2}$. This is simplified using the Bloch sphere geometry (see Appendix B [Note1]),

where $\hat{n}_{\text{ref}}(k)$ and $\hat{n}_{\text{target}}(k)$ are the Bloch sphere vectors corresponding to $\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}_{k}$ and $\ket{\psi_{\text{target}}}_{k}$ respectively. From here we obtain the average spread complexity over the full Brillouin zone, i.e., $C=(1/2\pi)\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}C_{k}dk$.

Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model.— We now illustrate the preceding formalism in the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model [48, 49, 25], which exhibits a topological phase transition. The SSH Hamiltonian is given by,

with intracell hopping $t_{1}$ and intercell hopping $-t_{2}$, see Fig. 1. The Hamiltonian in the momentum space after a unitary transformation $(\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y},\sigma_{z})\to(\sigma_{x},\sigma_{z},-\sigma_{y})$ is given as $H_{\text{SSH}}(k)=\mathbb{d}(k)\cdot\bm{\sigma}=d_{x}(k)\sigma_{x}+d_{z}(k)\sigma_{z}$ where $d_{x}(k)=t_{1}-t_{2}\cos k$, and $d_{z}(k)=t_{2}\sin k$. The Bloch sphere vector corresponding to the ground state or equivalently, the target state in our case is given as follows,

where $|\mathbb{d}_{\text{SSH}}(k)|=\sqrt{t_{1}^{2}+t_{2}^{2}-2t_{1}t_{2}\cos k}$.

Using Eq. (2), with reference state $\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}=\otimes_{k}\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}_{k}$ where $\ket{\psi_{\rm ref}}_{k}=\alpha\ket{\uparrow}+\beta\ket{\downarrow}$, as introduced previously, the Krylov spread complexity averaged over the Brillouin zone is,

The integral in Eq. (5) can be written in terms of the complete elliptic functions of the first and second kind (see Appendix B ¹¹1see Supplementary Materials for more details.). We find that for a general reference state $\ket{\psi_{\text{ref}}}$, the spread complexity exhibits a logarithmic divergence at the topological phase boundary ($t_{1}=t_{2}$), i.e., $dC_{\text{SSH}}(t_{1},t_{2})/dt_{2}\sim\log(1/|t_{2}-t_{1}|)$, Fig. 2(c). However, for $\hat{n}_{\text{ref}}$ chosen such that $\sin\theta\cos\phi=0$, we get a constant spread complexity and hence no sensitivity to the topological phase transition, Fig. 2(b). Next, by choosing a momentum-dependent reference state Bloch vector such that $\hat{n}_{\text{ref}}(k)=(0,\,0,\,+1)$ for $k\geq 0$, and $\hat{n}_{\text{ref}}(k)=(0,\,0,\,-1)$ for $k<0$, we recover the plateau feature of the spread complexity [15], Fig. 2(a). This demonstrates that the behavior of the spread complexity depends on our choice of $\hat{n}_{\text{ref}}(k)$ and it is not universal. Further, for a general reference state, it is the derivative of the spread complexity that shows non-analyticity at the phase boundary.

The above analysis can be generalized to the case where the target state is an excited state. For example, we can choose a target state such that $\hat{n}_{\text{target}}(k)=-\hat{d}_{\text{SSH}}(k)$ for $k\leq 0$ and $\hat{n}_{\text{target}}(k)=\hat{d}_{\text{SSH}}(k)$ for $k>0$, where $\mp\hat{d}_{\text{SSH}}(k)$ are the Bloch vectors corresponding to eigenstates with energy $\mp|\mathbb{d}_{\text{SSH}}(k)|$. The spread complexity in this case involves incomplete elliptic integrals (see Appendix C [Note1]), and is non-analytic at $t_{1}=t_{2}$.

Fidelity susceptibility.— For a Hamiltonian with a tunable parameter, the fidelity or overlap between the ground states at slightly different values of the parameter varies sharply near a gap closing point. The sensitivity of the ground state to changes in the parameter is quantified by the fidelity susceptibility, which diverges at gap closing points [22, 1, 19]. Since both the Krylov spread complexity and the fidelity susceptibility are defined using overlap between states, this naturally prompts an investigation on the relation between the two quantities.

For a two-band Hamiltonian $H=\sum_{k}\mathbb{d}(k,\lambda)\cdot\bm{\sigma}$, with a parameter $\lambda$, the fidelity susceptibility is given as follows,

where for each momentum mode $k$, the fidelity susceptibility is given by $\chi_{F}(k,\lambda)=(1/4)\cdot|\partial_{\lambda}\hat{d}(k,\lambda)|^{2}$ (see Appendix D [Note1]). We now consider the derivative of the complexity of the ground state with respect to $\lambda$,

where $i=1,\,2,\,3$ corresponds to $(x,\,y,\,z)$, and $\mathcal{Q}_{i}$ encodes the information of the reference state in terms of the Bloch sphere angles $\theta$ and $\phi$. We now consider the components $\chi_{F}^{i}(\lambda)$ of the fidelity susceptibility, defined as $\chi_{F}^{i}(\lambda)=(1/8\pi)\cdot\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}|\partial_{\lambda}\hat{d}_{i}(k,\lambda)|^{2}dk$. By using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we obtain,

As a result, any divergence in the derivative of the Krylov spread complexity must be accompanied by a divergence in the fidelity susceptibility. Alternatively, we find that the Krylov spread complexity probes gap closing in the system and not necessarily topological phase transitions.

We now present a model where the gap closing is not accompanied by a topological phase transition. Consider the massive Dirac Hamiltonian,

where $t$ is the hopping amplitude, which we set to 1, and $\mu$ is the staggered chemical potential, see Fig. 3. The Zak phase [8, 5] is identically zero across the gap closing point at $\mu=0$, and hence it is not a topological phase transition. We point out that the Hamiltonian for the Cooper pair box [53] takes the form of Eq. (9). In this case the magnetic flux $\Phi$ plays the role of the momentum and the charging energy mimics the staggered chemical potential (see Appendix D [Note1]). This demonstrates that our analysis is not restricted to lattice models and is applicable to any system with Hamiltonian of the form $H(k,\,\lambda)=\mathbb{d}(k,\,\lambda)\cdot\bm{\sigma}$, where $k$ is any periodic variable.

For calculating the Krylov spread complexity for the ground state of the massive Dirac Hamiltonian, we start with the choice $\hat{n}_{\text{ref}}=(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\,\cos\theta)$. By using Eq. (2), we find,

where $K(x)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. Near the gap closing point $\mu=0$, we find that the derivative of the complexity has a logarithmic divergence, i.e., $\partial_{\mu}C_{\text{MD}}(\mu)\sim\log(1/|\mu|)$ as $\mu\to 0$. The derivative of the complexity diverges at a gap closing point, that does not correspond to a topological phase transition. Further, the fidelity susceptibility is obtained using Eq. (6) and is given as (see Appendix D [Note1]),

which diverges near the gap closing point, i.e., $\chi_{F}^{\text{MD}}(\mu)\sim 1/|\mu|$ as $\mu\to 0$. The fidelity susceptibility diverges faster than the derivative of complexity. Similarly, for the SSH model, fidelity susceptibility diverges at the gap closing point ($t_{1}=t_{2}$) that is $\chi_{F}^{\text{SSH}}(t_{1},t_{2})\sim 1/|t_{1}-t_{2}|$, whereas from Eq. (5), we have $\partial_{t_{2}}C_{\text{SSH}}(t_{1},t_{2})\sim\log(1/|t_{1}-t_{2}|)$. Note that the only non-vanishing term in $\partial_{t_{2}}C_{\text{SSH}}(t_{1},t_{2})$, Eq. (7) for the SSH model is $\partial_{t_{2}}C_{\text{SSH}}^{(1)}(t_{1},t_{2})=\mathcal{Q}_{1}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\partial_{t_{2}}\hat{d}_{\text{SSH}}^{(1)}(k)dk$, whereas for the massive Dirac Hamiltonian it is $\partial_{\mu}C_{\text{MD}}^{(3)}(\mu)=\mathcal{Q}_{3}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\partial_{\mu}\hat{d}_{\text{MD}}^{(3)}(k)dk$. In both cases, the ratio $R(\lambda)=|\partial_{\lambda}C^{(i)}(\lambda)|/4\pi|\mathcal{Q}_{i}|\sqrt{\chi_{F}^{i}(\lambda)}$ saturates to a constant value $\sqrt{2/3}$ in the limit $\lambda\to\infty$ (see Appendix D [Note1]).

Duality in the SSH model.— The study of Krylov spread complexity and fidelity susceptibility reveals a duality in the SSH model. In the SSH model, Eq. (3), the ratio $t_{2}/t_{1}$ determines the topological phase of the system. We now parametrize the SSH model using $t$, which will be fixed to be the intracell coupling, and a dimensionless scalar $r$. The duality is between two class of SSH Hamiltonians related via $r\leftrightarrow 1/r$, as shown in Fig. 4. These two Hamiltonians are given by $H_{\text{I}}(k)=(t-rt)\cos k\,\sigma_{x}+rt\sin k\,\sigma_{y}$ and $H_{\text{II}}(k)=\left[t-(t/r)\right]\cos k\,\sigma_{x}+(t/r)\sin k\,\sigma_{y}$. They are related via a non-unitary transformation,

where $U(k)=\text{diag}\{(r-e^{ik})/(1-re^{ik}),\,1\}$ is a unitary matrix. At the self-dual point $r=1$, $H_{\text{I}}(k)$ and $H_{\text{II}}(k)$ become identical and $U(k)$ is the identity matrix. This duality divides the entire parameter space of the SSH model into two regions (trivial and topological) and draws a mapping between them.

Calculating the winding number [8, 5], we find that for $H_{\text{I}}$, the winding number $\nu_{\text{I}}$ is 0 for $r<1$ and 1 for $r>1$. Correspondingly, for $H_{\text{II}}$, the winding number $\nu_{\text{II}}$ is 1 for $r<1$ and 0 for $r>1$. It is more instructive to study the fidelity susceptibility in these two cases. Denoting the fidelity susceptibility for $H_{\text{I}}$ as $\chi_{F}^{(\text{I})}(r)$ and for $H_{\text{II}}$ as $\chi_{F}^{(\text{II})}(1/r)$, using Eq. (6), we find (see Appendix E [Note1]),

A similar relation also holds for the complexity of the ground states of $H_{\text{I}}$ and $H_{\text{II}}$, denoted by $C^{(\text{I})}$ and $C^{(\text{II})}$ (see Appendix E [Note1]),

where $\mathcal{H}(r)=\frac{(1-r)}{2\pi}\left[\pi+2\sin\theta\cos\phi K\left(4r/(1+r)^{2}\right)\right]$, $\theta,\,\phi$ are the reference state Bloch sphere angles, and $K(x)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. Hence, from Eq. (13) and Eq. (14), the knowledge of fidelity susceptibility and the ground state spread complexity in one phase of the SSH model is sufficient to determine these in the other phase. The ratio $R(r)$ for the SSH model is also invariant under $r\leftrightarrow 1/r$, which is a clear manifestation of the duality (see Appendix E [Note1]).

Discussion.— Our analysis establishes that the derivative of the Krylov spread complexity for the ground state is bounded by the fidelity susceptibility, Eq. (8) in two-band Hamiltonians. The spread complexity is obtained using a purely geometric formulation based on overlaps of Bloch sphere vectors, Eq. (2) without explicitly constructing the circuit Hamiltonian. Any divergence in the derivative of the spread complexity also implies divergence in the fidelity susceptibility. Therefore, the derivative of the complexity is a probe of gap closings, and not just topological phase transitions. As an example, we work out spread complexity in the massive Dirac Hamiltonian exhibiting non-analyticity at the gap closing point, Eq. (10) which is not a topological phase transition point. Further, in the SSH model, we discuss a non-unitary duality, Eq. (12) relating the two phases, which manifests itself in the fidelity susceptibility, Eq. (13) and the ground state Krylov spread complexity, Eq. (14).

We extend this work to the non-Hermitian SSH model [55] with periodic boundary conditions, and show that spread complexity is also sensitive to the gap closing point in this setting (see Appendix F [Note1]). Extending this machinery to the non-Hermitian SSH model under open boundary conditions will be an important step towards integrating the notion of complexity with non-Hermitian topological phenomena such as the skin effect. However, this is a challenging problem because now the Krylov subspace is not $2-$dimensional, and we cannot exploit Bloch sphere geometry anymore.

It would also be interesting to explore how the first derivative of Krylov spread complexity is related to the fidelity susceptibility for a general system, other than two-band Hamiltonians. Establishing such a connection would provide further insight into the geometric content encoded by Krylov spread complexity [16, 33, 12]. Setting a lower bound on the derivative of the complexity is an intriguing problem, and extending our analysis to two-band Hamiltonians in two or higher spatial dimensions, such as Chern insulators and graphene [8, 5], may provide some insights on such a lower bound.

Acknowledgments.— It is a pleasure to thank Claudio Chamon for insightful questions, comments and discussions. We would also like to thank Jason Alicea and Julian May-Mann for useful discussions on topological phases of matter. R.C. gratefully acknowledges the Summer Research Grant awarded by Department of Physics and Astronomy, Purdue University. S.R. and S.S.S. are partially supported by Department of Physics and Astronomy, Purdue University through Graduate Assistantship.

Supplemental Materials: Krylov complexity and fidelity susceptibility in two-band Hamiltonians

In this supplementary material, we show the details of the results discussed in the article. We start with Appendix A, where we have the details of the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model and the massive Dirac Hamiltonian. By calculating the Zak phase (winding number), we show the topological nature of SSH model and that the gap closing in massive Dirac Hamiltonian is not accompanied by topological phase transition. In Appendix B, we give the details of obtaining the Krylov spread complexity in two-band Hamiltonians using Bloch sphere data. We derive the spread complexity for SSH model. Important formulas for elliptic functions are also summarized. Further we derive the asymptotic behavior of the spread complexity. In Appendix C, we have derived the spread complexity for a general (excited) eigenstate of the SSH model. The following Appendix D includes all the details for deriving fidelity susceptibility for two-band Hamiltonians. We give full derivation for obtaining the inequality between the Krylov spread complexity and the fidelity susceptibility. Further we also show that spread complexity in the massive Dirac Hamiltonian is non-analytic at the gap closing point, and is not accompanied by topological phase transition. We explicitly show the inequality also for SSH model. Finally, we establish equivalence at the Hamiltonian level between massive Dirac model and Cooper pair box. In Appendix E, we give the details of the non-unitary duality between topological and trivial phase in the the SSH model. In the last Appendix F, we derive the spread complexity for non-Hermitian SSH model using the Bloch sphere data, and show the non-analyticity at the gap closing point.