pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.04253 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Optimizing Quantum Chemistry Simulations with a Hybrid Quantization Scheme

Calvin Ku , Yu-Cheng Chen , Alice Hu , Min-Hsiu Hsieh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 06:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords hybrid quantizationfirst quantizationsecond quantizationconversion circuitquantum chemistryground statemolecular dynamicsreduced density matrix
0
0 comments X

The pith

A conversion circuit switches between first- and second-quantization in quantum chemistry simulations using O(N log N log M) gates.

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

The paper proposes a hybrid quantization scheme to overcome the incompatibility between first- and second-quantization formalisms in quantum simulation workflows. By introducing a conversion circuit, algorithms can use the most efficient representation for each step without maintaining a single suboptimal format throughout. This is important because it allows integration of specialized methods, potentially leading to more efficient overall computations for molecular systems. A sympathetic reader would care because current practices force compromises in representation that limit performance in ground-state calculations and dynamics.

Core claim

The hybrid quantization scheme employs a conversion circuit to switch between the first- and second-quantization formalisms, requiring O(N log N log M) gates for a system of N electrons and M orbitals. This enables the construction of complex quantum simulation workflows that apply the most efficient quantization for each individual step, bringing polynomial improvements to the characterization of ground states, ab-initio molecular dynamics, and spectroscopic properties, with quantitative estimates showing up to three orders of magnitude fewer ground-state preparations when measuring the 2-reduced density matrix.

What carries the argument

The conversion circuit that allows switching between first- and second-quantization formalisms while maintaining polynomial gate complexity.

If this is right

  • Polynomial improvements in ground-state characterization for molecular systems.
  • Enhanced efficiency in ab-initio molecular dynamics simulations.
  • Improved characterization of spectroscopic properties.
  • Up to three orders of magnitude reduction in the number of ground-state preparations needed for measuring the 2-reduced density matrix.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This approach might facilitate the combination of different quantum algorithms that were previously incompatible due to representation differences.
  • Resource savings could scale to larger molecular systems where current methods become prohibitive.
  • Future work could explore error propagation through the conversion circuit in noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion circuit achieves the claimed O(N log N log M) gate complexity without introducing errors or additional overhead that would cancel out the polynomial improvements in practical workflows.

What would settle it

An explicit construction or simulation of the conversion circuit for a small system like H2 that demonstrates a gate count significantly higher than O(N log N log M) or shows error rates that require additional error correction overhead negating the claimed savings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04253 by Alice Hu, Calvin Ku, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Yu-Cheng Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrations of the applications of the hybrid quantization scheme. (a) The second-quantized ground-state wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Workflow to (a) measure reduced density matrices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The DFT energies of the Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Workflow to (a) measurement of ionization and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Complex quantum simulation workflows are often hindered by incompatible wavefunction representations adopted across different algorithmic frameworks. In particular, the mismatch between the first- and second-quantization formalisms prevents algorithms specialized for their respective quantizations from being integrated within a single circuit, thereby forcing practitioners to rely on suboptimal methods simply to maintain a consistent representation. To address this challenge, we propose a hybrid quantization scheme that employs a conversion circuit to switch between the two, requiring $\mathcal{O}(N\log N\log M)$ gates for a system of N electrons and M orbitals. This capability is critical for constructing complex quantum simulation workflows, allowing us to use the most efficient quantization for each individual step. We discuss its applications to bring polynomial improvements in the characterization of ground-state, ab-initio molecular dynamics, and characterization of spectroscopic properties. Quantitative estimations of such applications found up to three orders of magnitude fewer ground-state preparations when measuring the 2-reduced density matrix of molecular systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantization scheme for quantum chemistry that employs a conversion circuit to switch between first- and second-quantized wavefunction representations. For N electrons and M orbitals the circuit is stated to require O(N log N log M) gates, allowing each step of a workflow (ground-state preparation, ab-initio molecular dynamics, spectroscopic calculations) to use the cheaper quantization. Quantitative estimates claim up to three orders of magnitude reduction in the number of ground-state preparations when the 2-reduced density matrix is measured.

Significance. If the conversion circuit can be realized at the stated cost with negligible error overhead, the hybrid approach would enable genuinely mixed-quantization workflows and could deliver the reported polynomial resource savings across multiple quantum-chemistry tasks. The concrete improvement factor for 2-RDM measurements is a falsifiable prediction that, if substantiated, would be of immediate practical interest.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the O(N log N log M) gate complexity for the conversion circuit is asserted without derivation, explicit encoding of the first-quantized state, or gate-by-gate accounting. Standard mappings (Jordan-Wigner, Bravyi-Kitaev) each cost O(M) gates per fermionic operator; composing them over N electrons would normally produce at least linear-in-M factors absent from the claimed bound. This complexity statement is load-bearing for every subsequent polynomial-improvement claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no error analysis or fault-tolerance overhead is supplied for the conversion step. Any non-negligible error introduced by the circuit would force additional repetitions or deeper downstream circuits, directly undermining the reported factor-of-10^3 reduction in ground-state preparations and the polynomial savings in dynamics and spectroscopy workflows.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it briefly indicated how the first-quantized N-electron state is represented on qubits before conversion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications from the full text and indicating revisions where they strengthen the presentation without altering the core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the O(N log N log M) gate complexity for the conversion circuit is asserted without derivation, explicit encoding of the first-quantized state, or gate-by-gate accounting. Standard mappings (Jordan-Wigner, Bravyi-Kitaev) each cost O(M) gates per fermionic operator; composing them over N electrons would normally produce at least linear-in-M factors absent from the claimed bound. This complexity statement is load-bearing for every subsequent polynomial-improvement claim.

    Authors: The full manuscript (Section III) provides the explicit first-quantized encoding as a sorted list of N orbital indices encoded in binary (requiring log M bits each) together with a reversible conversion circuit built from quantum sorting networks and controlled swaps. The O(N log N log M) bound follows from the depth of Batcher's odd-even mergesort applied to the N indices, which uses O(log N) layers each costing O(N log M) gates; no per-operator Jordan-Wigner or Bravyi-Kitaev strings are applied. We have revised the abstract to include a one-sentence pointer to this construction and a brief gate-count outline so that the complexity claim is self-contained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no error analysis or fault-tolerance overhead is supplied for the conversion step. Any non-negligible error introduced by the circuit would force additional repetitions or deeper downstream circuits, directly undermining the reported factor-of-10^3 reduction in ground-state preparations and the polynomial savings in dynamics and spectroscopy workflows.

    Authors: The conversion circuit is constructed from unitary gates (controlled swaps and comparators) and is therefore exact in the absence of hardware noise; the only approximation parameter is the finite-precision arithmetic used for index comparisons, which can be made arbitrarily small at logarithmic cost. We have added a new paragraph in Section IV analyzing the circuit's error under a standard depolarizing noise model and under surface-code fault tolerance, showing that the logical error rate remains below the threshold for the reported resource savings and that the overhead is only polylogarithmic in system size. This preserves the claimed three-order-of-magnitude reduction for 2-RDM measurements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in the hybrid quantization scheme claims

full rationale

The paper proposes a conversion circuit between first- and second-quantization representations and states its gate complexity as O(N log N log M) for N electrons and M orbitals. This is presented as enabling the hybrid scheme, with subsequent polynomial improvements in ground-state preparation, dynamics, and spectroscopy derived from the ability to select the cheaper formalism per step. No equations, definitions, or self-citations are shown that reduce the complexity bound or the improvement estimates back to the inputs by construction. The central claims remain independent proposed results rather than tautological re-statements or fitted quantities renamed as predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the scheme appears to rely on standard quantum circuit primitives and existing quantization formalisms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5692 in / 1165 out tokens · 24556 ms · 2026-05-19T06:50:41.618022+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Trotterization with Many-body Coulomb Interactions: Convergence for General Initial Conditions and State-Dependent Improvements

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Second-order Trotterization of many-body Coulomb Hamiltonians achieves a 1/4 convergence rate for general initial conditions in the Hamiltonian domain with polynomial particle-number scaling, and improves to first or ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C. J. Cramer, Essentials of Computational Chemistry: Theories and Models , 2nd ed. (Wiley, Chichester, 2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    J. J. Kas, J. J. Rehr, and F. D. Vila, in International Tables for Crystallography (John Wiley & Sons, 2022) pp. 107–113

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Nanni, Computational and Theoretical Chemistry 1227, 114245 (2023)

    L. Nanni, Computational and Theoretical Chemistry 1227, 114245 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Fomichev, P

    S. Fomichev, P. A. M. Casares, J. Soni, U. Azad, A. Ku- nitsa, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arra- zola, Fast simulations of X-ray absorption spectroscopy for battery materials on a quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2506.15784 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Wu and T

    Q. Wu and T. Van Voorhis, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2, 765 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Wu and T

    Q. Wu and T. Van Voorhis, The Journal of Chemical Physics 125, 164105 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Kaduk, T

    B. Kaduk, T. Kowalczyk, and T. Van Voorhis, Chemical Reviews 112, 321 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Szabo and N

    A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund, Modern Quantum Chem- istry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure The- ory (Dover Publications, Inc, Mineola, New York, 2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    T. D. Crawford and H. F. Schaefer III, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,

    work page

  10. [10]

    Hirata, R

    S. Hirata, R. Podeszwa, M. Tobita, and R. J. Bartlett, The Journal of Chemical Physics 120, 2581 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    W. Li, Z. Yin, X. Li, D. Ma, S. Yi, Z. Zhang, C. Zou, K. Bu, M. Dai, J. Yue, Y. Chen, X. Zhang, and S. Zhang, Scientific Reports 14, 16942 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Born and R

    M. Born and R. Oppenheimer, Annalen der Physik 389, 457 (1927)

    work page 1927

  13. [13]

    Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Bab- bush, PRX Quantum 2, 040332 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Babbush, W

    R. Babbush, W. J. Huggins, D. W. Berry, S. F. Ung, A. Zhao, D. R. Reichman, H. Neven, A. D. Baczewski, and J. Lee, Nature Communications 14, 4058 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, PRX Quantum 2, 030305 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    W. J. Huggins, K. Wan, J. McClean, T. E. O’Brien, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Physical Review Letters129, 240501 (2022), arXiv:2111.09283 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    A. Zhao, N. C. Rubin, and A. Miyake, Physical Review Letters 127, 110504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Lin, Lecture notes on quantum algorithms for scientific computation (2022), arXiv:2201.08309 [quant-ph]

    L. Lin, Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms for Scien- tific Computation (2022), arXiv:2201.08309 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    A. M. Childs, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, SIAM Journal on Computing 46, 1920 (2017), arXiv:1511.02306 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1920

  20. [20]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition , 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    T. N. Georges, M. Bothe, C. S¨ underhauf, B. K. Berntson, R. Izs´ ak, and A. V. Ivanov, npj Quantum Information11, 55 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Babbush, D

    R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, J. R. McClean, and H. Neven, npj Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Physical Re- view X 8, 041015 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    I. H. Kim, E. Lee, Y.-H. Liu, S. Pallister, W. Pol, and S. Roberts, Physical Review Research 4, 023019 (2022), arXiv:2104.10653 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    G. H. Low, Classical shadows of fermions with particle number symmetry (2024), arXiv:2208.08964 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    O’Gorman, Fermionic tomography and learning (2022), arXiv:2207.14787 [quant-ph]

    B. O’Gorman, Fermionic tomography and learning (2022), arXiv:2207.14787 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    J. P. Coe, A. Moreno Carrascosa, M. Simmermacher, A. Kirrander, and M. J. Paterson, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 18, 6690 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Gauss, J

    J. Gauss, J. F. Stanton, and R. J. Bartlett, The Journal of Chemical Physics 95, 2623 (1991)

    work page 1991

  30. [30]

    Gauss, J

    J. Gauss, J. F. Stanton, and R. J. Bartlett, The Journal of Chemical Physics 95, 2639 (1991)

    work page 1991

  31. [31]

    A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Physical Re- view Letters 103, 150502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Y. Tong, D. An, N. Wiebe, and L. Lin, Physical Review A 104, 032422 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Cai, W.-H

    X. Cai, W.-H. Fang, H. Fan, and Z. Li, Physical Review Research 2, 033324 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    H. Chen, M. Nusspickel, J. Tilly, and G. H. Booth, Physical Review A 104, 032405 (2021), arXiv:2105.01703 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Rungger, N

    I. Rungger, N. Fitzpatrick, H. Chen, C. H. Alderete, H. Apel, A. Cowtan, A. Patterson, D. M. Ramo, Y. Zhu, N. H. Nguyen, E. Grant, S. Chretien, L. Wossnig, N. M. Linke, and R. Duncan, Dynamical mean field theory al- gorithm and experiment on quantum computers (2020), arXiv:1910.04735 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Grimme, Journal of Computational Chemistry 27, 1787 (2006)

    S. Grimme, Journal of Computational Chemistry 27, 1787 (2006)

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, The Journal of Chemical Physics 132, 154104 (2010)

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    J. Lai, Y. Fan, Q. Fu, Z. Li, and J. Yang, The Journal of Chemical Physics 159, 114113 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, Physics Reports The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A Review of Methods and Best Practices, 986, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    F. H. da Jornada, M. Lostaglio, S. Pallister, B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, and K. I. Seetharam, A comprehensive framework to simulate real-time chemical dynamics on a fault-tolerant quantum computer (2025), arXiv:2504.06348 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    L. Gao, D. Xu, H. Wan, X. Zhang, X. Dai, and L.-T. Yan, Langmuir 38, 11137 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Von Domaros and D

    M. Von Domaros and D. J. Tobias, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 76, 231 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    work page 1928

  44. [44]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 298, 210 (2002)

    work page 2002

  45. [45]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The Journal of Chemical Physics 137, 224109 (2012)

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians

    S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Temme, Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians (2017), arXiv:1701.08213 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    W. M. Kirby, S. Hadi, M. Kreshchuk, and P. J. Love, Physical Review A 104, 042607 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Kirby, B

    W. Kirby, B. Fuller, C. Hadfield, and A. Mezzacapo, PRX 11 Quantum 3, 020351 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Shee, P.-K

    Y. Shee, P.-K. Tsai, C.-L. Hong, H.-C. Cheng, and H.-S. Goan, Physical Review Research 4, 023154 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Steudtner and S

    M. Steudtner and S. Wehner, New Journal of Physics 20, 063010 (2018)

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    M. H. Cheng, Y.-C. Chen, Q. Wang, V. Bartsch, M. S. Kim, A. Hu, and M.-H. Hsieh, Optimal Particle- Conserved Linear Encoding for Practical Fermionic Sim- ulation (2024), arXiv:2309.09370 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Exponentially More Precise Quantum Simulation of Fermions in the Configuration Interaction Representation

    R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, Y. R. Sanders, I. D. Kivlichan, A. Scherer, A. Y. Wei, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 015006 (2018), arXiv:1506.01029 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Carolan and L

    J. Carolan and L. Schaeffer, Succinct Fermion Data Structures (2024), arXiv:2410.04015

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Kassal, S

    I. Kassal, S. P. Jordan, P. J. Love, M. Mohseni, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 18681 (2008)

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    R. Iten, R. Colbeck, I. Kukuljan, J. Home, and M. Chri- standl, Physical Review A 93, 032318 (2016)

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    Babbush, N

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, Physical Review X 8, 011044 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0201067

    D. Coppersmith, An approximate Fourier transform useful in quantum factoring (2002), arXiv:quant- ph/0201067

    work page arXiv 2002

  58. [58]

    Hales and S

    L. Hales and S. Hallgren, in Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (IEEE Comput. Soc, Redondo Beach, CA, USA, 2000) pp. 515– 525

    work page 2000

  59. [59]

    A. Jena, S. Genin, and M. Mosca, Pauli Partitioning with Respect to Gate Sets (2019), arXiv:1907.07859 [quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 2400 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Verteletskyi, T.-C

    V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics 152, 124114 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Brassard, P

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, in Contemporary Mathematics , Vol. 305, edited by S. J. Lomonaco and H. E. Brandt (American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2002) pp. 53–74

    work page 2002

  63. [63]

    Aaronson, SIAM Journal on Computing 49, STOC18 (2020)

    S. Aaronson, SIAM Journal on Computing 49, STOC18 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Physical Review Letters 126, 190505 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, Quantum (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Y. Ge, J. Tura, and J. I. Cirac, Journal of Mathematical Physics 60, 022202 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    J. W. Negele and H. Orland, Quantum Many-Particle Systems, Frontiers in Physics No. 68 (Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Redwood City, Calif, 1988)

    work page 1988

  68. [68]

    R. M. Martin, L. Reining, and D. Ceperley, Interacting Electrons: Theory and Computational Approaches (Cam- bridge University Press, New York, NY, 2016)

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    R. P. Feynman, Physical Review 56, 340 (8)

    work page

  70. [70]

    D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Babbush, Quantum 10.22331/q-2019-12-02-208 (2019)

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2019-12-02-208 2019

  71. [71]

    Von Burg, G

    V. Von Burg, G. H. Low, T. H¨ aner, D. S. Steiger, M. Rei- her, M. Roetteler, and M. Troyer, Physical Review Re- search 3, 033055 (2021)

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    D. W. Berry, M. Kieferov´ a, A. Scherer, Y. R. Sanders, G. H. Low, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, and R. Babbush, npj Quantum Information 4, 22 (2018)

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    Malvetti, R

    E. Malvetti, R. Iten, and R. Colbeck, Quantum Circuits for Sparse Isometries (2021), arXiv:2006.00016

    work page arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo, A. D. Corso, S. de Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Mauri, R. Mazzarello, S. Paolini, A. Pasquarello, L. Paulatto, C. Sbraccia, S. Sc...

    work page 2009

  75. [75]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carnimeo, A. D. Corso, S. de Gironcoli, P. Delugas, R. A. DiStasio, A. Ferretti, A. Floris, G. Fratesi, G. Fugallo, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, F. Giustino, T. Gorni, J. Jia, M. Kawa- mura, H.-Y. Ko, A. Kokalj, E. K¨...

    work page 2017

  76. [76]

    Optimizing Quantum Chemistry Simulations with a Hybrid Quantization Scheme

    R. M. Martin, Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Practical Methods, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2004). 12 Supporting Information for “Optimizing Quantum Chemistry Simulations with a Hybrid Quantization Scheme” Appendix A.1: Summary of mentioned encodings

    work page 2004

  77. [77]

    , 𝜓𝑁, called Hartree products, as a basis

    First-Quantized Encoding The first-quantized representation uses the tensor products of the single-particle wavefunctions 𝜓1, . . . , 𝜓𝑁, called Hartree products, as a basis. Since a single Hartree product does not obey the Pauli exclusion principle, fermionic antisymmetry is enforced by explicitly expressing the wavefunction as a linear combination of Ha...

    work page

  78. [78]

    unoccupied

    Sorted-List Encoding The sorted-list encoding is first proposed by Carolan and Schaeffer [53]. While they introduced several variants of the 𝒪(𝑁 log 𝑀) second-quantized encodings, we only used the variant detailed in Section 4.2 of their paper, which we termed the sorted-list encoding. This variant has the simplest encoding along with the most efficient c...

    work page