Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

A Hybrid Qubit Encoding: Splitting Fock Space into Fermionic and Bosonic Subspaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 By fixing a spin-ordering sign convention, the paper derives an exact three-term Hamiltonian that splits molecular orbitals into single-electron and electron-paired registers, cutting qubits, Hamiltonian terms, and circuit depth.

desk verdict Useful hybrid fermionic/bosonic encoding idea, but the central interaction Hamiltonian is asserted without proof and likely has a sign/factor error in Eq. 17; worth a rigorous revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14096 v1 pith:2L7ZWQP7 submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph

Francisco Javier Del Arco Santos , Jakob S. Kottmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Ac
keywords hybridqubitencodingfermion-to-qubitmappinghard-corebosonsFockspacesplittingquantumchemistrysimulationvariationaleigensolverpaired-electronapproximationPauli-stringmeasurementgrouping
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

The paper aims to establish that the electronic structure Hamiltonian can be rewritten in a hybrid form that splits the molecular orbital set into two groups: a fermionic group where each spin-orbital is individually resolved, and a bosonic group where each spatial orbital is restricted to zero or two electrons and encoded as a hard-core boson. The central claim is that this splitting is exact, meaning the full Hamiltonian decomposes into three terms, $H_{\mathrm{ee}} = H_F + H_B + H_I$, with the interaction piece $H_I$ (Eqs. 13–17) collecting precisely those couplings that respect the occupation restriction on the bosonic group. If the claim is right, the payoff is concrete: qubits drop from $2N_{\mathrm{MO}}$ to $2|F|+|B|$, Hamiltonian terms drop from $O(N^4)$ to $O(|F|^4+|B|^2+|F|^2|B|)$, and compiled two-electron excitation circuits shrink by more than a factor of two. Numerical results on CH$_4$ and ethene show the hybrid energy error is smaller than active-space truncation at the same fraction of restricted orbitals, which is why a sympathetic reader would care: near-term quantum chemistry is bottlenecked by qubit count, circuit depth, and measurements, and this encoding turns how many orbitals to resolve into a tunable knob instead of an all-or-nothing choice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-term decomposition $H_{\mathrm{ee}} = H_F + H_B + H_I$ of the electronic Hamiltonian, where $H_F$ is the usual fermionic Hamiltonian on the $F$ orbitals, $H_B$ is the hard-core-boson Hamiltonian of Eq. (8) on the $B$ orbitals, and $H_I$ is the interaction Hamiltonian built from Eqs. (13)–(17). Two identities carry the argument. First, the bosonic operator is defined with a fixed spin ordering, $b_i \sim a_{i\uparrow}a_{i\downarrow}$, so that the exchange phase between two fermionic strings is no longer visible and must be reintroduced by the sign convention $s_{\sigma_k,\sigma_l} = \sigma_k - \sigma_l$ with $\sigma \in \{\pm\tfrac12\}$; this is what makes the interaction terms exactly equivalent to their fermionic counterparts. Second, because the two operator sets act on disjoint subspaces, the Jordan-Wigner parity string of Eq. (6) only needs to run over the fermionic qubits, which is what breaks the $O(N^4)$ term count and the linear qubit count. The interaction terms themselves are organized by the allowed transitions of Fig. 1: a boson swapping into two opposite-spin fermions (Eq. 13), Coulomb repulsion between a boson and two fermions of matched spin (Eq. 14), and exchange between a boson and one fermion (Eq. 15), compressed into Eq. (17) using the occupation operators $n_{i\sigma}$ and $N_i$.

What would settle it

On a small system (for example two fermionic and two bosonic spatial orbitals), build the full fermionic Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), enumerate every two-body term whose indices mix $F$ and $B$, and verify two things: (i) the subspace of allowed occupation states is invariant under the hybrid Hamiltonian built from Eqs. (10)–(17), and (ii) each matrix element of the hybrid Hamiltonian equals the corresponding matrix element of the full fermionic Hamiltonian on that subspace. Any term that maps an allowed state to an allowed state but is missing from Eqs. (13)–(17), or any sign discrepancy, would falsify the claim that the hybrid Hamiltonian is the exact projected Hamiltonian, since the hybrid-FCI energies of Section V are computed by zeroing all integrals not allowed by the encoding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper's discovery is a constructive recipe for partitioning Fock space: choose any subset of spatial orbitals to keep fully fermionic (indices in $F$) and encode the rest (indices in $B$) as hard-core bosons that are either empty or doubly occupied; then the electronic Hamiltonian restricted to the allowed occupation manifold is exactly $H_F + H_B + H_I$, not an uncontrolled truncation. The new content is the interaction Hamiltonian $H_I$: three families of terms, namely density-type (Eq. 13), Coulomb-type (Eq. 14), and exchange-type (Eq. 15) couplings between the subspaces, which compress into the compact population-operator form of Eq. 17. The paper argues these are all the couplings that map allowed states to allowed states, with the sign factor $s_{\sigma_k,\sigma_l} = \sigma_k - \sigma_l$ restoring the anticommutation phase that is hidden when a pair of fermionic operators is replaced by the bosonic operator $b^\dagger_i$. The authors then demonstrate the consequences: a factor-of-two-plus reduction in compiled circuit depth for semi-paired excitations, monotonic decreases in Pauli-term counts and measurement groups as orbitals are bosonized (Butadiene, 22 orbitals), hybrid-FCI errors below active-space errors for CH$_4$ and ethene, an ADAPT-style procedure that automatically assigns orbitals to the two registers for BeH$_2$, and SPA-based circuit constructions for butadiene that recover a large part of the correlation energy at reduced depth.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on the assumption that Eqs. (13)–(17) list every Hamiltonian coupling that maps an allowed state (zero or two electrons on each bosonic orbital) to another allowed state, with the correct signs: the paper states that only allowed-occupation terms should be kept, but it gives no exhaustive enumeration and no independent check of the sign conventions against a full fermionic calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Qubit requirements drop from $2N_{\mathrm{MO}}$ to $2|F|+|B|$ for $N_{\mathrm{MO}}$ spatial orbitals, interpolating between full Jordan-Wigner (all fermionic) and full hard-core-boson (all paired) encodings.
  • The number of Pauli strings and of commuting measurement groups (using Sorted-Insertion grouping with both fully-commuting and qubit-wise-commuting conditions) falls monotonically as orbitals move from $F$ to $B$; for Butadiene with 22 orbitals the interaction part $H_I$ matters only near the fully bosonic regime.
  • Compilation of a two-electron semi-paired excitation in the hybrid encoding more than halves the circuit depth and resource count compared with full Jordan-Wigner, both for direct Pauli-string compilation and for the optimized decomposition; fully paired double excitations compile to near-trivially small circuits in the bosonic register.
  • Hybrid-FCI, defined by zeroing all integrals disallowed by the encoding, gives smaller energy errors than active-space truncation at the same percentage of resolved orbitals for CH$_4$ (16 pair-natural orbitals) and ethene (18), with further gains when the orbitals are re-optimized for the separable-pair approximation.
  • Orbital assignment can be automated: the ADAPT-based procedure selects as fermionic the orbitals that single or unpaired excitations act on, and for BeH$_2$ it reproduces the physical picture that dissociation requires the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ orbitals to be fermionic while the perpendicular $p_{x/y}$ orbitals stay bosonic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The splitting is encoding-agnostic on the fermionic side: because $H_F$ and $H_I$ are written in second-quantized fermionic operators before any mapping, the same three-term structure should survive if the fermionic register uses a different standard fermionic encoding, with the bosonic register's simplicity and the sign convention unchanged.
  • The results suggest a practical orbital-selection rule that the paper leaves implicit: resolve orbitals in decreasing order of pair-natural occupation until the hybrid error falls below a chosen threshold; the CH$_4$ and ethene curves give a first quantitative calibration of that trade-off, but a systematic multi-molecule threshold study would be the natural follow-up.
  • The sign convention $s_{\sigma_k,\sigma_l} = \sigma_k - \sigma_l$ is a general phase-bookkeeping trick for any encoding that condenses fermion pairs into composite bosons, so the same machinery could extend to geminal-style or number-preserving pair ansatze beyond hard-core bosons.
  • Because the bosonic register's Pauli strings remain of the all-Z/XX/YY type that commute within groups, the hybrid scheme inherits the measurement-grouping advantage of pure hard-core bosons on the bosonic qubits; hardware with heterogeneous qubit connectivity could therefore assign the two registers to different topologies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid second-quantized encoding that splits molecular spatial orbitals into a fermionic set F, treated with standard fermionic encodings such as Jordan-Wigner, and a bosonic set B, treated as hard-core bosons with occupation restricted to zero or two. The central claim is that the electronic Hamiltonian can be exactly decomposed as H_ee = H_F + H_B + H_I, with H_I comprising pairwise interactions between the two subspaces (Eq. 10). The authors provide explicit interaction terms (Eqs. 13-17), analyze Pauli-term and measurement-group reductions (Fig. 2), give circuit compilations for paired and semi-paired excitations (Figs. 3-5), and benchmark the encoding against classical FCI and CCSD(T) for small molecules (Figs. 6-8), also presenting an ADAPT-based heuristic for choosing which orbitals to treat as fermionic.

Significance. If the decomposition in Eq. (10) is exact on the allowed subspace, the paper offers a practically useful framework: qubit counts reduce from 2N_MO to 2|F|+|B|, Hamiltonian terms reduce from O(N^4) to O(|F|^4+|B|^2+|F|^2|B|), and the circuit compilations in Sec. IV show depth reductions by more than a factor of two for representative paired excitations. The paper is also concrete: it uses a specific integral convention, reports Pauli-term counts for a realistic molecule, and makes its numerical benchmarks reproducible in principle through the tequila ecosystem. The observation that the hybrid encoding outperforms active-space truncation at the same resolved-orbital fraction is consistent with the fact that the former Hilbert space contains the latter, so the numerical comparison is informative but not surprising. However, the exactness of H_I is the load-bearing premise, and the derivation of Eqs. (14a)-(17) is not sufficiently supported; in fact, a direct normal-ordering reduction yields a different coefficient, which invalidates the stated exactness and requires that all numerical claims be re-examined.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eqs. (16b)-(17)] The central claim that Eqs. (13)-(17) exactly represent the projection of Eq. (1) onto the allowed subspace is not established by exhaustive enumeration, and a direct calculation indicates a concrete error. For a bosonic orbital i and fermionic orbitals k,l, the four index assignments in Eq. (1) that preserve the 0-or-2 occupation restriction are (i,j,k,l) = (i,k,l,i), (k,i,l,i), (i,k,i,l), and (k,i,i,l). Reducing these with b†_i = a†_{i↓}a†_{i↑} and the subspace condition n_{i↑}=n_{i↓}, and including the 1/2 prefactor, gives, per spin channel, a projected density-coupling coefficient of (2g^{il}_{ki} - g^{il}_{ik}) b†_i b_i a†_{kσ}a_{lσ}. Combining Eqs. (14a)-(15b) as written and applying the standard eightfold symmetry of real-orbital two-electron integrals yields (2g^{li}_{ik}+2g^{il}_{ki}-g^{li}_{ki}-g^{il}_{ik}) = 2(2g^{il}_{ki}-g^{il}_{ik}), i.e., twice the correct projected value; if integral symmetries are not applied, the exchange sign is reversed. Since every resource count, circuit compilation, and numerical hybrid-FCI energy inherits H_I, this discrepancy is load-bearing for the paper's exactness claim and for the quantitative results.
  2. [III, Eq. (16b)] The paper defines N_i = n_{i↑}+n_{i↓} in Eq. (16b) and immediately states that N_i can be rewritten as b†_i b_i, but these operators are not equal: on the allowed subspace b†_i b_i = n_{i↑}n_{i↓} equals 0 or 1, while n_{i↑}+n_{i↓} equals 0 or 2. This factor-of-two ambiguity appears to propagate directly into Eq. (17), where the occupation operator multiplies the interaction coefficients. The manuscript must adopt one consistent definition—preferably b†_i b_i for the pair occupation—and re-derive Eqs. (14a)-(17) under it.
  3. [V.A, Fig. 6] The numerical section compares 'hybrid-FCI' energies with full FCI and active-space FCI, but it never validates that the Hamiltonian used in the hybrid-FCI calculation actually matches the projection of Eq. (1) onto the allowed subspace. Given the derivation gap in H_I, the paper should include, for at least one small molecule, an explicit check of the spectrum or ground-state energy of H_F+H_B+H_I against a full fermionic FCI calculation restricted to the same hybrid subspace, in addition to the comparisons against energies in the full Hilbert space. This check should be performed after the interaction coefficients in Eqs. (14a)-(17) are corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.C, Eq. (8)] The hard-core-boson Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) has ambiguous operator ordering: writing b_i b†_j and b†_i b_i b†_j b_j without specifying the normal ordering of the hard-core bosons is confusing, since b_i b†_j and b†_i b_j differ by a Kronecker-delta term. Please specify the intended ordering and how it follows from the projection of Eq. (1).
  2. [III, Eq. (15b)] The integral in Eq. (15b) is printed as g^{ij}_{ik}; this seems to be a typo, as the indices do not match the pattern of the surrounding terms. It should presumably be g^{il}_{ik} or g^{li}_{ik}, and the correct expression must be fixed before the signs in Eq. (17) can be checked.
  3. [III, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) contains 'N†_i' where the occupation operator is meant; it should be N_i or b†_i b_i. Also, N_i is introduced after Eq. (17) in the text, making the equation hard to parse; please reorder or add a forward reference.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and wording issues: 'anty-symmetry' in Sec. III, 'Hamiltomian' in Sec. III.A, 'deepness' in Sec. V.A, 'encoeded' in the caption of Fig. 4, and 'loosing' in the Introduction. A careful proofread would improve clarity.
  5. [V.A, Fig. 6] The definition of the 'fraction x' used in Fig. 6 is not precisely stated: it should specify whether x is the fraction of orbitals treated as fermionic, the fraction of resolved spin-orbitals, or the fraction of the active space, and how the active-space comparison is matched to the same resolved-orbital fraction. The caption should define the symbols used in the legend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the hybrid encoding is a self-contained projection construction and the numerical comparisons are variational consequences, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation, Eq. (10) with Eqs. (13)-(17), is a projection construction: the hybrid Hilbert space is defined by restricting Bosonic-orbital occupations to zero or two, and H_I is assembled as the set of terms from Eq. (1) that preserve that restriction. No parameter is fitted to the reported energies, and no self-citation is load-bearing for the operator identities; the cited prior work (tequila, PNO, SPA, SPA+) provides external tooling, orbital-generation methods, and baseline circuits rather than the justification for the hybrid decomposition. The comparison showing hybrid-FCI error below active-space error for the same orbital fraction follows from the variational fact that the hybrid space contains the active-space subspace, so it is a mathematical consequence of the construction rather than an empirical prediction; this reduces its evidential novelty but does not make the derivation circular. The paper's assertion that 'only the terms that lead to the allowed occupations on the wave function should be considered' (Section III, before Eq. 13) is an omitted completeness proof, and the sign conventions of Eqs. (13)-(17) are not checked against a full fermionic calculation; those are correctness risks that would affect the exactness claim if wrong, but they are not instances of circular reasoning. Self-citations are present in the applications sections, but none is invoked to forbid alternative encodings, establish uniqueness, or supply a fitted result, so the circularity score remains zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The encoding is a constrained-Hilbert-space ansatz. Its central cost is the unproven completeness of the interaction Hamiltonian and the orbital-assignment heuristic; it uses no fitted physical constants.

free parameters (1)
  • Fermionic orbital fraction x / bosonic orbital set B = User-defined; examples use fractions from 0% to 100%
    The central tradeoff parameter. In the examples it is chosen by PNO occupation ordering, chemical intuition, or ADAPT selection, not derived from first principles. Performance depends strongly on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Second-quantized molecular Hamiltonian with one- and two-body integrals (Eq. 1) is the correct starting point.
    Invoked in Section II.A; this is the standard electronic structure Hamiltonian and is not questioned.
  • domain assumption The hard-core boson mapping b_i ~ a_{i↑} a_{i↓} with occupation restricted to 0 or 2, and the HCB Hamiltonian of Eq. 8, faithfully represent spin-paired electron pairs.
    Taken from prior literature (Refs. 14, 23); the paper does not derive it. The operator ordering in Eq. 8 is not fully justified.
  • ad hoc to paper The zero-or-two occupation restriction on bosonic orbitals defines an invariant subspace, and the kept interaction terms are exhaustive and correctly signed.
    Section III asserts this when selecting terms for Eqs. 13-17, but no completeness proof or explicit verification is provided.
  • domain assumption Pair natural orbital occupation-number ordering is a trustworthy heuristic for choosing which orbitals to keep fermionic.
    Used in Section V.A for CH4 and ethene error calculations; this heuristic drives the reported energy-error curves.
  • domain assumption The 'hybrid-FCI' truncation error, computed by setting all disallowed integrals to zero, is the relevant encoding error proxy.
    Section V.A defines the error this way; it measures the cost of the constraint in a fixed orbital basis, but does not include orbital optimization effects except where noted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid Qubit Encoding: Splitting Fock Space into Fermionic and Bosonic Subspaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2L7ZWQP7

@misc{pith2026241114096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid Qubit Encoding: Splitting Fock Space into Fermionic and Bosonic Subspaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2L7ZWQP7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14096}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient encoding of electronic operators into qubits is essential for quantum chemistry simulations. The majority of methods map single electron states to qubits, effectively handling electron interactions. Alternatively, pairs of electrons can be represented as quasi-particles and encoded into qubits, significantly simplifying calculations. This work presents a hybrid encoding that allows splitting the Fock space into Fermionic and Bosonic subspaces. By leveraging the strengths of both approaches, we provide a flexible framework for optimizing quantum simulations based on molecular characteristics and hardware constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14096 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-electrons interactions between the Fermionic and Bosonic subspaces. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Butadiene molecule with 22 Spatial Orbitals, Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Direct compilation of a two-electron excitation to single qubit Rotation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimized compilation of two-electron excitations to single qubit Rotation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimized compilation of a paired double excitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hybrid-FCI error with respect to the exact diagonalization in all orbitals (FCI). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: BeH2 UpCCGSD HEE with respect to the Full Fermionic ansatz For this purpose, the molecule will be initialized and optimized with some Upre, in this case, the Hartree Fock state. The next step comprises a series of 1-step ADAPT cycles within a given pool. At each step, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Circuits Energy Errors with respect to the “hybrid” CCSD(T) energy. Orbitals are optimized at SPA level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A.Aspuru-Guzik, A.D.Dutoi, P.J.Love,andM.Head- Gordon, Science 309, 1704 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke,et al., Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    R.Babbush, D.W.Berry, J.R.McClean,andH.Neven, npj Quantum Information5, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Zeitschrift für Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  6. [6]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 224109 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Bravyi, J

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

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Steudtner and S

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

    2018

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Parella-Dilmé, K

    T. Parella-Dilmé, K. Kottmann, L. Zambrano, L. Mor- timer, J. S. Kottmann, and A. Acín, PRX Quantum5, 030333 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    R. W. Chien and J. D. Whitfield, arxiv:2009.11860 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    C.Derby, J.Klassen, J.Bausch,andT.Cubitt,Physical Review B 104, 035118 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    R. W. Chien and J. Klassen, Optimizing fermionic encodings for both hamiltonian and hardware (2022), arXiv:2210.05652 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Miller, Z

    A. Miller, Z. Zimborás, S. Knecht, S. Maniscalco, and G. García-Pérez, PRX Quantum4, 030314 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    V. E. Elfving, M. Millaruelo, J. A. Gámez, and C. Gogolin, Phys. Rev. A103, 032605 (2021). 10

    2021

  7. [15]

    Tölle and G

    J. Tölle and G. Kin-Lic Chan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 158, 124123 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Tölle and G

    J. Tölle and G. Kin-Lic Chan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 160, 164108 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. F. Izmaylov, M. Díaz-Tinoco, and R. A. Lang, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.22, 12980 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    G.-L. R. Anselmetti, D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin, and R. M. Parrish, Local, expressive, quantum-number- preserving vqe ansatze for fermionic systems (2021), arxiv:2104.05695 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    H. G. A. Burton, D. Marti-Dafcik, D. P. Tew, and D. J. Wales, Nature 10.48550/arxiv.2207.00085 (2022)

    2022 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    H. G. A. Burton, Accurate and gate-efficient quantum ansätze for electronic states without adaptive optimisa- tion (2024), arXiv:2312.09761

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. E. Ghasempouri, G. W. Dueck, and S. D. Baerdemacker, Modular cluster circuits for the vari- ational quantum eigensolver (2023), arXiv:2305.04425 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Tranter, P

    A. Tranter, P. J. Love, F. Mintert, and P. V. Coveney, J. Chem. Theory Comput.14, 5617 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    T. M. Henderson, I. W. Bulik, and G. E. Scuseria, The Journal of Chemical Physics142, 214116 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    L. A. Martínez-Martínez, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Iz- maylov, Quantum7, 1086 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 2400 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Verteletskyi, T.-C

    V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 124114 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    S.ChoiandA.F.Izmaylov,JournalofChemicalTheory and Computation 19, 3184 (2023), pMID: 37224265, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00218

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Z. P. Bansingh, T.-C. Yen, P. D. Johnson, and A. F. Izmaylov, The Journal of Physical Chem- istry A 126, 7007 (2022), pMID: 36150139, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.2c04726

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    L. Zhao, J. Goings, K. Wright, J. Nguyen, J. Kim, S. Johri, K. Shin, W. Kyoung, J. I. Fuks, J.-K. K. Rhee, and Y. M. Rhee 10.48550/arxiv.2212.02482 (2022)

    2022 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Crawford, B

    O. Crawford, B. van Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, arxiv:1908.06942 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Anand, P

    A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P. W. K. Jensen, S. Sim, M. Díaz-Tinoco, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chem. Soc. Rev. 51, 1659 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, New J. Phys.18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Romero, R

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol. 4, 014008 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    T. M. Henderson, I. W. Bulik, T. Stein, and G. E. Scuseria, The Journal of Chemical Physics141, 244104 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    J. Lee, W. J. Huggins, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, J. Chem. Theory Comput.15, 311 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Y. S. Yordanov, D. R. Arvidsson-Shukur, and C. H. Barnes, Phys. Rev. A102, 062612 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    J. S. Kottmann, P. Schleich, T. Tamayo-Mendoza, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.12, 663 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    J. S. Kottmann and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Physical Re- view A 105, 032449 (2022), arxiv:2105.03836 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    K. Kim, S. Lim, K. Shin, G. Lee, Y. Jung, W. Kyoung, J.-K. K. Rhee, and Y. M. Rhee, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 26, 8390 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    J. S. Kottmann, F. A. Bischoff, and E. F. Valeev, The Journal of Chemical Physics152, 074105 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Nat. commun.10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    J. S. Kottmann, Quantum7, 1073 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Fitzpatrick, A

    A. Fitzpatrick, A. Nykänen, N. W. Talarico, A. Lunghi, S. Maniscalco, G. García-Pérez, and S. Knecht, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A128, 2843 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    J. S. Kottmann and F. Scala, Compact Effective Basis Generation: Insights from Interpretable Circuit Design (2023), arxiv:2302.10660 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. S. Kottmann, S. Alperin-Lea, T. Tamayo-Mendoza, A. Cervera-Lierta, C. Lavigne, T.-C. Yen, V. Vertelet- skyi, P. Schleich, A. Anand, M. Degroote, S. Chaney, M. Kesibi, N. G. Curnow, B. Solo, G. Tsilimigkounakis, C. Zendejas-Morales, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Quan...

    2021

  38. [46]

    Suzuki, Y

    Y. Suzuki, Y. Kawase, Y. Masumura, Y. Hiraga, M. Nakadai, J. Chen, K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mi- tarai, R. Imai, S. Tamiya, T. Yamamoto, T. Yan, T. Kawakubo, Y. O. Nakagawa, Y. Ibe, Y. Zhang, H. Yamashita, H. Yoshimura, A. Hayashi, and K. Fujii, Quantum 5, 559 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    McClean, N

    J. McClean, N. Rubin, K. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, X. Bonet-Monroig, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gid- ney, B. Gimby,et al., Quantum Sci. Technol. (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, Wiley In- terdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci.8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, J. J. Eriksen, and et. al. , J. Chem. Phys. 153, 024109 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, et al., The Journal of chemical physics153 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    J. S. Kottmann, A. Anand, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chemical Science 12, 3497 (2021), arxiv:2011.05938 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    R. J. Harrison, G. Beylkin, F. A. Bischoff, J. A. Calvin, G. I. Fann, J. Fosso-Tande, D. Galindo, J. R. Ham- mond, R. Hartman-Baker, J. C. Hill,et al., SIAM Jour- nal on Scientific Computing38, S123 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    qpic package: github.com/qpic

  46. [54]

    github:jdelarco98/Quantum_Chemistry_Hybrid_Base

Pith tools

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