Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Towards quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first use of sample-based quantum diagonalization as the subsystem solver inside density matrix embedding theory, computing molecular energies on 27-32 qubits in agreement with classical references.

desk verdict A genuine first DMET-SQD combination with honest reporting and real hardware results, but the accuracy claim in the strongly correlated regime rests on a subspace-quality assumption that the paper does not fully nail down. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09861 v2 pith:4NLKHXJB submitted 2024-11-15 quant-ph

Akhil Shajan , Danil Kaliakin , Abhishek Mitra , Javier Robledo Moreno , Zhen Li , Mario Motta , Caleb Johnson , Abdullah Ash Saki
show 4 more authors
Susanta Das Iskandar Sitdikov Antonio Mezzacapo Kenneth M. Merz Jr
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords densitymatrixembeddingtheorysample-basedquantumdiagonalizationquantum-centricsupercomputingLUCJansatzhydrogenringbenchmarkcyclohexaneconformersnoisyintermediate-scalehardware
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first use of sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) as the high-level solver inside density matrix embedding theory (DMET), so that a quantum computer only needs to handle a small active region of a molecule while classical mean-field theory treats the rest. If correct, it matters because it reduces quantum resource requirements by roughly half for the test systems: an 18-hydrogen ring drops from 41 to 27 qubits, and cyclohexane drops from 89 to 32 qubits. The authors run the approach on a superconducting quantum processor and obtain ground-state energies and conformational energy differences that agree with classical CCSD(T), HCI, and exact-diagonalization references. The central evidence is that DMET-SQD tracks the reference methods more closely than unfragmented SQD, with lower non-parallelity error, making larger molecules a realistic near-term target.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the DMET embedding Hamiltonian plus the SQD subspace diagonalization. DMET's Schmidt decomposition reduces the full molecule to a subsystem of fragment and bath orbitals, yielding the active-space Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), which is small enough for a quantum method to solve. SQD samples computational basis states from the LUCJ ansatz in Eq. (2), whose parameters come from a classical CCSD calculation, and then classically diagonalizes the projected Hamiltonian; S-CORE iteratively restores particle number and spin-z symmetry and keeps the lowest-energy batch. The reason this works here is that DMET subsystems have a higher ratio of significant to total sampled configurations than unfragmented systems, so the sampled subspace captures the relevant physics with fewer samples.

What would settle it

Run DMET-SQD on an embedded subsystem where single-reference CCSD is known to fail, such as the stretched hydrogen ring at R = 1.3 Å or a bond-breaking transition-metal complex, and compare against DMET-FCI; if the energy error grows several-fold beyond the roughly 1 kcal/mol seen here, the claim that SQD is a reliable DMET solver fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SQD is an accurate subsystem solver for DMET on noisy near-term hardware. DMET builds a small fragment-plus-bath active-space Hamiltonian from a mean-field density matrix; SQD samples Slater determinants from a CCSD-parametrized LUCJ circuit, restores particle-number and spin-z symmetry through the iterative S-CORE loop, and classically diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in the sampled subspace. For a ring of 18 hydrogen atoms, this produces a potential energy curve that agrees with HCI better than unfragmented SQD, with sub-kcal/mol non-variationality errors. For cyclohexane, DMET-SQD ranks the chair, half-chair, twist-boat, and boat conformers correctly once roughly 8,000 or more configurations per batch are used, with deviations from DMET-FCI mostly within 1 kcal/mol. The paper also notes the method's sensitivity to the LUCJ circuit, to its CCSD-derived parameters, and to device noise.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the configurations sampled from a CCSD-parametrized quantum circuit cover enough of the true embedded ground state, and that hardware noise does not distort that sampling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For these benchmarks, DMET-SQD lowers the quantum resources from 41 to 27 qubits and from 89 to 32 qubits, roughly halving the hardware requirement.
  • SQD becomes a viable substitute for exact diagonalization inside DMET, extending the active-space sizes that can be treated accurately.
  • With adequate sampling, DMET-SQD correctly orders the cyclohexane conformers, so the method can be used for conformational energy differences in organic molecules.
  • Smaller DMET subsystems mitigate both CCSD's breakdown under strong correlation and SQD's sampling inefficiency, giving better accuracy than unfragmented runs.
  • The workflow demonstrates a quantum-centric division of labor: classical computation prepares the embedding, post-processes samples, and assembles energies, while the quantum device only generates candidate configurations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural untested extension is to replace the CCSD-derived LUCJ parameters with a self-consistent or adaptive ansatz; if the CCSD amplitudes are poor, DMET-SQD accuracy is likely to degrade in strongly multireference embedded systems, which is precisely where embedding is needed most.
  • The observed sampling threshold suggests a practical stopping criterion: monitor the ratio of significant to total configurations and the convergence of the lowest batch energy, rather than fixing S-CORE iterations in advance.
  • Because DMET shrinks the active space, the same quantum device could plausibly handle embedded fragments of transition-metal or protein active sites beyond the reach of unfragmented SQD; testing this scaling is a direct next step.
  • The first S-CORE iteration uses occupation numbers inherited from noisy measurements, so comparing DMET-SQD energies on processors with different noise rates would isolate how much of the residual error is device noise versus sampling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper combines density matrix embedding theory (DMET) with sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) as a subsystem solver, and applies the resulting DMET-SQD workflow to a ring of 18 hydrogen atoms and to four conformers of cyclohexane. The authors report ground-state energies for H18 along a symmetric stretch and relative conformer energies for cyclohexane, obtained on the ibm_cleveland quantum computer with 27 and 32 qubits, and compare them with DMET-FCI, HCI, CCSD, and CCSD(T) references. The main claims are that DMET-SQD reproduces the reference energies within roughly 1 kcal/mol for sufficient sampling, and that the embedding reduces the qubit count from 41/89 to 27/32, marking a step toward quantum-centric simulations of larger molecules.

Significance. If the reported accuracy is robust, this is a valuable proof-of-concept for using SQD as a practical subsystem solver inside DMET on noisy hardware. The paper leverages open-source tools (Qiskit, ffsim, Tangelo, PySCF) and provides a reproducible workflow. It also identifies a clear convergence trend of SQD results with the number of sampled configurations |χ_b|. However, because the accuracy claim depends on the quality of the CCSD-parameterized LUCJ sampling state and on a hand-chosen configuration count, and because no statistical uncertainties are reported, the significance is currently tempered.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 2 and 3] The paper reports no error bars or statistical uncertainties for the SQD and DMET-SQD energies. The visible fluctuations in the bottom panel of Fig. 3 and the strong dependence of the cyclohexane conformer ordering on |χ_b| in Fig. 5 indicate that single-shot estimates are not sufficient to support the claim of 'within 1 kcal/mol' agreement. Please provide standard errors across batches or repeated runs for the reported energies.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 3] The central accuracy claim in the strong-correlation regime is not fully supported. The unfragmented SQD results deviate from HCI by about 2.5 kcal/mol per atom at R≥1.1 Å (Fig. 2), which the text attributes to inefficient sampling and the CCSD-based LUCJ parametrization. For DMET-SQD, the paper asserts sub-kcal/mol non-variationality biases, but does not report the quantitative DMET-SQD-to-DMET-FCI deviation at R=1.2–1.3 Å as a function of |χ_b|. Please include a systematic convergence study at these stretched geometries, with error bars, and discuss why the embedded H6 fragment becomes sufficiently single-reference for the CCSD-derived sampling state.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 5] The cyclohexane results depend critically on the manually chosen |χ_b|; the conformer ordering is wrong for |χ_b|=6·10^3 and correct only for |χ_b|≥8·10^3. Since this parameter is not determined self-consistently, the paper should provide guidance on how to select it in practice (e.g., monitoring the d′/d ratio or energy variance) or demonstrate stability over a range of |χ_b|.
  4. [Section II, Computational details] The hardware experiments are not described in enough detail for reproducibility. Please report the number of shots per circuit, the number of circuits per S-CORE iteration, the total measurement budget, the device calibration data, and the post-selection criteria.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, first paragraph] The phrase 'computing the the ground-state potential energy curve' contains a duplicated 'the'.
  2. [Table I] The column headers such as 'd [10^5]' are ambiguous because the numerical entries (e.g., 2656) can be misread as raw counts; clarify the units explicitly in the caption or use scientific notation.
  3. [Section III, text near Fig. 2] The statement that DMET-CCSD and DMET-SQD have 'sub-kcal/mol non-variationality biases' should be supported by a table or by error bars in the figures, as this is a key quantitative claim.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'ibm_cleveland device' without specification; please use the full processor name and mention the Eagle family as in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DMET-SQD results are validated against independent classical references (DMET-FCI, HCI, CCSD(T)) and the CCSD-parametrized LUCJ sampling is an explicit input ansatz, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. DMET builds an embedded subsystem Hamiltonian from a mean-field density matrix, and SQD approximates its ground state by sampling determinants from a LUCJ circuit whose parameters come from a classical CCSD calculation, then classically diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in the sampled subspace. The final energies are not equal to the CCSD energy by construction: the subspace diagonalization is a separate step that can correct beyond CCSD, as the paper explicitly tests by increasing the number of sampled configurations and observing convergence toward DMET-FCI and HCI references. The DMET chemical potential is optimized only to enforce the correct particle number, not to match target energies, so the reported energies are genuine outputs rather than fitted quantities. The self-citations (Refs. 29, 34, 59) supply the SQD and LUCJ methodology, but the central claim is independently supported by comparisons against DMET-FCI, HCI, and CCSD(T), which are external classical benchmarks. The paper's own caveat about SQD sensitivity to the LUCJ circuit, CCSD parametrization, and device noise is a correctness and robustness limitation, not a circularity: it identifies a regime where the method's sampling assumption may fail, but the validation protocol still isolates the approximation error through the DMET-FCI comparison. No step reduces, by definition or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim depends on the DMET embedding approximation, the SQD/LUCJ sampling heuristic, the one-shot chemical potential correction, and the minimal-basis choice; the only fitted parameter is the DMET global chemical potential, tuned to particle number rather than to target energies.

free parameters (3)
  • DMET global chemical potential mu_glob = not reported; convergence threshold 1e-5
    Optimized iteratively in one-shot DMET to enforce the correct total electron number; it affects the embedded Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and therefore the final energies.
  • SQD configuration count per batch |chi_b| = 1e3 to 12e3 (H18), 6e3 to 10e3 (cyclohexane)
    Chosen by hand; the paper shows the results converge as |chi_b| increases, and the ordering of cyclohexane conformers is wrong at 6e3, so the central claim depends on selecting a sufficiently large value.
  • Wavefunction coefficient threshold for d' = 1e-8 (main text)
    Used to count significant configurations in the SQD wavefunction; a reporting threshold that influences the sparsity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DMET bath constructed from the RHF one-particle density matrix is sufficient to describe fragment-environment entanglement.
    This is the foundational approximation of DMET, inherited from Refs. 44-46; the paper relies on it without proof.
  • domain assumption The LUCJ ansatz with CCSD-derived parameters samples configurations that span a subspace containing an accurate approximation to the embedded ground state.
    This is the core heuristic of SQD; the paper acknowledges its sensitivity to the LUCJ circuit and device noise (Section III).
  • domain assumption One-shot DMET with a single global chemical potential corrects particle number sufficiently for the reported systems.
    The one-shot scheme with mu_glob is an approximation to full DMET self-consistency, described in Section II.
  • domain assumption The STO-3G minimal basis is an adequate test of the target molecular properties.
    All DMET-SQD calculations use STO-3G; the paper notes that non-minimal basis sets remain future work.
  • domain assumption S-CORE post-selection and spin-inversion symmetrization restore the correct symmetries and recover meaningful subspaces from noisy samples.
    S-CORE is a heuristic, not a proven procedure; its performance is assessed empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4NLKHXJB

@misc{pith2026241109861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4NLKHXJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09861}
}
read the original abstract

Computing ground-state properties of molecules is a promising application for quantum computers operating in concert with classical high-performance computing resources. Quantum embedding methods are a family of algorithms particularly suited to these computational platforms: they combine high-level calculations on active regions of a molecule with low-level calculations on the surrounding environment, thereby avoiding expensive high-level full-molecule calculations and allowing to distribute computational cost across multiple and heterogeneous computing units. Here, we present the first density matrix embedding theory (DMET) simulations performed in combination with the sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) method. We employ the DMET-SQD formalism to compute the ground-state energy of a ring of 18 hydrogen atoms, and the relative energies of the chair, half-chair, twist-boat, and boat conformers of cyclohexane. The full-molecule 41- and 89-qubit simulations are decomposed into 27- and 32-qubit active-region simulations, that we carry out on the ibm_cleveland device, obtaining results in agreement with reference classical methods. Our DMET-SQD calculations mark a tangible progress in the size of active regions that can be accurately tackled by near-term quantum computers, and are an early demonstration of the potential for quantum-centric simulations to accurately treat the electronic structure of large molecules, with the ultimate goal of tackling systems such as peptides and proteins.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09861 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of quantum circuits. (A-C) Qubit layouts of LUCJ circuits for: (A) DMET-SQD simulations of H18 with H6 fragments and (12e,12o) subsystems using 27 qubits of ibm cleveland, (B) unfragmented H18 simulations using 41 qubits, and (C) DMET-SQD simulations of cyclohexane with CH2 fragments and (14e,14o) subsystems using 32 qubits. Colored highlights over the molecular structures indicate DMET fragments (red, blue… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Potential energy curve of a hydrogen ring. Top: ground-state energy per atom along the symmetric ex￾pansion of a ring of 18 hydrogen atoms using various un￾fragmented (RHF, CCSD, CCSD(T), SQD, HCI) methods and DMET with CCSD, SQD, and FCI as subsystem solver. Bottom: deviation between HCI and other potential energy curves. Energies per atom are shown. DMET-FCI counterparts is determined by |χ˜b| through the ratio be… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Conformations of cyclohexane. Schematic rep￾resentations of the chair, half-chair, twist-boat, and boat con￾formations of cyclohexane (top) and their energies relative to the chair using DMET-FCI and unfragmented CCSD(T) (bot￾tom). necessary step towards richer and more realistic studies. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sparsity of SQD wavefunctions for a hydro￾gen ring Hilbert space dimension (dashed line), number d of configurations in the SQD wavefunction (symbols connected by a solid line) and number d ′ of such configurations with coefficients above 1 · 10−8 in absolute value squ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sparsity of SQD wavefunctions for cyclo￾hexane Hilbert space dimension (dashed line), number d of configurations in the SQD wavefunction (triangles connected by a solid line) and number d ′ of such configurations with co￾efficients above 1.0 · 10−8 in absolute value sq…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum Simulation of Ligand-like Molecules through Sample-based Quantum Diagonalization in Density Matrix Embedding Framework

    quant-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using DMET to fragment molecules and SQD to solve the fragments on IBM hardware, the authors report ground-state energies for eight ligand-like molecules that agree with DMET-FCI to within about 10⁻⁶ Hartree.

  2. Quantum-Centric Alchemical Free Energy Calculations

    physics.chem-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new interface connects AMBER/QUICK with FCI and quantum-centric SQD solvers, enabling alchemical free energy corrections and the first use of SQD nuclear gradients.

  3. Quantum Assisted Ghost Gutzwiller Ansatz

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A quantum-assisted ghost Gutzwiller ansatz, using QSCI with LUCJ states and circuit cutting on 24-qubit IQM hardware, captures the Mott transition in the Bethe lattice Hubbard model with only about 1% of the CI basis states.

  4. Machine-Learned Compact Subspace Generation for Quantum Selected Configuration Interaction within Density Matrix Embedding Framework

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An RBM-guided selected-CI solver inside DMET reaches the DMET-CASCI energy within 1.6 mHa using ~4% of the symmetry-valid configuration subspace on an 11-fragment protein–ligand model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D. A. Bardwell, C. S. Adjiman, Y. A. Arnautova, E. Bar- tashevich, S. X. Boerrigter, D. E. Braun, A. J. Cruz- Cabeza, G. M. Day, R. G. Della Valle, G. R. Desiraju, et al., Towards crystal structure prediction of complex organic compounds–a report on the fifth blind test, Acta Crystallogr. B 67, 535 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    J. Yang, W. Hu, D. Usvyat, D. Matthews, M. Sch¨ utz, and G. K.-L. Chan, Ab initio determination of the crys- talline benzene lattice energy to sub-kilojoule/mole ac- curacy, Science 345, 640 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Timofeev, R

    V. Timofeev, R. Chuprov-Netochin, V. Samigina, V. Bezuglov, K. Miroshnikov, and I. Kuranova, X-ray in- vestigation of gene-engineered human insulin crystallized from a solution containing polysialic acid, Acta Crystal- logr. F 66, 259 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, and Z.-H. Cui, Recent developments in the pyscf program package, J. Chem. Phys 153, 024109 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Valiev, E

    M. Valiev, E. J. Bylaska, N. Govind, K. Kowalski, T. P. Straatsma, H. J. J. Van Dam, D. Wang, J. Nieplocha, E. Apr` a, T. L. Windus,et al., Nwchem: A comprehensive and scalable open-source solution for large scale molecu- lar simulations, Comp. Phys. Comm 181, 1477 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Kitaura, E

    K. Kitaura, E. Ikeo, T. Asada, T. Nakano, and M. Ue- bayasi, Fragment molecular orbital method: an approx- imate computational method for large molecules, Chem. Phys. Lett 313, 701 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Raghavachari and A

    K. Raghavachari and A. Saha, Accurate composite and fragment-based quantum chemical models for large molecules, Chem. Rev 115, 5643 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    D. A. Erlanson, B. J. Davis, and W. Jahnke, Fragment- based drug discovery: advancing fragments in the ab- sence of crystal structures, Cell Chem. Bio 26, 9 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Sun and G

    Q. Sun and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum embedding theo- ries, Acc. Chem. Res 49, 2705 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Alexeev, M

    Y. Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y. J. Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chung, et al., Quantum-centric supercomput- ing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions, Future Gener. Comp. Sys 160, 666 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bauer, D

    B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A. J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Hybrid quantum-classical approach to corre- lated materials, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031045 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    J. M. Kreula, L. Garc ´ ıa-´Alvarez, L. Lamata, S. R. Clark, E. Solano, and D. Jaksch, Few-qubit quantum-classical simulation of strongly correlated lattice fermions, EPJ Quant. Tech 3, 1 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Complexity of quantum impu- rity problems, Comm. Math. Phys 356, 451 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’B’rien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Motta and J

    M. Motta and J. E. Rice, Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci 12, e1580 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quan- 10 tum materials science, Chem. Rev 120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    H. Lim, D. H. Kang, J. Kim, A. Pellow-Jarman, S. Mc- Farthing, R. Pellow-Jarman, H.-N. Jeon, B. Oh, J.-K. K. Rhee, and K. T. No, Fragment molecular orbital-based variational quantum eigensolver for quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Sci. Rep 14, 2422 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Yoshikawa, T

    T. Yoshikawa, T. Takanashi, and H. Nakai, Quantum al- gorithm of the divide-and-conquer unitary coupled clus- ter method with a variational quantum eigensolver, J. Chem. Theory Comput 18, 5360 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    H. Ma, J. Liu, H. Shang, Y. Fan, Z. Li, and J. Yang, Multiscale quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry, Chem. Sci 14, 3190 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    N. C. Rubin, A hybrid classical/quantum approach for large-scale studies of quantum systems with density ma- trix embedding theory, arXiv:1610.06910 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kawashima, E

    Y. Kawashima, E. Lloyd, M. P. Coons, Y. Nam, S. Mat- suura, A. J. Garza, S. Johri, L. Huntington, V. Senicourt, A. O. Maksymov, et al., Optimizing electronic structure simulations on a trapped-ion quantum computer using problem decomposition, Nat. Commun 4, 245 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Iijima, S

    N. Iijima, S. Imamura, M. Morita, S. Takemori, A. Kasagi, Y. Umeda, and E. Yoshida, Towards accu- rate quantum chemical calculations on noisy quantum computers, arXiv:2311.09634 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W. Li, Z. Huang, C. Cao, Y. Huang, Z. Shuai, X. Sun, J. Sun, X. Yuan, and D. Lv, Toward practical quan- tum embedding simulation of realistic chemical systems on near-term quantum computers, Chem. Sci 13, 8953 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    J. J. Kirsopp, C. Di Paola, D. Z. Manrique, M. Krompiec, G. Greene-Diniz, W. Guba, A. Meyder, D. Wolf, M. Strahm, and D. Mu˜ noz Ramo, Quantum computa- tional quantification of protein-ligand interactions, Int. J. Quantum Chem 122, e26975 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    C. Cao, J. Sun, X. Yuan, H.-S. Hu, H. Q. Pham, and D. Lv, Ab initio quantum simulation of strongly corre- lated materials with quantum embedding, npj Comput. Mater 9, 78 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Vorwerk, N

    C. Vorwerk, N. Sheng, M. Govoni, B. Huang, and G. Galli, Quantum embedding theories to simulate con- densed systems on quantum computers, Nat. Comp. Sci 2, 424 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Rossmannek, F

    M. Rossmannek, F. Pavosevic, A. Rubio, and I. Taver- nelli, Quantum embedding method for the simulation of strongly correlated systems on quantum computers, J. Phys. Chem. Lett 14, 3491 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    T. P. Gujarati, M. Motta, T. N. Friedhoff, J. E. Rice, N. Nguyen, P. K. Barkoutsos, R. J. Thompson, T. Smith, M. Kagele, M. Brei, et al., Quantum computation of re- actions on surfaces using local embedding, npj Quantum Inf 9, 88 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi- Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, and T. Shirakawa, Chemistry beyond ex- act solutions on a quantum-centric supercomputer, arXiv:2405.05068 (2024), available at https://arxiv. org/abs/2405.05068

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Guo, J. Sun, H. Qian, M. Gong, Y. Zhang, F. Chen, Y. Ye, Y. Wu, S. Cao, K. Liu, et al., Experimental quantum computational chemistry with optimized uni- tary coupled cluster ansatz, Nat. Phys , 1 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    L. Zhao, J. Goings, K. Wright, J. Nguyen, J. Kim, S. Johri, K. Shin, W. Kyoung, J. Fuks, J. Rhee, et al., Orbital-optimized pair-correlated electron simulations on trapped-ion quantum computers. npj quantum inf. 9, npj Quantum Inf (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    G. A. Quantum, Collaborators* †, F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, S. Boixo, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, et al., Hartree- fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer, Sci- ence 369, 1084 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Huang, C

    R. Huang, C. Li, and F. A. Evangelista, Leveraging small-scale quantum computers with unitarily down- folded hamiltonians, PRX Quantum 4, 020313 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Kaliakin, A

    D. Kaliakin, A. Shajan, J. R. Moreno, Z. Li, A. Mi- tra, M. Motta, C. Johnson, A. A. Saki, S. Das, I. Sit- dikov, et al., Accurate quantum-centric simulations of supramolecular interactions, arXiv:2410.09209 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Liepuoniute, K

    I. Liepuoniute, K. D. Doney, J. Robledo, J. A. Job, W. S. Friend, and G. O. Jones, Quantum-centric study of methylene singlet and triplet states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04827 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hachmann, W

    J. Hachmann, W. Cardoen, and G. K. Chan, Multiref- erence correlation in long molecules with the quadratic scaling density matrix renormalization group, J. Chem. Phys 125 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Stella, C

    L. Stella, C. Attaccalite, S. Sorella, and A. Rubio, Strong electronic correlation in the hydrogen chain: A varia- tional monte carlo study, Phys. Rev. B84, 245117 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Motta, D

    M. Motta, D. M. Ceperley, G. K.-L. Chan, J. A. Gomez, E. Gull, S. Guo, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, T. N. Lan, J. Li, F. Ma, et al., Towards the solution of the many-electron problem in real materials: Equation of state of the hy- drogen chain with state-of-the-art many-body methods...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Genovese, F. Ma, Z.-H. Cui, R. Sawaya, G. K.-L. Chan, N. Chepiga, P. Helms, C. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, A. J. Millis, et al., Ground-state properties of the hydro- gen chain: dimerization, insulator-to-metal transition, and magnetic phases, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031058 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Barton and R

    D. Barton and R. Cookson, The principles of conforma- tional analysis, Chem. Soc. Rev 10, 44 (1956)

    1956

  33. [41]

    H. L. Strauss and H. M. Pickett, Conformational struc- ture, energy, and inversion rates of cyclohexane and some related oxanes, J. Am. Chem. Soc 92, 7281 (1970)

    1970

  34. [42]

    D. A. Dixon and A. Komornicki, Ab initio conformational analysis of cyclohexane, J. Phys. Chem 94, 5630 (1990)

    1990

  35. [43]

    E. L. Eliel, Conformational analysis in heterocyclic sys- tems: recent results and applications, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl 11, 739 (1972)

    1972

  36. [44]

    Knizia and G

    G. Knizia and G. K.-L. Chan, Density matrix embed- ding: A simple alternative to dynamical mean-field the- ory, Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 186404 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Knizia and G

    G. Knizia and G. K.-L. Chan, Density matrix embedding: A strong-coupling quantum embedding theory, J. Chem. Theory Comput 9, 1428 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Wouters, C

    S. Wouters, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, Q. Sun, and G. K.- L. Chan, A practical guide to density matrix embedding theory in quantum chemistry, Journal of chemical theory and computation 12, 2706 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Wouters, C

    S. Wouters, C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, and G. KL Chan, Five years of density matrix embedding theory, Fragmenta- tion: toward accurate calculations on complex molecular systems , 227 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    H. Q. Pham, V. Bernales, and L. Gagliardi, Can den- sity matrix embedding theory with the complete activate 11 space self-consistent field solver describe single and dou- ble bond breaking in molecular systems?, J. Chem. The- ory Comput 14, 1960 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Zheng and G

    B.-X. Zheng and G. K.-L. Chan, Ground-state phase di- agram of the square lattice hubbard model from den- sity matrix embedding theory, Phys. Rev. B 93, 035126 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Q. Chen, G. H. Booth, S. Sharma, G. Knizia, and G. K.-L. Chan, Intermediate and spin-liquid phase of the half-filled honeycomb hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B 89, 165134 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    I. W. Bulik, W. Chen, and G. E. Scuseria, Electron cor- relation in solids via density embedding theory, J. Chem. Phys 141 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum-selected configuration interaction: Classical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum com- puters, arXiv:2302.11320 (2023), available at https: //arxiv.org/abs/2302.11320

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. O. Nakagawa, M. Kamoshita, W. Mizukami, S. Sudo, and Y.-y. Ohnishi, Adapt-qsci: Adaptive construction of input state for quantum-selected configuration inter- action, arXiv:2311.01105 (2023), available at https: //arxiv.org/abs/2311.01105

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Motta, W

    M. Motta, W. Kirby, I. Liepuoniute, K. J. Sung, J. Cohn, A. Mezzacapo, K. Klymko, N. Nguyen, N. Yoshioka, and J. E. Rice, Subspace methods for electronic structure simulations on quantum computers, Electron. Struct 6, 013001 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Ortiz, J

    G. Ortiz, J. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Sim- ulating fermions on a quantum computer, Comp. Phys. Comm 146, 302 (2002)

    2002

  48. [56]

    Somma, G

    R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Simulating physical phenomena by quan- tum networks, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042323 (2002)

    2002

  49. [57]

    R. D. Somma, Quantum computation, complexity, and many-body physics , Ph.D. thesis, Instituto Balseiro, S.C. de Bariloche, Argentina and Los Alamos National Labo- ratory, Los Alamos, USA (2005), arXiv:quant- ph/0512209

    2005

  50. [58]

    Barison, J

    S. Barison, J. R. Moreno, and M. Motta, Quantum- centric computation of molecular excited states with ex- tended sample-based quantum diagonalization (2024), arXiv:2411.00468 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Motta, K

    M. Motta, K. J. Sung, K. B. Whaley, M. Head-Gordon, and J. Shee, Bridging physical intuition and hardware ef- ficiency for correlated electronic states: the local unitary cluster jastrow ansatz for electronic structure, Chem. Sci 14, 11213 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, N. Wiebe, K. B. Whaley, and R. Babbush, Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers, npj Quantum Inf 7, 23 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Neese, Software update: The orca program system - version 5.0, WIREs Comput

    F. Neese, Software update: The orca program system - version 5.0, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci 12, e1606 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Senicourt, J

    V. Senicourt, J. Brown, A. Fleury, R. Day, E. Lloyd, M. P. Coons, K. Bieniasz, L. Huntington, A. J. Garza, S. Matsuura, R. Plesch, T. Yamazaki, and A. Zarib- afiyan, Tangelo: An open-source python package for end-to-end chemistry workflows on quantum comput- ers, arXiv:2206.12...

    2022 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, and S. Sharma, Pyscf: the python-based simulations of chemistry framework, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci 8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Sun, Libcint: An efficient general integral library for gaussian basis functions, J

    Q. Sun, Libcint: An efficient general integral library for gaussian basis functions, J. Comp. Chem36, 1664 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Fulde and H

    P. Fulde and H. Stoll, Dealing with the exponential wall in electronic structure calculations, J. Chem. Phys 146 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    ffsims developers, ffsim: Faster simulations of fermionic quantum circuits, https://github.com/ qiskit-community/ffsim (2024), accessed: 2024-09-01

    2024

  59. [67]

    Aleksandrowicz, T

    G. Aleksandrowicz, T. Alexander, P. K. Barkoutsos, L. Bello, Y. Ben-Haim, D. Bucher, F. J. Cabrera- Hern´ andez, J. Carballo-Franquis, A. Chen, C.-F. Chen, J. M. Chow, A. D. C´ orcoles-Gonzales, A. J. Cross, A. W. Cross, J. Cruz-Benito, C. Culver, S. D. L. P. Gonz´ alez, E. D....

    2019

  60. [68]

    Javadi-Abhari, M

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, and A. W. Cross, Quantum computing with qiskit, arXiv:2405.08810 (2024), available at https: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. J. Wallman and J. Emerson, Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Dynamical suppression of deco- herence in two-state quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2733 (1998)

    1998

  63. [71]

    Kofman and G

    A. Kofman and G. Kurizki, Universal dynamical con- trol of quantum mechanical decay: modulation of the coupling to the continuum, Phys. Rev. Lett 87, 270405 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory, Nature 458, 996 (2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    Niu and A

    S. Niu and A. Todri-Sanial, Effects of dynamical decou- pling and pulse-level optimizations on ibm quantum com- puters, IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng 3, 1 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    A. A. Saki, S. Barison, B. Fuller, J. R. Garrison, J. R. Glick, C. Johnson, A. Mezzacapo, J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Rossmannek, P. Schweigert, I. Sitdikov, and K. J. Sung, Qiskit addon: sample-based quantum diagonaliza- 12 tion (2024), accessed: 2024-11-14

    2024

  67. [75]

    R. J. Bartlett, Perspective on coupled-cluster theory. the evolution toward simplicity in quantum chemistry, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys 26, 8013 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    A. A. Holmes, N. M. Tubman, and C. Umrigar, Heat- bath configuration interaction: An efficient selected con- figuration interaction algorithm inspired by heat-bath sampling, J. Chem. Theory Comput 12, 3674 (2016)

    2016

  69. [77]

    A. A. Holmes, H. J. Changlani, and C. Umrigar, Effi- cient heat-bath sampling in fock space, J. Chem. Theory Comput 12, 1561 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    J. E. Smith, B. Mussard, A. A. Holmes, and S. Sharma, Cheap and near exact casscf with large active spaces, J. Chem. Theory Comput 13, 5468 (2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    Sharma, A

    S. Sharma, A. A. Holmes, G. Jeanmairet, A. Alavi, and C. J. Umrigar, Semistochastic heat-bath configuration interaction method: Selected configuration interaction with semistochastic perturbation theory, J. Chem. The- ory Comput 13, 1595 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    W. A. Al-Saidi, S. Zhang, and H. Krakauer, Bond break- ing with auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo, J. Chem. Phys 127 (2007)

    2007

  73. [81]

    Tsuchimochi and G

    T. Tsuchimochi and G. E. Scuseria, Strong correlations via constrained-pairing mean-field theory, J. Chem. Phys 131 (2009)

    2009

  74. [82]

    A. V. Sinitskiy, L. Greenman, and D. A. Mazziotti, Strong correlation in hydrogen chains and lattices us- ing the variational two-electron reduced density matrix method, J. Chem. Phys 133 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    N. Lin, C. Marianetti, A. J. Millis, and D. R. Reich- man, Dynamical mean-field theory for quantum chem- istry, Phys. Rev. Lett 106, 096402 (2011)

    2011

  76. [84]

    D. A. Mazziotti, Large-scale semidefinite programming for many-electron quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett 106, 083001 (2011)

    2011

  77. [85]

    I. W. Bulik, T. M. Henderson, and G. E. Scuseria, Can single-reference coupled cluster theory describe static correlation?, J. Chem. Theory Comput 11, 3171 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.