Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Self-Refinement of Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo via Non-Orthogonal Configuration Interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AFQMC builds its own trial wavefunction, cutting errors tenfold.

desk verdict A genuinely new method that mines the AFQMC walk for multi-determinant trial states, with credible results on weakly correlated systems, but an untested 100-Cholesky-vector cap on the selection walk and missing code/data leave the generality open. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12765 v1 pith:OONOKQSG submitted 2025-01-22 physics.chem-ph

Zoran Sukurma , Martin Schlipf , Georg Kresse This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords auxiliary-fieldquantumMonteCarlonon-orthogonalconfigurationinteractiontrialwavefunctionrefinementmulti-SlaterdeterminantphaselessapproximationchemicalaccuracyHEATsetstaticcorrelation
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

Phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) is only as accurate as its trial wavefunction, and multi-determinant trial states are normally obtained from expensive external configuration-interaction codes. This paper argues that AFQMC can refine its own trial state: short random walks generate candidate non-orthogonal Slater determinants, and a three-step selection keeps only those that lower the NOCI energy. With 100-200 selected determinants, the method reduces AFQMC errors by up to a factor of ten for second-row atoms, brings the HEAT-set average within chemical accuracy, and cuts the benzene error by 80% while also lowering sampling variance. The remaining failures occur precisely where the random walk misses the relevant determinant manifold, as in N2 dissociation with a spin-contaminated unrestricted walk. If the claim holds, multi-determinant AFQMC becomes practical for weakly correlated molecules without needing an external CI method.

What carries the argument

The central object is the NOCI expansion in non-orthogonal Slater determinants harvested from the AFQMC walk, $|\Phi_{N_d}\rangle = \sum_\alpha c_\alpha \hat{B}(x_\alpha)|\Psi_0\rangle$, where $\hat{B}(x)$ is the imaginary-time propagator (6) applied to a reference determinant. The selection machinery is the triple test: an energy preselection threshold $\lambda$, a metric test using the Hermitian, idempotent projector $\hat{Q} = 1 - \sum_{\alpha\beta}|\Psi_\alpha\rangle S^{-1}_{\alpha\beta}\langle\Psi_\beta|$ to reject determinants nearly parallel to the current space, and an energy test solving a two-configuration variational problem (22) to keep only determinants that change the energy by more than $\varepsilon$. The single parameter $\varepsilon_{\min}$ controls the compactness-versus-accuracy trade-off, with the trial updated epoch by epoch. The claim is that these criteria yield the most compact NOCI expansion: roughly 8 determinants per electron across atoms, CO2, and benzene, versus millions for a CISD expansion.

What would settle it

Run AFQMC/NOCI on stretched N2 (R ≈ 4.2 a0) twice: once with a spin-restricted initial random walk that is forced to explore the RHF-like manifold, and once with the standard spin-contaminated UHF walk. If the restricted walk reproduces the hand-built RHF-UHF accuracy while the standard walk does not, the walker-covering premise is confirmed; if neither reaches FCI accuracy, then the selection criteria themselves are insufficient and the claim that the walk is a complete basis for the ground state fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the AFQMC random walk itself contains the information needed to build an accurate trial state. Treating each walker, at each time step, as a non-orthogonal Slater determinant $|\Psi_\alpha\rangle = \hat{B}(x_\alpha)|\Psi_0\rangle$ (Eqs. 12-13), the algorithm selects determinants that (1) have local energies below $\bar{E}_L - \lambda \sigma_{E_L}$, (2) have small overlap with the current NOCI space through the projector $\hat{Q}$ with metric threshold $\mu$, and (3) lower the variational energy by more than $\varepsilon$ in a two-determinant test. Solving the NOCI equation (14) then fixes the coefficients. Iterating over epochs with decreasing $\varepsilon$ converges the AFQMC/NOCI energy smoothly to the reference; for O2 the error drops to 0.7 mEh with 119 determinants at $\varepsilon_{\min}=10^{-6}$. Across second-row atoms the RMSD falls from 2.7 mEh (HF trial) to 0.2 mEh at $\varepsilon_{\min}=10^{-7}$, the HEAT-set RMSD falls to 1.1 mEh with an average of 194 determinants, and benzene reaches 0.7 mEh error with 214 determinants, an 80% reduction. The same variance reduction makes the added cost sub-linear when targeting fixed statistical errors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the AFQMC random walk, driven by the current trial wavefunction, actually explores every region of determinant space that the exact ground state needs; if the walkers miss a region, the three selection tests can never recover it, which is exactly what happens in the N2 dissociation test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AFQMC/NOCI with 100-200 determinants is within chemical accuracy for weakly correlated molecules including the HEAT set, so multi-determinant AFQMC no longer requires an external CI code.
  • For second-row atoms the RMSD improves by a factor of 10 over AFQMC/HF (2.7 to 0.2 mEh at $\varepsilon_{\min}=10^{-7}$).
  • Sampling variance drops enough that, at fixed statistical error, the wall-time scaling with determinant count is only $N_d^{1/4}$ (benzene: 8x slower with 214 determinants).
  • The remaining errors concentrate in strongly spin-contaminated cases; the N2 curve shows AFQMC/NOCI can be worse than AFQMC/UHF unless the walk explores the relevant (RHF-like) manifold.
  • Benzene's error decreases roughly as $N_d^{-0.6}$, suggesting systematic convergence with more determinants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the walker-exploration premise holds in general, the same self-refinement could be ported to periodic and solid-state AFQMC codes, where external CI trial states are unavailable; the paper hints at this in its conclusion but does not test it.
  • A testable extension is to seed the random walk with both RHF and UHF initial determinants (or multiple symmetry-broken references) so that the selection can explore disconnected manifolds; the N2 failure suggests this could fix spin-contamination errors without hand-built RHF-UHF trials.
  • The observed roughly 8 determinants per electron across systems hints at a system-size scaling that, if confirmed, would make the method competitive with PHMSD approaches that need thousands to millions of determinants; this is the authors' own future-work suggestion, not a demonstrated result.
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 an algorithm for constructing non-orthogonal multi-Slater-determinant (NOCI) trial wave functions for AFQMC by selecting determinants directly from an AFQMC random walk. The selection uses three criteria: low local energy, small overlap with the current trial space, and a variational energy-lowering test. The trial wave functions are refined over several epochs with a decreasing energy threshold epsilon_min. The method is applied to O2 for calibration, then to second-row atoms, the HEAT set, benzene, and N2 dissociation. The authors report systematic convergence in epsilon_min, reductions of AFQMC error by up to a factor of 10 for second-row atoms, average HEAT-set errors within chemical accuracy, an 80% error reduction for benzene with 214 determinants, and a reduction in sampling variance. The N2 dissociation case is reported as a failure mode where the method is worse than AFQMC with a UHF trial.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a practically valuable contribution: it removes the need for an external CI method to generate multi-determinant trial states for weakly correlated AFQMC calculations. The paper has several strengths: the energy test uses a variational NOCI upper bound, so the selection is not circular in a damaging sense; the final AFQMC energies are independent Monte Carlo estimates benchmarked against external FCI and CCSDTQP values; and the N2 failure is honestly reported and analyzed. The main weakness is that the determinant manifold accessible to the selection walk is restricted by an untested truncation to 100 Cholesky vectors, and several selection parameters are calibrated on O2 alone. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the results, but they make the generality of the claims conditional and need to be addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (6)] The random-walk propagator used during selection is restricted to the first 100 Cholesky vectors, and no convergence study with respect to this cutoff is reported. Because the auxiliary-field directions in Eq. (6) define the manifold of Slater determinants the walk can visit, this truncation directly limits the candidate pool available to the three selection tests in Eqs. (18), (20), and (23). The text states that the constraint is "not essential" but provides no comparison with larger cutoffs or with the untruncated propagator. For benzene (108 orbitals) and for the larger HEAT molecules, the full Cholesky rank at the stated 1e-6 threshold is likely much larger than 100. The authors should add a systematic study of this cutoff, for example on O2 and benzene, and either relax the truncation or justify it quantitatively.
  2. [Sec. IV C and Eqs. (12)-(13)] The N2 dissociation results show that the algorithm can produce a trial state worse than the AFQMC/UHF result when the random walk does not explore the RHF-like component of the wave function. Since the selected determinants are drawn from the walk defined by Eqs. (4)-(5), the method can only refine the trial state within the manifold sampled under the current trial. This is a fundamental limitation of the self-refinement idea, not a numerical accident. The paper should state this limitation more prominently in the abstract and conclusion, and should discuss or test possible remedies, such as seeding the walk with multiple initial determinants or using a small ensemble of trial states during selection.
  3. [Table I and Sec. III] The default selection parameters lambda=4.0, mu=0.6, N_w=6400, N_k=100, and tau=0.05 are calibrated on O2. The sensitivity analysis in Figs. 1-3 is performed only for O2. The paper claims that epsilon_min is the only remaining adjustable parameter that determines accuracy, but this is only demonstrated on a single system. The authors should show, for at least one other system such as benzene or a representative HEAT molecule, that the default parameters are not in a sensitive regime, before asserting that the method has a single convergence parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV D] The abstract says a "10-fold increase of the time to solution" for the benzene calculation, but Sec. IV D and Fig. 10 state that the 214-determinant calculation is eight times slower than AFQMC/HF. Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Table III and Conclusion] The conclusion states that "100-200" non-orthogonal Slater determinants achieve chemical accuracy for all weakly correlated systems, but Table III reports an average of 194 and a maximum of 324 determinants at epsilon_min=1e-6, and benzene uses 214 determinants. Please rephrase to "on the order of 100-300 determinants" or quote a more precise statistic.
  3. [Data Availability] The Data Availability section says the data are available "within the article," but the text states that all AFQMC values are provided in the Supporting Information, which is not included here. Please include the raw energy tables or correct the data availability statement.
  4. [Eq. (22)] The quantity E used in Eq. (23) is not defined in Section II B 3; it should be explicitly identified as the current NOCI energy of |Phi_Nd> before adding the candidate determinant.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "Inforamtion," "reamins," and "becuase"; the manuscript should be proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AFQMC/NOCI energies are independent phaseless estimates benchmarked against external references, and the N2 dissociation failure shows the selection does not force the outcome.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The trial wave function is assembled from AFQMC walkers using three tests, the last of which is a variational 2x2 energy test (Eqs. 21-23) that only admits determinants lowering an upper bound to the exact energy. The reported AFQMC/NOCI energies are then obtained from a separate phaseless AFQMC propagation (Eqs. 4-9) with that trial, and are benchmarked against externally computed FCI, CCSDTQP, and DMRG values (Figs. 6-9). The final AFQMC energy is not equal to the NOCI selection energy by construction: the N2 dissociation results (Fig. 8) show AFQMC/NOCI can be worse than AFQMC/UHF even though the NOCI energy is variational, which demonstrates that the selection does not force the reported AFQMC bias. The self-citations (Refs. 23 and 51) provide the QMCFort implementation and the large-time-step propagator; these appear in separate, externally tested publications and do not encode the target NOCI-selection result. The only notable limitation is numerical rather than circular: the propagator used for selection is truncated to the first 100 Cholesky vectors with no convergence study reported, which may cap the candidate determinant manifold, but this is a parameter-sensitivity concern, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm introduces no new physical entities. It does introduce a set of hand-tuned selection parameters (ledger above), calibrated on O2, with epsilon_min as the single accuracy-controlling parameter. The key domain assumption is that the AFQMC walker ensemble adequately samples the determinant space relevant to the ground state; the N2 dissociation benchmark shows this assumption can fail.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda (preselection threshold) = 4.0
    Calibrated on O2 (Fig. 1); small values add determinants without energy gain, large values increase variance. Not fitted to target energies.
  • mu (metric threshold) = 0.6
    Calibrated on O2 (Fig. 2); chosen as compromise against linear-dependency issues and variance.
  • epsilon_max (initial energy threshold) = 1e-4 to 4e-4
    Weak impact on final energy; set large enough to select few determinants in the first epoch.
  • epsilon_min (final energy threshold) = 1e-4 to 1e-7 (varied)
    Main convergence parameter controlling determinant count and accuracy (Fig. 4); a user-chosen tolerance rather than a fit to benchmark results.
  • N_xi (number of epochs) = 10
    Chosen from Fig. 3 as a cost and compactness compromise.
  • N_w, N_k, tau_selection = 6400 walkers, 100 steps, 0.05 Eh^-1
    Fixed selection-walk parameters reported as sufficient in each epoch.
  • Cholesky truncation of auxiliary fields = first 100 Cholesky vectors
    Inspired by Chen et al. (Ref. 55); accelerates selection and yields more compact NOCI wavefunctions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The phaseless AFQMC random walk with a trial wavefunction correctly approximates the many-body ground state energy (Eqs. 1 to 9).
    The method inherits the standard AFQMC framework from Sec. II A; deviations from the exact ground state are what the NOCI refinement is designed to reduce.
  • domain assumption The AFQMC walker ensemble spans the determinant manifold needed to represent the exact ground state (Eq. 12).
    This is the load-bearing coverage assumption for the selection algorithm; the N2 dissociation results show it can fail for spin-contaminated UHF walks.
  • standard math Non-orthogonal Wick's theorem correctly evaluates Hamiltonian and overlap matrix elements between arbitrary Slater determinants (Eqs. 10, 11, and 15).
    Standard result used for local energies and NOCI matrix elements.
  • standard math The generalized eigenvalue problem in Eq. (14) gives an upper bound to the exact ground state energy, so lowering the two-dimensional variational energy in Eq. (22) is a valid selection criterion.
    Used implicitly in the energy test (Eq. 23); standard variational property of NOCI.
  • domain assumption Reference calculations (FCI from Ref. 62, CCSDTQP for HEAT, DMRG from Ref. 62) are accurate enough to serve as benchmarks.
    All error estimates in Sec. IV compare against these literature references.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Refinement of Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo via Non-Orthogonal Configuration Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OONOKQSG

@misc{pith2026250112765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Refinement of Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo via Non-Orthogonal Configuration Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OONOKQSG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12765}
}
read the original abstract

For optimal accuracy, auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) requires trial states consisting of multiple Slater determinants. We develop an efficient algorithm to select the determinants from an AFQMC random walk eliminating the need for other methods. When determinants contribute significantly to the non-orthogonal configuration interaction energy, we include them in the trial state. These refined trial wave functions significantly reduce the phaseless bias and sampling variance of the local energy estimator. With 100 to 200 determinants, we lower the error of AFQMC by up to a factor of 10 for second row elements that are not accurately described with a Hartree-Fock trial wave function. For the HEAT set, we improve the average error to within the chemical accuracy. For benzene, the largest studied system, we reduce AFQMC error by 80% with 214 Slater determinants and find a 10-fold increase of the time to solution. We show that the remaining error of the method prevails in systems with static correlation or strong spin contamination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12765 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. AFQMC/NOCI energy (blue dots) does not depend strongly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. AFQMC/NOCI energy (blue dots) depends weakly on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. AFQMC/NOCI energy does not depend on the randomness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. AFQMC/NOCI energy (blue dots) converges toward the ref [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. For second-row atoms, AFQMC/NOCI energies converge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. For HEAT set molecules, AFQMC/NOCI energies converge toward the CCSDTQP values as we tighten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. CCSD(T) energies and AFQMC energies with different trial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The AFQMC/NOCI walltime for a fixed number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The AFQMC/NOCI error decreases approximately as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method with seniority-zero trial wave function

    physics.chem-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DOCI-based trial wave functions in ph-AFQMC match expensive CAS-based trials for single-bond breaking but underperform for strongly correlated systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    Benali , author H

    author author A. Benali , author H. Shin , \ and\ author O. Heinonen ,\ 10.1063/5.0026275 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 153 ,\ pages 194113 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0026275 2020

  3. [3]

    author author Y. S. \ Al-Hamdani , author P. R. \ Nagy , author A. Zen , author D. Barton , author M. Kállay , author J. G. \ Brandenburg , \ and\ author A. Tkatchenko ,\ 10.1038/s41467-021-24119-3 journal journal Nat. Commun. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 3927 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24119-3

  4. [4]

    Schäfer , author A

    author author T. Schäfer , author A. Irmler , author A. Gallo , \ and\ author A. Grüneis ,\ @noop title Understanding discrepancies of wavefunction theories for large molecules , \ ( year 2024 ),\ note arXiv:physics.chem-ph/2407.01442. arXiv.org ePrint archive. url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01442 (accessed Oct 06, 2024) NoStop

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    C \' z ek ,\ 10.1063/1.1727484 journal journal J

    author author J. C \' z ek ,\ 10.1063/1.1727484 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 45 ,\ pages 4256 ( year 1966 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.1727484 1966

  6. [6]

    C \' z ek \ and\ author J

    author author J. C \' z ek \ and\ author J. Paldus ,\ 10.1002/qua.560050402 journal journal Int. J. Quant. Chem. \ volume 5 ,\ pages 359 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1002/qua.560050402 1971

  7. [7]

    author author J. B. \ Anderson ,\ 10.1063/1.441022 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 65 ,\ pages 4121 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.441022 1976

  8. [8]

    Ceperley , author G

    author author D. Ceperley , author G. Chester , \ and\ author M. Kalos ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.16.3081 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 16 ,\ pages 3081 ( year 1977 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.16.3081 1977

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Foulkes , author L

    author author W. Foulkes , author L. Mitas , author R. Needs , \ and\ author G. Rajagopal ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.33 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 73 ,\ pages 33 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    afer , \ and\ author A. Gr\

    author author N. Masios , author A. Irmler , author T. Sch\"afer , \ and\ author A. Gr\"uneis ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.186401 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 131 ,\ pages 186401 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Zhang \ and\ author H

    author author S. Zhang \ and\ author H. Krakauer ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.136401 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 90 ,\ pages 136401 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    Motta \ and\ author S

    author author M. Motta \ and\ author S. Zhang ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1364 journal journal WIRES Comput. Mol. Sci. \ volume 8 ,\ pages e1364 ( year 2018 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wcms.1364 https://wires.onlinelibrar...

    2018 doi

  5. [14]

    Purwanto , author H

    author author W. Purwanto , author H. Krakauer , author Y. Virgus , \ and\ author S. Zhang ,\ 10.1063/1.3654002 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 135 ,\ pages 164105 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  6. [15]

    Virgus , author W

    author author Y. Virgus , author W. Purwanto , author H. Krakauer , \ and\ author S. Zhang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.241406 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 86 ,\ pages 241406 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  7. [16]

    Purwanto , author S

    author author W. Purwanto , author S. Zhang , \ and\ author H. Krakauer ,\ 10.1063/1.4906829 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 142 ,\ pages 064302 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    Motta , author D

    author author M. Motta , author D. M. \ Ceperley , author G. K.-L. \ Chan , author J. A. \ Gomez , author E. Gull , author S. Guo , author C. A. \ Jim\'enez-Hoyos , author T. N. \ Lan , author J. Li , author F. Ma , \ and\ author et al. ( collaboration Simons Collaboration on ...

    doi

  9. [18]

    Motta , author J

    author author M. Motta , author J. Shee , author S. Zhang , \ and\ author G. K.-L. \ Chan ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00996 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 15 ,\ pages 3510 ( year 2019 b ) ,\ note pMID: 31091103 NoStop

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    Shee , author B

    author author J. Shee , author B. Rudshteyn , author E. J. \ Arthur , author S. Zhang , author D. R. \ Reichman , \ and\ author R. A. \ Friesner ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00083 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 15 ,\ pages 2346 ( year 2019 ) ,\ note pMID: 30883110 NoStop

    doi

  11. [20]

    Lee , author F

    author author J. Lee , author F. D. \ Malone , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ 10.1063/5.0024835 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 153 ,\ pages 126101 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    Lee , author F

    author author J. Lee , author F. D. \ Malone , \ and\ author M. A. \ Morales ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00055 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 16 ,\ pages 3019 ( year 2020 ) ,\ note pMID: 32283932 NoStop

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    Rudshteyn , author J

    author author B. Rudshteyn , author J. L. \ Weber , author D. Coskun , author P. A. \ Devlaminck , author S. Zhang , author D. R. \ Reichman , author J. Shee , \ and\ author R. A. \ Friesner ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c01071 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 18 ,\ pag...

    doi

  14. [23]

    Lee , author H

    author author J. Lee , author H. Q. \ Pham , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00802 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 18 ,\ pages 7024 ( year 2022 ) ,\ note pMID: 36255074 ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00802 https...

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    Sukurma , author M

    author author Z. Sukurma , author M. Schlipf , author M. Humer , author A. Taheridehkordi , \ and\ author G. Kresse ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00322 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 19 ,\ pages 4921 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Taheridehkordi , author M

    author author A. Taheridehkordi , author M. Schlipf , author Z. Sukurma , author M. Humer , author A. Grüneis , \ and\ author G. Kresse ,\ 10.1063/5.0156657 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 159 ,\ pages 044109 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi

  17. [26]

    Wei , author S

    author author Y. Wei , author S. Debnath , author J. L. \ Weber , author A. Mahajan , author D. R. \ Reichman , \ and\ author R. A. \ Friesner ,\ 10.1021/acs.jpca.4c02853 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 128 ,\ pages 5796 ( year 2024 ) ,\ note pMID: 38970826 NoStop

    doi

  18. [27]

    Mahajan , author J

    author author A. Mahajan , author J. H. \ Thorpe , author J. S. \ Kurian , author D. R. \ Reichman , author D. A. \ Matthews , \ and\ author S. Sharma ,\ @noop title Beyond ccsd(t) accuracy at lower scaling with auxiliary field quantum monte carlo , \ ( year 2024 ),\ note arXi...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    author author J. L. \ Weber , author H. Vuong , author R. A. \ Friesner , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00654 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 19 ,\ pages 7567 ( year 2023 ) ,\ note pMID: 37889331 NoStop

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    \ Xiao , author H

    author author Z.-Y. \ Xiao , author H. Shi , \ and\ author S. Zhang ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00521 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 19 ,\ pages 6782 ( year 2023 ) ,\ note pMID: 37661928 NoStop

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    Shee , author E

    author author J. Shee , author E. J. \ Arthur , author S. Zhang , author D. R. \ Reichman , \ and\ author R. A. \ Friesner ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00342 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 4109 ( year 2018 ) ,\ note pMID: 29897748 NoStop

    doi

  22. [31]

    Mahajan \ and\ author S

    author author A. Mahajan \ and\ author S. Sharma ,\ 10.1063/5.0025055 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 153 ,\ pages 194108 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    Shi \ and\ author S

    author author H. Shi \ and\ author S. Zhang ,\ 10.1063/5.0031024 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 154 ,\ pages 024107 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Mahajan \ and\ author S

    author author A. Mahajan \ and\ author S. Sharma ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00371 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 17 ,\ pages 4786 ( year 2021 ) ,\ note pMID: 34232637 NoStop

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    Mahajan , author J

    author author A. Mahajan , author J. Lee , \ and\ author S. Sharma ,\ 10.1063/5.0087047 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 156 ,\ pages 174111 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    author author G. H. \ Golub \ and\ author C. F. \ Van Loan ,\ @noop title Matrix Computations ,\ edition 3rd \ ed.\ ( publisher The Johns Hopkins University Press ,\ year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  27. [36]

    Shavitt \ and\ author R

    author author I. Shavitt \ and\ author R. J. \ Bartlett ,\ @noop title Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory ,\ Cambridge Molecular Science\ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  28. [37]

    author author E. J. \ Landinez Borda , author J. Gomez , \ and\ author M. A. \ Morales ,\ 10.1063/1.5049143 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 150 ,\ pages 074105 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    Schmid , author Zheng Ren-Rong , author F

    author author K. Schmid , author Zheng Ren-Rong , author F. Grümmer , \ and\ author A. Faessler ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(89)90269-8 journal journal Nucl. Phys. A \ volume 499 ,\ pages 63 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989 doi

  30. [39]

    Schmid ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2004.02.001 journal journal Prog

    author author K. Schmid ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2004.02.001 journal journal Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. \ volume 52 ,\ pages 565 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  31. [40]

    author author C. A. \ Jiménez-Hoyos , author R. Rodríguez-Guzmán , \ and\ author G. E. \ Scuseria ,\ 10.1063/1.4832476 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 139 ,\ pages 204102 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    Fukutome ,\ 10.1143/PTP.80.417 journal journal Prog

    author author H. Fukutome ,\ 10.1143/PTP.80.417 journal journal Prog. Theor. Phys. \ volume 80 ,\ pages 417 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

    1988 doi

  33. [42]

    Ikawa , author S

    author author A. Ikawa , author S. Yamamoto , \ and\ author H. Fukutome ,\ 10.1143/JPSJ.62.1653 journal journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn \ volume 62 ,\ pages 1653 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  34. [43]

    Danilov , author B

    author author D. Danilov , author B. Ganoe , author M. Munyi , \ and\ author J. Shee ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01251 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 0 ,\ pages null ( year 0 ) ,\ note pMID: 39817358 NoStop

    doi

  35. [44]

    Jiang , author B

    author author T. Jiang , author B. O'Gorman , author A. Mahajan , \ and\ author J. Lee ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013038 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 013038 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    author author W. J. \ Huggins , author B. A. \ O'Gorman , author N. C. \ Rubin , author D. R. \ Reichman , author R. Babbush , \ and\ author J. Lee ,\ 10.1038/s41586-021-04351-z journal journal Nature \ volume 603 ,\ pages 416 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi

  37. [46]

    Amsler , author P

    author author M. Amsler , author P. Deglmann , author M. Degroote , author M. P. \ Kaicher , author M. Kiser , author M. Kühn , author C. Kumar , author A. Maier , author G. Samsonidze , author A. Schroeder , author M. Streif , author D. Vodola , author C. Wever , \ and\ autho...

    doi

  38. [47]

    Kiser , author A

    author author M. Kiser , author A. Schroeder , author G.-L. R. \ Anselmetti , author C. Kumar , author N. Moll , author M. Streif , \ and\ author D. Vodola ,\ 10.1088/1367-2630/ad2f67 journal journal New J. Phys. \ volume 26 ,\ pages 033022 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi

  39. [48]

    Kiser , author M

    author author M. Kiser , author M. Beuerle , \ and\ author F. S. I. \ au2 ,\ @noop title Contextual subspace auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo: Improved bias with reduced quantum resources , \ ( year 2024 ),\ note arXiv:physics.quant-ph/2408.06160. arXiv.org ePrint archive. ...

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Trotter ,\ @noop journal journal Proc

    author author H. Trotter ,\ @noop journal journal Proc. Am. Math. Soc. \ volume 10 ,\ pages 545 ( year 1959 ) NoStop

    1959

  41. [50]

    Stratonovich ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Sov

    author author R. Stratonovich ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Sov. Phys. Dokl. ,\ Vol. volume 2 \ ( year 1957 )\ p.\ pages 416 NoStop

    1957

  42. [51]

    Hubbard ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.77 journal journal Phys

    author author J. Hubbard ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.77 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 77 ( year 1959 ) NoStop

    1959 doi

  43. [52]

    Sukurma , author M

    author author Z. Sukurma , author M. Schlipf , author M. Humer , author A. Taheridehkordi , \ and\ author G. Kresse ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00304 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 20 ,\ pages 4205 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    Balian \ and\ author E

    author author R. Balian \ and\ author E. Brezin ,\ 10.1007/BF02710281 journal journal Nuovo Cimento B \ volume 64 ,\ pages 37 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969 doi

  45. [54]

    Dutta , author G

    author author R. Dutta , author G. P. \ Chen , author T. M. \ Henderson , \ and\ author G. E. \ Scuseria ,\ 10.1063/5.0045006 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 154 ,\ pages 114112 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    Sun , author F

    author author C. Sun , author F. Gao , \ and\ author G. E. \ Scuseria ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00240 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 20 ,\ pages 3741 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    Chen , author L

    author author Y. Chen , author L. Zhang , author W. E , \ and\ author R. Car ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00038 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 19 ,\ pages 4484 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    Tajti , author P

    author author A. Tajti , author P. G. \ Szalay , author A. G. \ Császár , author M. Kállay , author J. Gauss , author E. F. \ Valeev , author B. A. \ Flowers , author J. Vázquez , \ and\ author J. F. \ Stanton ,\ 10.1063/1.1811608 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 121 ,\...

    doi

  49. [58]

    author author Y. J. \ Bomble , author J. F. \ Stanton , author M. Kállay , \ and\ author J. Gauss ,\ 10.1063/1.1950567 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 123 ,\ pages 054101 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  50. [59]

    author author J. J. \ Eriksen , author T. A. \ Anderson , author J. E. \ Deustua , author K. Ghanem , author D. Hait , author M. R. \ Hoffmann , author S. Lee , author D. S. \ Levine , author I. Magoulas , author J. Shen , \ and\ author et al. ,\ 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c02621 jo...

    doi

  51. [60]

    author author N. H. F. \ Beebe \ and\ author J. Linderberg ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560120408 journal journal Int. J. Quantum Chem. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 683 ( year 1977 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qua.560120408 https://online...

    1977 doi

  52. [61]

    Koch , author A

    author author H. Koch , author A. Sánchez de Merás , \ and\ author T. B. \ Pedersen ,\ 10.1063/1.1578621 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 9481 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  53. [62]

    Aquilante , author L

    author author F. Aquilante , author L. De Vico , author N. Ferré , author G. Ghigo , author P.-a. \ Malmqvist , author P. Neogrády , author T. B. \ Pedersen , author M. Pitoňák , author M. Reiher , author B. O. \ Roos , author L. Serrano-Andrés , author M. Urban , author V. Ve...

    doi

  54. [63]

    author author G. K.-L. \ Chan , author M. Kállay , \ and\ author J. Gauss ,\ 10.1063/1.1783212 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 121 ,\ pages 6110 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.