Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 106 references

Closed-Form Expressions for Unitaries of Spin-Adapted Fermionic Operators

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives exact closed-form expressions for unitaries generated by singlet spin-adapted generalized single and double excitations, so spin-symmetry-preserving operators can be implemented without Trotterization error.

desk verdict A solid, honest paper that derives exact polynomial exponentials for spin-adapted double excitations, but the headline formulas are already in a concurrent arXiv preprint the authors cite, so the real value is in the Trotter-failure analysis and the explicit LCU route. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02984 v1 pith:H23IQST4 submitted 2025-05-05 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Ilias Magoulas , Francesco A. Evangelista This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph MSC 81P6815A1681V55
keywords spin-adaptedfermionicoperatorsclosed-formunitarytotalspinsymmetryvariationalquantumeigensolverTrotter–Suzukidecompositionalmostperiodicfunctionslinearcombinationofunitarieschemistrysimulation
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 sets out to show that unitaries generated by singlet spin-adapted fermionic excitation operators—the symmetry-preserving building blocks of variational quantum eigensolvers—have exact closed-form expressions rather than only approximate Trotter decompositions. For the simplest nontrivial double excitation, the unitary $e^{\theta A}$ equals a quartic polynomial in the generator $A$ with trigonometric coefficients (Eq. 35); analogous polynomials are given for intermediate-singlet and intermediate-triplet double excitations. This matters because naive Trotterization of spin-adapted operators breaks the total-spin quantum number $S^2$, leading to variational collapse toward wrong spin states. The closed forms enable exact hardware implementation via linear combinations of unitaries and explain why finite product formulas fail: the exact unitaries are almost periodic functions of the parameter $\theta$, while Trotter approximants are not flexible enough to reproduce that behavior.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin-adapted anti-Hermitian generator $A$—an operator with $A^\dagger = -A$, built from spin-orbital excitations via Clebsch–Gordan coupling to a singlet, so that its exponential is unitary and preserves total spin. The machinery that carries the argument is finite-algebra saturation: the powers $A^k$ generate only finitely many distinct fermionic operators, so the infinite Taylor series for $e^{\theta A}$ collapses to a finite linear combination of $I, A, A^2, \ldots, A^n$. Saturation at $A^4$ for $A_{QR}^{PP}$, at $A^8$ for ${}^{[0]}A_{RS}^{PQ}$, and at $A^{10}$ for ${}^{[1]}A_{RS}^{PQ}$ is what permits the exact closed forms; the coefficients are trigonometric functions of $\theta$ with incommensurate periods, which is also what makes the unitaries almost periodic rather than periodic.

What would settle it

Compute the 6-spatial-orbital Fock-space matrix of $A^{3,5}_{1,1}$, evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. (35) at $\theta=\pi/\sqrt{2}$, and compare it with the exact matrix exponential obtained by diagonalization; any deviation above machine precision, or any generic orbital set for which $A^5$ is linearly independent of $\{I,A,A^2,A^3,A^4\}$, would disprove the claimed closed form.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the exponential of a singlet spin-adapted generalized double-excitation anti-Hermitian operator closes as a finite polynomial in the generator itself. For the repeated-index case, $$$e^{{\theta A_{QR}}$^{PP}} = I + \left(2\sqrt{2}\sin\frac{\$\theta$}{\sqrt{2}}-\sin\$\theta$\right)A + \left(\cos\$\theta$-4\cos\frac{\$\theta$}{\sqrt{2}}+3\right)$A^{2}$ - 2\left(\sin\$\theta$-\sqrt{2}\sin\frac{\$\theta$}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$A^{3}$ + 2\left(\cos\$\theta$-2\cos\frac{\$\theta$}{\sqrt{2}}+1\right)$A^{4}$.$$ This collapse happens because the powers of the generator span a finite-dimensional operator algebra that saturates at the fourth power, so all higher powers are linear combinations of lower ones. The same strategy yields closed-form polynomials through the eighth power for intermediate-singlet double excitations and through the tenth power for intermediate-triplet ones. The paper verifies every expression numerically and reports that an independent concurrent derivation obtained identical formulas.

Load-bearing premise

The formulas stand or fall on the claim that powers of each spin-adapted generator stop producing new operator types at the fourth (or eighth, or tenth) power; the paper verifies this closure with symbolic computation and numerical checks, but it does not print a proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin-adapted double-excitation unitaries can be implemented exactly on quantum hardware as a linear combination of unitaries (LCU), eliminating Trotterization error and the associated breakdown of $S^2$ symmetry.
  • In adaptive variational quantum eigensolver simulations of H$_6$/STO-6G, the singlet spin-adapted pool reaches the full configuration interaction energy with 91 parameters versus 199 for the ordinary generalized singles and doubles pool, achieving chemical accuracy with fewer than half the parameters.
  • Every finite-order Trotter–Suzuki approximation of these unitaries introduces triplet and quintet spin components and is exactly equal to the target only at trivial values of the parameter, so exact closed forms are necessary for reliable spin-preserving simulation at large amplitudes.
  • The closed-form expressions give an analytical proof that spin-adapted unitaries are almost periodic functions of their parameters, explaining the oscillatory divergence of Trotter error seen numerically.
  • Identical formulas were derived independently in concurrent work, providing an external check on the finite-algebra saturation result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same finite-algebra saturation mechanism plausibly extends to higher excitation ranks or to explicit triplet-adapted generators, with the polynomial degree set by the number of incommensurate frequencies in the generated algebra; this extension is conjectural, not claimed by the paper.
  • Because the closed forms are explicit polynomials in $A$, analytical gradients of the unitary with respect to the amplitude $\theta$ become straightforward to derive, which could speed up classical parameter optimization in variational algorithms.
  • A direct next test would be to compile Eq. (35) into an LCU circuit on a small quantum device and compare the resulting state overlap against a fourth-order Trotter circuit at large $\theta$; the closed form should remain accurate where Trotter error grows.
  • The proven failure of Trotterization at larger amplitudes suggests adaptive algorithms using spin-adapted pools should either keep amplitudes small or switch to LCU-based subroutines when variational optimization drives amplitudes up.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies unitaries exp(theta A) generated by singlet spin-adapted fermionic excitation operators. It shows that finite-order Trotter-Suzuki decompositions of these unitaries break S2 symmetry and are accurate only for small theta, establishes that the exact unitaries are almost periodic rather than periodic, and derives closed-form polynomial expressions for the exact unitaries: Eq. (35) for the repeated-index operator A_QR_PP (degree 4), Eq. (D1) for the intermediate-singlet double excitation [0]A_RS_PQ (degree 8), and Eq. (D2) for the intermediate-triplet double excitation [1]A_RS_PQ (degree 10). It also provides spinorbital and spin-adapted operator forms, analyzes why product formulas are inadequate, and sketches an LCU-based implementation route.

Significance. If correct, the closed-form expressions are a significant advance: they provide Trotter-error-free, spin-symmetry-preserving implementations of spin-adapted double-excitation unitaries, which are central to spin-adapted ADAPT-VQE and related ansaetze, and they explain quantitatively why product formulas fail. The paper is honest about its computational derivation and notes independent concurrent confirmation in Ref. [61], which materially lowers the risk of a subtle algebraic error. The explicit formulas are concrete enough to be checked, and the small-theta consistency of the coefficients is reassuring. The main weakness is that the crucial finite-algebra truncation is asserted rather than proved or made fully auditable.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (35)] The central claim that exp(theta A_QR_PP) is exactly the degree-4 polynomial in Eq. (35) rests on the assertion in Section III.C that powers of the generator close on a finite algebra. The paper states that this closure was discovered with Sympy/Mathematica and that higher powers simply result in the same sets of operators, but it does not print the closure identities or provide the script used to establish them. Concretely, Eq. (35) is exact only if A^5 is in the span of {I, A, A^2, A^3, A^4}; without an explicit relation such as A^5 = -1/2 A - 3/2 A^3 (the minimal-polynomial relation consistent with the eigenvalues +/- i and +/- i/sqrt(2)), or a reproducible symbolic verification, the reader cannot audit the saturation degree. Please state the closure relations for A_QR_PP, [0]A_RS_PQ, and [1]A_RS_PQ explicitly, or include the verification script/notebook.
  2. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D1)-(D2)] The degree-8 and degree-10 formulas in Eqs. (D1) and (D2) are asserted after thorough numerical verification, but no verification details are reported: the reader is not told which index cases (e.g., fully distinct P,Q,R,S versus cases with P=Q or R=S), which Fock-space sizes, which theta ranges, or which error norm were used. The only numerical example shown in the main text is the single instance A^35_11 in Figs. 3-4. Please include the verification data or the Jupyter notebook output for D1 and D2, and explicitly state the domain of validity of each formula with respect to repeated indices.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figs. 3-4] Figures 3-4 use the notation A3 5 1 1 in the captions while the text uses A^35_11; please unify the notation.
  2. [§III.C] Section III.C mentions custom Sympy and Mathematica tools but gives no version numbers or artifact link; a brief data-availability statement would help reproducibility.
  3. [Eq. (30)] Eq. (30) writes the nested commutators as [[Y,[Y,X,Y]]]+[X,[X,Y]], which is nonstandard and likely contains a typo; please rewrite the Zassenhaus exponent in conventional notation or define the bracket convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the closed-form unitaries are obtained by direct algebraic derivation from the defined spin-adapted generators, with independent external confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's central results, Eqs. (35), (D1), and (D2), express exp(theta A) as finite polynomials in the anti-Hermitian generator A. These expressions are derived by Taylor expansion and the stated finite closure of the operator algebra generated by powers of A, with the closure discovered and checked by symbolic computation and numerical verification. No parameter is fitted to any dataset, no target quantity is built into the definition of the generators, and no conclusion is assumed as an input. The finite-algebra closure is a mathematical claim about the generators defined in Eqs. (16)-(18), and the printed consistency checks (e.g., the A^{35}_{11} example and the small-theta coefficient checks) are direct verification rather than circular reasoning. The concurrent independent derivation by Kjellgren et al. (Ref. 61), explicitly reported as yielding identical expressions, provides an external benchmark that further rules out any hidden dependence on the present authors' own assumptions. The cited self-references (Refs. 38, 48, 78) concern standard context (PQE, GSD universality, qubit-excitation formalisms) and are not load-bearing for the closed-form derivation. The lack of a printed proof or publicly available scripts for every symbolic step is a reproducibility and auditability concern, not circularity, because the derivation does not rely on the paper's own prior results or on fitting. Accordingly, no circular steps are identified and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central derivation introduces no free parameters and no new physical entities. It relies on standard fermionic algebra, finite-dimensional Fock-space closure, and the established Clebsch-Gordan construction of spin-adapted operators. The main non-printed ingredient is the computational algebra exploration used to find and simplify the polynomial coefficients, which is mitigated by numerical verification and independent concurrent agreement.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Anticommutation relations of fermionic creation and annihilation operators and the standard second-quantized algebra.
    Used throughout Sections II and III to define the A operators and to expand their powers.
  • standard math In a finite Fock space, powers of a fixed fermionic operator eventually close on a finite-dimensional operator algebra.
    Section III C relies on generating a finite algebra to express exponentials as finite linear combinations of operator powers.
  • domain assumption Clebsch-Gordan coupling of spins produces orthogonally spin-adapted singlet double excitation operators.
    Equations (10) to (13) import the standard coupled-cluster construction of spin-adapted operators whose exponentials are derived.
  • standard math Anti-Hermitian generators exponentiate to unitaries, and for such generators a unitary is periodic only if ratios of nonzero eigenvalues are rational.
    Appendix C derives the periodicity test used in Section III B.
  • domain assumption The target setting is a non-relativistic molecular Hamiltonian that conserves S squared.
    This motivates the spin-adapted operator pool in Section II; relativistic corrections would alter the scope of the claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Closed-Form Expressions for Unitaries of Spin-Adapted Fermionic Operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H23IQST4

@misc{pith2026250502984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Closed-Form Expressions for Unitaries of Spin-Adapted Fermionic Operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H23IQST4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02984}
}
read the original abstract

One of the open challenges in quantum computing simulations of problems of chemical interest is the proper enforcement of spin symmetry. Efficient quantum circuits implementing unitaries generated by spin-adapted operators remain elusive, while na\"ive Trotterization schemes break spin symmetry. In this work, we analyze the mathematical structure of spin-adapted operators and derive closed-form expressions for unitaries generated by singlet spin-adapted generalized single and double excitations. These results represent significant progress toward the economical enforcement of spin symmetry in quantum simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Errors relative to FCI characterizing the ADAPT-VQE-GSD and ADAPT-VQE-saGSD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of crossing between singlet (blue) and triplet (red) eigenvectors (solid lines). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The Frobenius norm of the difference between the exact unitary exp( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The Frobenius norm of the difference between the identity matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The Frobenius norm of the difference between the exact unitary exp( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Feynman, Int

    R.P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467–488 (1982)

    1982

  2. [61]

    Tsuchimochi, M

    T. Tsuchimochi, M. Taii, T. Nishimaki and S.L. Ten-no, Phys. Rev. Research4, 033100 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    A quick inspection of Eq

    to be singlet spin-adapted, the offending terms must vanish. A quick inspection of Eq. (29) immediately reveals that this occurs for θ = k2 √ 2π, k∈ Z. This analytical result is in complete agreement with our numerical observations, as shown in panel (b) of Fig. 5 and in the Supplemental Material. However, as already noted above, for these values of θ, th...

  4. [3]

    Furthermore, the trigonometric functions multiplying the various operators become increasingly more complex

    involve additional terms, some of which are singlet spin-adapted and some that are not. Furthermore, the trigonometric functions multiplying the various operators become increasingly more complex. 15 B. Periodicity The mathematical properties of exponentials of spin-adapted operators can shed ad- ditional light into why it is challenging to find efficient...

  5. [4]

    This analytic approach also proves that indeed the matrix exponential exp(θA3 5 1 1) is not periodic. A proof that does not rely on the representation of unitaries generated by singlet spin- adapted operators in a finite basis is provided in the next section, where we examine their exact, closed-form expressions. The lack of periodicity and the possibilit...

  6. [5]

    perfect-pairing

    + 1 ¯nP↑P↓nQ↑Q↓R↑R↓ + ¯nQ↑Q↓R↑R↓nP↑P↓ +1 2 (¯nP↑P↓ +nP↑P↓) ¯nQ↑R↓nQ↓R↑ + ¯nQ↓R↑nQ↑R↓−aQ↓R↑ Q↑R↓−aQ↑R↓ Q↓R↑ , (31) while the closed-form expressions for the unitaries generated by the more complex spin- adapted double excitations can be found in the Supplemental Material. As might have been anticipated, the various terms in Eq. (31) can be partitioned into...

  7. [6]

    + 3 AQR PP 2 − 2 sin (θ)− √ 2 sin θ√ 2 AQR PP 3 + 2 cos(θ)− 2 cos( θ√

  8. [7]

    + 1 AQR PP 4 , (35) which is the complete analog to the well-known formula for spinorbital operators, shown in Eq. (28). The form of Eq. (35) can be rationalized by considering the powers of AQR PP and the algebras that they generate. As it turns out, the third and fourth powers of AQR PP already span the algebra associated with the anti-Hermitian and Her...

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing 40 Years Later 2021, arXiv:2106.10522v2

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing 40 Years Later 2021, arXiv:2106.10522v2. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10522v2. 22

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Campbell, B.M

    E.T. Campbell, B.M. Terhal and C. Vuillot, Nature 549, 172–179 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Kitaev, Quantum Measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem 1995, arXiv:quant- ph/9511026

    A.Y. Kitaev, Quantum Measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem 1995, arXiv:quant- ph/9511026. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511026

    1995

  5. [12]

    S. Lee, J. Lee, H. Zhai, Y. Tong, A.M. Dalzell, A. Kumar, P. Helms, J. Gray, Z.H. Cui, W. Liu, M. Kastoryano, R. Babbush, J. Preskill, D.R. Reichman, E.T. Campbell, E.F. Valeev, L. Lin and G.K.L. Chan, Nat. Commun. 14, 1952 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Bravyi, A.W

    S. Bravyi, A.W. Cross, J.M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall and T.J. Yoder, Nature 627, 778–782 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Haroche and J.M

    S. Haroche and J.M. Raimond, Phys. Today 49, 51–52 (1996)

    1996

  8. [15]

    Katabarwa, K

    A. Katabarwa, K. Gratsea, A. Caesura and P.D. Johnson, PRX Quantum 5, 020101 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Sun, H. Lin, Y. Huang, D. Lv and X. Yuan, Fault-Tolerant Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Molecular Systems: A Survey 2025, arXiv:2502.02139. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02139

    2025

  10. [17]

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S.C. Benjamin and X. Yuan, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 032001 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Callison and N

    A. Callison and N. Chancellor, Phys. Rev. A 106, 010101 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J.M. Chow and J.M. Gambetta, Nature 549, 242–246 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Kutzelnigg, in Methods of Electronic Structure Theory , edited by H

    W. Kutzelnigg, in Methods of Electronic Structure Theory , edited by H. F. Schaefer, III (Springer, Boston, 1977), pp. 129–188

    1977

  14. [21]

    Kutzelnigg, J

    W. Kutzelnigg, J. Chem. Phys. 77, 3081–3097 (1982)

    1982

  15. [22]

    Kutzelnigg and S

    W. Kutzelnigg and S. Koch, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 4315–4335 (1983)

    1983

  16. [23]

    Kutzelnigg, J

    W. Kutzelnigg, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 822–830 (1984)

    1984

  17. [24]

    Bartlett, S.A

    R.J. Bartlett, S.A. Kucharski and J. Noga, Chem. Phys. Lett. 155, 133–140 (1989)

    1989

  18. [25]

    Szalay, M

    P.G. Szalay, M. Nooijen and R.J. Bartlett, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 281–298 (1995)

    1995

  19. [26]

    Taube and R.J

    A.G. Taube and R.J. Bartlett, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 106, 3393–3401 (2006)

    2006

  20. [27]

    Cooper and P.J

    B. Cooper and P.J. Knowles, J. Chem. Phys. 133, 234102 (2010)

    2010

  21. [28]

    Evangelista, J

    F.A. Evangelista, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 224102 (2011)

    2011

  22. [29]

    Harsha, T

    G. Harsha, T. Shiozaki and G.E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 044107 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Filip and A.J.W

    M.A. Filip and A.J.W. Thom, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 214106 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Freericks, Symmetry 14, 494 (2022)

    J.K. Freericks, Symmetry 14, 494 (2022). 23

    2022

  25. [32]

    Anand, P

    A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P.W.K. Jensen, S. Sim, M. D´ ıaz-Tinoco, J.S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A.F. Izmaylov and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chem. Soc. Rev. 51, 1659–1684 (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    Coester, Nucl

    F. Coester, Nucl. Phys. 7, 421–424 (1958)

    1958

  27. [34]

    Coester and H

    F. Coester and H. K¨ ummel, Nucl. Phys. 17, 477–485 (1960)

    1960

  28. [35]

    ˇC´ ıˇ zek, J

    J. ˇC´ ıˇ zek, J. Chem. Phys.45, 4256–4266 (1966)

    1966

  29. [36]

    ˇC´ ıˇ zek, Adv

    J. ˇC´ ıˇ zek, Adv. Chem. Phys.14, 35–89 (1969)

    1969

  30. [37]

    ˇC´ ıˇ zek and J

    J. ˇC´ ıˇ zek and J. Paldus, Int. J. Quantum Chem.5, 359–379 (1971)

    1971

  31. [38]

    Paldus, J

    J. Paldus, J. ˇC´ ıˇ zek and I. Shavitt, Phys. Rev. A5, 50–67 (1972)

    1972

  32. [39]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.H. Yung, X.Q. Zhou, P.J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik and J.L. O’Brien, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  33. [40]

    McClean, J

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

    2016

  34. [41]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S.C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J.R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio and P.J. Coles, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625–644 (2021)

    2021

  35. [42]

    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, Phys. Rep. 986, 1–128 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    Fedorov, B

    D.A. Fedorov, B. Peng, N. Govind and Y. Alexeev, Mater. Theory 6, 2 (2022)

    2022

  37. [44]

    Stair and F.A

    N.H. Stair and F.A. Evangelista, PRX Quantum 2, 030301 (2021)

    2021

  38. [45]

    Smart and D.A

    S.E. Smart and D.A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 070504 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    Whitten and M

    J.L. Whitten and M. Hackmeyer, J. Chem. Phys. 51, 5584–5596 (1969)

    1969

  40. [47]

    Bender and E.R

    C.F. Bender and E.R. Davidson, Phys. Rev. 183, 23–30 (1969)

    1969

  41. [48]

    Huron, J.P

    B. Huron, J.P. Malrieu and P. Rancurel, J. Chem. Phys. 58, 5745–5759 (1973)

    1973

  42. [49]

    Buenker and S.D

    R.J. Buenker and S.D. Peyerimhoff, Theor. Chim. Acta 35, 33–58 (1974)

    1974

  43. [50]

    Grimsley, S.E

    H.R. Grimsley, S.E. Economou, E. Barnes and N.J. Mayhall, Nat Commun. 10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  44. [51]

    Ryabinkin, R.A

    I.G. Ryabinkin, R.A. Lang, S.N. Genin and A.F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 1055–1063 (2020)

    2020

  45. [52]

    Nooijen, Phys

    M. Nooijen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2108–2111 (2000)

    2000

  46. [53]

    Nakatsuji, J

    H. Nakatsuji, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 2949–2956 (2000)

    2000

  47. [54]

    Evangelista, G.K.L

    F.A. Evangelista, G.K.L. Chan and G.E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 151, 244112 (2019)

    2019

  48. [55]

    Tsuchimochi, Y

    T. Tsuchimochi, Y. Mori and S.L. Ten-no, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043142 (2020)

    2020

  49. [56]

    B.T. Gard, L. Zhu, G.S. Baron, N.J. Mayhall, S.E. Economou and E. Barnes, npj Quantum Information 6, 10 (2020). 24

    2020

  50. [57]

    Anselmetti, D

    G.L.R. Anselmetti, D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin and R.M. Parrish, New J. Phys. 23, 113010 (2021)

    2021

  51. [58]

    Burton, D

    H.G.A. Burton, D. Marti-Dafcik, D.P. Tew and D.J. Wales, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 75 (2023)

    2023

  52. [59]

    Burton, Phys

    H.G.A. Burton, Phys. Rev. Reaserch 6, 023300 (2024)

    2024

  53. [60]

    Ryabinkin, S.N

    I.G. Ryabinkin, S.N. Genin and A.F. Izmaylov, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 249–255 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Selvarajan, M

    R. Selvarajan, M. Saijan and S. Kais, Symmetry 14, 457 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Z. Li, Z. Lu, R. Li, X. Wen, X. Li, L. Wang, J. Chen and W. Ren, Nat. Comput. Sci. 4, 910–919 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Yamamoto, S. Nakazawa, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi and T. Takui, J. Phys. Chem. A 120, 6459 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Yamamoto, S. Nakazawa, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi and T. Takui, Chem. Phys. Lett. 737, 100002 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Carbone, D.E

    A. Carbone, D.E. Galli, M. Motta and B. Jones, Symmetry 14, 624 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Kjellgren, K.M

    E.R. Kjellgren, K.M. Ziems, P. Reinholdt, S.P.A. Sauer, S. Coriani, and Jacob Kongsted, submitted to J. Chem. Phys. (2025), arXiv:2505.00883

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Hehre, R.F

    W.J. Hehre, R.F. Stewart and J.A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys. 51, 2657–2664 (1969)

    1969

  61. [69]

    Paldus, B.G

    J. Paldus, B.G. Adams and J. ˇC´ ıˇ zek, Int. J. Quantum Chem.11, 813 (1977)

    1977

  62. [70]

    Paldus, J

    J. Paldus, J. Chem. Phys. 67, 303 (1977)

    1977

  63. [71]

    Adams and J

    B.G. Adams and J. Paldus, Phys. Rev. A 20, 1 (1979)

    1979

  64. [72]

    Chiles and C.E

    R.A. Chiles and C.E. Dykstra, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 4544 (1981)

    1981

  65. [73]

    Paldus, J

    J. Paldus, J. ˇC´ ıˇ zek and M. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. A30, 2193–2209 (1984)

    1984

  66. [74]

    Takahashi and J

    M. Takahashi and J. Paldus, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 1486 (1986)

    1986

  67. [75]

    Piecuch and J

    P. Piecuch and J. Paldus, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 36, 429 (1989)

    1989

  68. [76]

    Piecuch and J

    P. Piecuch and J. Paldus, Theor. Chim. Acta 78, 65–128 (1990)

    1990

  69. [77]

    Geertsen, S

    J. Geertsen, S. Eriksen and J. Oddershede, Adv. Quantum Chem. 22, 167–209 (1991)

    1991

  70. [78]

    Piecuch and J

    P. Piecuch and J. Paldus, Theor. Chim. Acta 83, 69 (1992)

    1992

  71. [79]

    Piecuch and J

    P. Piecuch and J. Paldus, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 5875 (1994)

    1994

  72. [80]

    Piecuch, R

    P. Piecuch, R. Tobo la and J. Paldus, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 55, 133 (1995)

    1995

  73. [81]

    Piecuch, R

    P. Piecuch, R. Tobo la and J. Paldus, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1210–1241 (1996). 25

    1996

  74. [82]

    Yordanov, D.R.M

    Y.S. Yordanov, D.R.M. Arvidsson-Shukur and C.H.W. Barnes, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062612 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    Xia and S

    R. Xia and S. Kais, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 015001 (2021)

    2021

  76. [84]

    Magoulas and F.A

    I. Magoulas and F.A. Evangelista, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 822–836 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    Z. Sun, J. Liu, Z. Li and J. Yang, Circuit-Efficient Qubit-Excitation-Based Variational Quan- tum Eigensolver 2024, arXiv:2406.11699. arXiv.org e-Print archive.https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2406.11699

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Ramˆ oa, P.G

    M. Ramˆ oa, P.G. Anastasiou, L.P. Santos, N.J. Mayhall, E. Barnes and S.E. Economou, Re- ducing the Resources Required by ADAPT-VQE Using Coupled Exchange Operators and Improved Subroutines 2024, arXiv:2407.08696. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://arxiv. org/abs/2407.08696

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Z. Phys. 47, 631–651 (1928)

    1928

  80. [88]

    Bravyi and A.Y

    S.B. Bravyi and A.Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. 298, 210–226 (2002)

    2002

  81. [89]

    Seeley, M.J

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

    2012

  82. [90]

    Harrison, M

    B. Harrison, M. Chiew, J. Necaise, A. Projansky, S. Strelchuk and J.D. Whitfield, A Sierpin- ski Triangle Fermion-to-Qubit Transform 2024, arXiv:2409.04348. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04348

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Romero, R

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J.R. McClean, C. Hempel, P.J. Love and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 014008 (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, in Quantum annealing and other optimization methods , edited by A. K. Das and B. Chakrabarti (, , 2005), pp. 37–68

    2005

  85. [93]

    Barthel and Y

    T. Barthel and Y. Zhang, Ann. Phys. 418, 168165 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Chen, H.P

    J. Chen, H.P. Cheng and J.K. Freericks, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 841–847 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    Rubin, K

    N.C. Rubin, K. Gunst, A. White, L. Freitag, K. Throssell, G.K.L. Chan, R. Babbush and T. Shiozaki, Quantum 5, 568 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    Xu and J.K

    L. Xu and J.K. Freericks, Symmetry 15, 1429 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    Amerio and G

    L. Amerio and G. Prouse, Almost-Periodic Functions and Functionals (, , 1971)

    1971

  90. [98]

    Meurer, C.P

    A. Meurer, C.P. Smith, M. Paprocki, O. ˇCert´ ık, S.B. Kirpichev, M. Rocklin, A. Kumar, S. Ivanov, J.K. Moore, S. Singh, T. Rathnayake, S. Vig, B.E. Granger, R.P. Muller, F. Bonazzi, H. Gupta, S. Vats, F. Johansson, F. Pedregosa, M.J. Curry, A.R. Terrel, v. Rouˇ cka, A. Saboo,...

    2017

  91. [99]

    Inc., Mathematica, Version 14.2 Champaign, IL, 2024

    W.R. Inc., Mathematica, Version 14.2 Champaign, IL, 2024. <https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica>

    2024

  92. [100]

    Childs and N

    A.M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian Simulation Using Linear Combinations of Unitary Operations 2012, arXiv:1202.5822. arXiv.org e-Print archive. https://arxiv.org/abs/1202. 5822

    2012 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Berry, A.M

    D.W. Berry, A.M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari and R.D. Somma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  94. [102]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G.H. Low and N. Wiebe, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC 2019, Phoenix, AZ, USA, p. 193–204

    2019

  95. [103]

    Low and I.L

    G.H. Low and I.L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  96. [104]

    Low and I.L

    G.H. Low and I.L. Chuang, Quantum 3, 163 (2019). 27 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL This Supplemental Material document is organized as follows. In Appendix A, we provide, in graphical form, the results of additional numerical simulations highlighting the failures of first-, second-...

    2019

  97. [105]

    (B5) By comparing Eq

    is given by e θ 2 √ 2AQ↑R↓ P↑P↓e− θ√ 2AQ↓R↑ P↑P↓e θ 2 √ 2AQ↑R↓ P↑P↓ =I + sin( θ√ 2) AQ↑R↓ P↑P↓−AQ↓R↑ P↑P↓ + cos θ√ 2 − 1 [¯nP↑P↓ (nQ↓R↑ +nQ↑R↓) + (¯nQ↓R↑ + ¯nQ↑R↓)nP↑P↓] + sin2 θ 2 √ 2 1− cos( θ√ 2) (¯nP↑P↓nQ↑Q↓R↑R↓ + ¯nQ↑Q↓R↑R↓nP↑P↓) + sin θ 2 √ 2 sin θ√ 2 HQ↓R↑ Q↑R↓ (¯nP↑¯nP...

  98. [106]

    128 21 sin θ 2 − 8 √ 2 3 sin θ√ 2 + 2 3 sin (θ)− √ 2 42 sin √ 2θ # [0]ARS PQ + −256 21 cos θ 2 + 16 3 cos θ√ 2 − 2 3 cos (θ) + 1 42 cos √ 2θ + 15 2 [0]ARS PQ 2 +

    is too lengthy to be presented here, but can be accessed via the Jupyter Notebook that forms part of this Supplemental Material. Appendix C: Derivations of Useful Expressions used in Periodicity Exploration Let us assume that eθAQR PP is a periodic function of θ with period T ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.