Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Mutual Correlation

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Partitioning the 2-cumulant norm reveals orbital correlation pairs.

desk verdict A novel, algebraically sound decomposition of the 2-cumulant norm, but the pair-only diagnostic rests on an unchecked assumption that three- and four-fragment terms are negligible. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07344 v1 pith:2UON3G6L submitted 2025-06-09 physics.chem-ph

Francesco A. Evangelista This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords mutualcorrelationtwo-bodycumulantFrobeniusnormreduceddensitymatrixelectronorbitalinformationactivespaceselectionstronglycorrelatedelectrons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a quantity called mutual correlation, defined by partitioning the squared Frobenius norm of the two-body reduced density matrix cumulant ($C = \tfrac{1}{4}\lVert\lambda_2\rVert_F^2$) into contributions from disjoint subsets of orbitals. Mutual correlation between two fragments, $M_{AB} = C_S - C_A - C_B$, measures correlation that is not additive across the fragments; for a separable state it vanishes. The paper argues that the orbital-pair version $M_{PQ}$ gives a useful, computationally cheap diagnostic for identifying strongly correlated orbital pairs and for selecting active spaces. If correct, it offers an alternative to orbital mutual information that requires only the 2-RDM, not the 4-RDM.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-body reduced density matrix cumulant $\lambda_2$, the connected part of the 2-RDM, and its squared Frobenius norm $C = \tfrac{1}{4}\lVert\lambda_2\rVert_F^2$. Mutual correlation for a bipartition is the difference between the total $C$ and the fragment contributions, $M_{AB} = C_S - C_A - C_B$; extending to a general $n$-partition gives a sum over pair, triple, and quadruple mutual-correlation terms with closed expressions in terms of $\lambda_2$ elements. For orbital pairs, the spin-free specialization $M_{PQ}$ is expressed through the $\Lambda_2$ tensor of squared cumulant elements, and a cost function $L = \sum_{P<Q} (M_{PQ})^2$ is maximized over orbital rotations to define maximally correlated orbitals.

What would settle it

Compute the full decomposition of $C$ for a state whose wavefunction is dominated by triple or quadruple excitations, such as a three-electron-pair system with three mutually entangled geminals, and check whether $M_{ABC}$ or $M_{ABCD}$ is large enough to change the orbital-pair ranking; alternatively, compare orbital mutual correlation with orbital mutual information on a system where the 4-RDM is available and see whether they rank the pairs differently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the total two-cumulant correlation $C$ can be decomposed exactly into intra-fragment terms and mutual-correlation terms $M_{AB}$, $M_{ABC}$, and $M_{ABCD}$, and that for molecular ground states the pair term $M_{AB}$ already captures the essential structure. Applied to orbital pairs, $M_{PQ}$ assigns numbers between 0 and 3/4 that rank bonding–antibonding pairs, bond breaking, and diradical character, in agreement with the qualitative picture from orbital mutual information but at lower computational cost, since it is built from the 2-cumulant alone. Maximizing the sum of squared pair mutual correlations over orbital rotations yields maximally correlated orbitals in which correlation localizes into disjoint pairs, supporting a geminal-pair picture of strongly correlated ground states.

Load-bearing premise

The metric's validity rests on the assumption that the two-body cumulant alone captures the correlation structure that matters for interpretation and active space selection, so that three-body and four-body cumulant contributions, which appear as $M_{ABC}$ and $M_{ABCD}$ terms, are negligible in the molecular states considered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Orbital mutual correlation can be computed from any method that yields the 2-RDM, including coupled cluster, perturbation theory, CI, Green's function, and DMRG, without the 4-RDM that orbital mutual information requires.
  • Mutual correlation plots identify the specific orbital pairs responsible for strong correlation, distinguishing bond-breaking pairs from weakly correlated pairs based on calibrated value ranges.
  • The decomposition into $M_{AB}$, $M_{ABC}$, and $M_{ABCD}$ shows that the pair term is intensive and comparable across different systems, unlike the total $C$ which grows with system size.
  • Maximally correlated orbitals localize correlation into a small number of disjoint pairs, supporting geminal-pair structure in molecular ground states and offering a basis-independent partitioning of correlation.
  • The partitioning approach generalizes beyond the correlation norm to other squared cumulant metrics and to observables such as energy and spin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If mutual correlation is as robust as the benchmarks suggest, it could serve as a cheap entanglement proxy for time-dependent simulations, tracking how correlation migrates between orbital pairs during a dynamics run; the paper lists time-dependent tracking as a future application but does not test it.
  • The validity of the pair-only picture could be probed by computing $M_{ABC}$ and $M_{ABCD}$ for a state with strong three-body correlations; the paper does not test any such state.
  • A testable extension would be comparing maximally correlated orbitals from mutual correlation against orbitals obtained by minimizing a cost function of one-orbital entanglement, to see whether the two localization criteria agree on which pairs are strongly correlated.
  • Because $M_{PQ}$ depends only on the 2-cumulant, it could in principle be measured by fermionic classical-shadow tomography, which the paper cites as a way to obtain the 2-RDM; this connection is not developed in the paper.
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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "mutual correlation," a metric obtained by partitioning the squared Frobenius norm of the two-body cumulant, C = (1/4)||λ2||^2_F, into fragment contributions. For a bipartition, M_AB = C_S − C_A − C_B quantifies nonadditive correlation between subsystems, and the construction is extended to a general partition with the exact decomposition C_S = Σ C_A + Σ M_AB + Σ M_ABC + Σ M_ABCD (Eq. 20). The paper specializes to orbital pairs, defines an orbital mutual correlation M_PQ, calibrates strong/medium/weak ranges, and applies the metric to H2, N2, C2, p-benzyne, H10, O3, and H4. It also introduces maximally correlated orbitals by maximizing Σ (M_PQ)^2 and compares with orbital mutual information. The central claim is that M_PQ provides a computationally cheaper, 2-RDM-only alternative to entropy-based diagnostics for active space selection and for interpreting correlation structure in molecular states.

Significance. If the metric is sound, it is a potentially useful addition to the toolbox of correlation diagnostics: it depends only on the 2-RDM, is invariant under orbital rotations within fragments, and exhibits the expected qualitative behavior in the benchmark systems. The general partition identity (Eq. 20) is algebraically elegant, and the paper explicitly aims to provide a quantitative, machine-checkable alternative to 4-RDM-based orbital mutual information. The computational advantage is real, and the graphical representation of orbital pair correlations is clear. However, the paper's quantitative calibration and one of its main conclusions (the dominance of disjoint orbital pairs) rest on an analytical toy-model result that I find inconsistent with the paper's own definitions, as detailed below. The neglect of three- and four-fragment mutual-correlation terms is also a load-bearing omission for the conclusions drawn from pair-only plots.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Section III.D] The abstract claims that maximally correlated orbitals "identify a basis-independent partitioning of correlation," but no such basis independence is demonstrated. The cost function L = Σ (M_PQ)^2 in Eq. (30) is defined in a specific orbital basis, and the paper itself notes the existence of multiple local minima. The optimization selects a particular orbital basis but does not establish that the resulting partition is independent of the starting basis or of the chosen cost function. This claim should be tempered or supported by a concrete invariance argument or numerical test.
minor comments (1)
  1. [General] There are minor formatting issues in the equations (e.g., Eq. (25) has subscripts/superscripts that are not cleanly typeset) and a few typographical slips in the text (e.g., "λ 2-norm" formatting in Section II.A). These do not affect the substance of the work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: mutual correlation is defined from the 2-cumulant norm and benchmarked against external, independent references; the omitted M_ABC/M_ABCD terms are an acknowledged scope limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central quantity is constructed transparently: lambda2 is defined in Eq. (5), C in Eq. (6), fragment contributions C_A in Eq. (12), and M_AB in Eq. (13) as C_S - C_A - C_B. This is a definition, not a fitted prediction, and the paper does not claim to derive M_AB from any fitted parameter. The orbital specialization M_PQ (Eqs. (24)-(26)) is likewise an exact restriction of the same definition to pairs of spatial orbitals. Benchmarks are external: orbital mutual information is independently defined via one- and two-orbital entropies (Eqs. (33)-(38)), and chemically motivated tests (H2, N2, C2, p-benzyne, H4) are interpreted against known electronic structures rather than tuned to force agreement. Basis-set sensitivity is checked directly in Table II. The only quantity that is optimized with respect to the metric itself is the localization cost function L = sum_{P<Q} (M_PQ)^2 (Eq. (30)); maximizing this function is explicitly presented as a localization procedure, so the resulting concentration of M_PQ into pairs is the stated objective, not a hidden circular prediction. The paper explicitly limits the general decomposition in Eq. (20) to pair terms (Section II.C: 'we limit our analysis to the mutual correlation between two subsystems'), leaving M_ABC and M_ABCD for future work; this is an acknowledged scope restriction that affects completeness of the 'disjoint pairs' generalization, but it is not a circular argument. Self-citations to Forte, Psi4, VMDCube, and the author's earlier H10 benchmark are software/tool citations and external benchmark context, not load-bearing derivational premises. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central metric M_AB is derived from the standard 2-cumulant without introducing new physical entities. The only free parameters are the arbitrary calibration thresholds for visualizing weak/medium/strong correlation. The main axioms are domain assumptions about the sufficiency of λ2 and the representativeness of CASSCF active spaces.

free parameters (1)
  • calibration thresholds = strong: 0.075-0.75, medium: 0.0075-0.075, weak: 0-0.0075
    Chosen by hand based on H2 values to classify orbital mutual correlation; explicitly admitted as arbitrary in Section III.B.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Frobenius norm squared of the 2-cumulant C is a valid measure of electron correlation, with additive and basis-invariant properties.
    Inherited from Juhász and Mazziotti (Ref. 23); the paper builds on this without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption Orbital-pair partition of C captures chemically relevant nonadditive correlation; 3-body and 4-body mutual correlation terms M_ABC and M_ABCD are negligible for the systems studied.
    The paper only analyzes M_AB (Section II.C: 'we limit our analysis to the mutual correlation between two subsystems'), implicitly assuming pair terms dominate.
  • domain assumption CASSCF wave functions and natural orbitals provide a faithful representation of the correlation structure of the benchmark molecules.
    All numerical results use CASSCF; no comparison to FCI or experimental data for the correlation metric itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mutual Correlation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UON3G6L

@misc{pith2026250607344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mutual Correlation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UON3G6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07344}
}
abstract

Quantifying correlation and complexity in quantum many-body states is central to advancing theoretical and computational chemistry, physics, and quantum information science. This work introduces a novel framework, mutual correlation, based on the Frobenius norm squared of the two-body reduced density matrix cumulant. Through systematic partitioning of the cumulant norm, mutual correlation quantifies nonadditive correlations among interacting subsystems. Benchmark studies on model systems, including H$_{10}$, N$_{2}$, and p-benzyne, demonstrate its efficacy and computational advantage compared to entropy-based metrics such as orbital mutual information. Maximally correlated orbitals, obtained by maximizing a nonlinear cost function of the mutual correlation, are also considered to identify a basis-independent partitioning of correlation. This study suggests that mutual correlation is a broadly applicable metric, useful in active space selection and the interpretation of electronic states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. One-dimensional Hubbard model with eight sites at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Singlet ground state of the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Singlet ground state of the N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Singlet ground state of the C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Singlet ground state of a 2D H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Singlet ground state of the O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Singlet ground state of the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.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. AEGISS -- Atomic orbital and Entropy-based Guided Inference for Space Selection -- A novel semi-automated active space selection workflow for quantum chemistry and quantum computing applications

    physics.chem-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AEGISS combines DMRG single-orbital entropy screening with per-cluster atomic-orbital projections to semi-automatically construct compact active spaces, demonstrated on five molecular benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition

    Osterloh, A.; Amico, L.; Falci, G.; Fazio, R. Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition . Nature 2002, 416, 608--610

    2002

  2. [2]

    J.; Nielsen, M

    Osborne, T. J.; Nielsen, M. A. Entanglement in a simple quantum phase transition . Phys. Rev. A 2002, 66, 032110

    2002

  3. [3]

    Topological Entanglement Entropy

    Kitaev, A.; Preskill, J. Topological Entanglement Entropy . Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 110404

    2006

  4. [4]

    Entanglement Entropy in Fermionic Laughlin States

    Haque, M.; Zozulya, O.; Schoutens, K. Entanglement Entropy in Fermionic Laughlin States . Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98, 060401

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    M.; White, S

    Rissler, J.; Noack, R. M.; White, S. R. Measuring orbital interaction using quantum information theory . Chem. Phys. 2006, 323, 519--531

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    J.; Avil\'es, M.; Chan, G

    Hachmann, J.; Dorando, J. J.; Avil\'es, M.; Chan, G. K.-L. The radical character of the acenes: A density matrix renormalization group study . J. Chem. Phys. 2007, 127, 134309

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    F.; Delcey, M

    Freitag, L.; Knecht, S.; Keller, S. F.; Delcey, M. G.; Aquilante, F.; Pedersen, T. B.; Lindh, R.; Reiher, M.; González, L. Orbital entanglement and CASSCF analysis of the Ru–NO bond in a Ruthenium nitrosyl complex . Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 14383--14392

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    S.; Krogmeier, T

    Lampert, J. S.; Krogmeier, T. J.; Schlimgen, A. W.; Head-Marsden, K. Orbital entanglement and the double d-shell effect in binary transition metal molecules . J. Chem. Phys. 2024, 161, 174103

    work page 2024

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Optimizing the density-matrix renormalization group method using quantum information entropy

    Legeza, O.; S\'olyom, J. Optimizing the density-matrix renormalization group method using quantum information entropy . Phys. Rev. B 2003, 68, 195116

    2003

  2. [10]

    J.; Wilson, A

    Jiang, W.; DeYonker, N. J.; Wilson, A. K. Multireference Character for 3d Transition-Metal-Containing Molecules . J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 460--468

    2012

  3. [11]

    Liu, F.; Duan, C.; Kulik, H. J. Rapid Detection of Strong Correlation with Machine Learning for Transition-Metal Complex High-Throughput Screening . J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2020, 11, 8067--8076

    2020

  4. [12]

    Duan, C.; Liu, F.; Nandy, A.; Kulik, H. J. Data-Driven Approaches Can Overcome the Cost–Accuracy Trade-Off in Multireference Diagnostics . J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 4373--4387

    2020

  5. [13]

    J.; Reiher, M

    Stein, C. J.; Reiher, M. Automated Selection of Active Orbital Spaces. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 1760--1771

    2016

  6. [14]

    Active Space Selection Based on Natural Orbital Occupation Numbers from n -Electron Valence Perturbation Theory

    Khedkar, A.; Roemelt, M. Active Space Selection Based on Natural Orbital Occupation Numbers from n -Electron Valence Perturbation Theory . J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2019, 15, 3522--3536

    2019

  7. [15]

    Cumulant expansion of the reduced density matrices

    Kutzelnigg, W.; Mukherjee, D. Cumulant expansion of the reduced density matrices . J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110, 2800--2809

    1999

  8. [16]

    Bose-Einstein Condensation and Liquid Helium

    Penrose, O.; Onsager, L. Bose-Einstein Condensation and Liquid Helium . Phys. Rev. 1956, 104, 576--584

    1956

  9. [17]

    Yang, C. N. Concept of Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order and the Quantum Phases of Liquid He and of Superconductors . Rev. Mod. Phys. 1962, 34, 694--704

    1962

  10. [18]

    The nature of electron correlation in molecules

    Mcweeny, R. The nature of electron correlation in molecules . Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1967, 1, 351--359

    1967

  11. [19]

    J.; Park, Y

    Bartlett, R. J.; Park, Y. C.; Bauman, N. P.; Melnichuk, A.; Ranasinghe, D.; Ravi, M.; Perera, A. Index of multi-determinantal and multi-reference character in coupled-cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 153, 234103

    2020

  12. [20]

    Mazziotti, D. A. Approximate solution for electron correlation through the use of Schwinger probes . Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998, 289, 419--427

    1998

  13. [21]

    n-Electron problem and its formulation in terms ofk-particle density cumulants

    Kutzelnigg, W. n-Electron problem and its formulation in terms ofk-particle density cumulants . Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2003, 95, 404--423

    2003

  14. [22]

    P.; Turney, J

    Misiewicz, J. P.; Turney, J. M.; Schaefer III, H. F. Cumulants as the variables of density cumulant theory: A path to Hermitian triples . J. Chem. Phys. 2021, 155, 244105

    2021

  15. [23]

    Juhász, T.; Mazziotti, D. A. The cumulant two-particle reduced density matrix as a measure of electron correlation and entanglement . J. Chem. Phys. 2006, 125, 174105

    2006

  16. [24]

    Mazziotti, D. A. Two-Electron Reduced Density Matrix as the Basic Variable in Many-Electron Quantum Chemistry and Physics . Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 244--262

    2012

  17. [25]

    On the notion of strong correlation in electronic structure theory

    Ganoe, B.; Shee, J. On the notion of strong correlation in electronic structure theory . Faraday Discuss. 2024,

    2024

  18. [26]

    Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems

    Löwdin, P.-O. Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems. I. Physical Interpretations by Means of Density Matrices, Natural Spin-Orbitals, and Convergence Problems in the Method of Configurational Interaction . Phys. Rev. 1955, 97, 1474--1489

    1955

  19. [27]

    Pulay, P.; Hamilton, T. P. UHF natural orbitals for defining and starting MC-SCF calculations . J. Chem. Phys. 1988, 88, 4926--4933

    1988

  20. [28]

    M.; Pulay, P

    Bofill, J. M.; Pulay, P. The unrestricted natural orbital–complete active space (UNO–CAS) method: An inexpensive alternative to the complete active space–self-consistent-field (CAS–SCF) method . J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 90, 3637--3646

    1989

  21. [29]

    S.; Schaefer, H

    Grev, R. S.; Schaefer, H. F. Natural orbitals from single and double excitation configuration interaction wave functions: their use in second-order configuration interaction and wave functions incorporating limited triple and quadruple excitations . J. Chem. Phys. 1992, 96, 6850--6856

    1992

  22. [30]

    Split-localized orbitals can yield stronger configuration interaction convergence than natural orbitals

    Bytautas, L.; Ivanic, J.; Ruedenberg, K. Split-localized orbitals can yield stronger configuration interaction convergence than natural orbitals . J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 119, 8217--8224

    2003

  23. [31]

    L.; Sherrill, C

    Abrams, M. L.; Sherrill, C. D. Natural orbitals as substitutes for optimized orbitals in complete active space wavefunctions . Chem. Phys. Lett. 2004, 395, 227--232

    2004

  24. [32]

    G.; Bartlett, R

    Taube, A. G.; Bartlett, R. J. Frozen natural orbital coupled-cluster theory: Forces and application to decomposition of nitroethane . J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 128, 164101

    2008

  25. [33]

    Efficient and accurate local approximations to coupled-electron pair approaches: An attempt to revive the pair natural orbital method

    Neese, F.; Wennmohs, F.; Hansen, A. Efficient and accurate local approximations to coupled-electron pair approaches: An attempt to revive the pair natural orbital method . J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 130, 114108

    2009

  26. [34]

    G.; Levine, B

    Shu, Y.; Hohenstein, E. G.; Levine, B. G. Configuration interaction singles natural orbitals: an orbital basis for an efficient and size intensive multireference description of electronic excited states. J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 142, 024102

    2015

  27. [35]

    Natural Orbitals and Sparsity of Quantum Mutual Information

    Ratini, L.; Capecci, C.; Guidoni, L. Natural Orbitals and Sparsity of Quantum Mutual Information . J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 3535--3542

    2024

  28. [36]

    E.; Weinhold, F

    Reed, A. E.; Weinhold, F. Natural localized molecular orbitals . J. Chem. Phys. 1985, 83, 1736--1740

    1985

  29. [37]

    E.; Weinstock, R

    Reed, A. E.; Weinstock, R. B.; Weinhold, F. Natural population analysis . J. Chem. Phys. 1985, 83, 735--746

    1985

  30. [38]

    On Measures of Entropy and Information

    R \'e nyi, A. On Measures of Entropy and Information. Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematics, statistics and probability. 1961; pp 547--561

    1961

  31. [39]

    Coffman, V.; Kundu, J.; Wootters, W. K. Distributed entanglement . Phys. Rev. A 2000, 61, 052306

    2000

  32. [40]

    Li, H.; Haldane, F. D. M. Entanglement Spectrum as a Generalization of Entanglement Entropy: Identification of Topological Order in Non-Abelian Fractional Quantum Hall Effect States . Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101, 010504

    2008

  33. [41]

    Entanglement Measures for Single- and Multireference Correlation Effects

    Boguslawski, K.; Tecmer, P.; Örs Legeza; Reiher, M. Entanglement Measures for Single- and Multireference Correlation Effects . J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2012, 3, 3129--3135

    2012

  34. [42]

    Quantum Information-Assisted Complete Active Space Optimization (QICAS)

    Ding, L.; Knecht, S.; Schilling, C. Quantum Information-Assisted Complete Active Space Optimization (QICAS) . J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2023, 14, 11022--11029

    2023

  35. [43]

    Physical entanglement between localized orbitals

    Ding, L.; Dünnweber, G.; Schilling, C. Physical entanglement between localized orbitals . Quantum Sci. Technol. 2023, 9, 015005

    2023

  36. [44]

    Quantum correlations in molecules: from quantum resourcing to chemical bonding

    Ding, L.; Knecht, S.; Zimborás, Z.; Schilling, C. Quantum correlations in molecules: from quantum resourcing to chemical bonding . Quantum Sci. Technol. 2023, 8, 015015

    2023

  37. [45]

    What can quantum information theory offer to quantum chemistry? Faraday Discuss

    Aliverti-Piuri, D.; Chatterjee, K.; Ding, L.; Liao, K.; Liebert, J.; Schilling, C. What can quantum information theory offer to quantum chemistry? Faraday Discuss. 2024, 254, 76--106

    2024

  38. [46]

    Quantum Information Orbitals (QIO): Unveiling Intrinsic Many-Body Complexity by Compressing Single-Body Triviality

    Liao, K.; Ding, L.; Schilling, C. Quantum Information Orbitals (QIO): Unveiling Intrinsic Many-Body Complexity by Compressing Single-Body Triviality . J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2024, 15, 6782--6790

    2024

  39. [47]

    Entanglement Witness for Indistinguishable Electrons Using Solid-State Spectroscopy

    Liu, T.; Xu, L.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y. Entanglement Witness for Indistinguishable Electrons Using Solid-State Spectroscopy . Phys. Rev. X 2025, 15, 011056

    2025

  40. [48]

    B.; Rippin, M

    Vedral, V.; Plenio, M. B.; Rippin, M. A.; Knight, P. L. Quantifying Entanglement . Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 78, 2275--2279

    1997

  41. [49]

    Degree of Entanglementa

    Shimony, A. Degree of Entanglementa . Ann. Ny. Acad. Sci. 1995, 755, 675--679

    1995

  42. [50]

    Monotones and invariants for multi-particle quantum states

    Barnum, H.; Linden, N. Monotones and invariants for multi-particle quantum states . 2001, 34, 6787

    2001

  43. [51]

    Wei, T.-C.; Goldbart, P. M. Geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states . Phys. Rev. A 2003, 68, 042307

    2003

  44. [52]

    Entanglement-complexity geometric measure

    Nico-Katz, A.; Bose, S. Entanglement-complexity geometric measure . Phys. Rev. Research 2023, 5, 013041

    2023

  45. [53]

    A.; Dowling, M

    Nielsen, M. A.; Dowling, M. R.; Gu, M.; Doherty, A. C. Quantum computation as geometry. Science 2006, 311, 1133--1135

    2006

  46. [54]

    The Complexity of Quantum States and Transformations: From Quantum Money to Black Holes

    Aaronson, S. The Complexity of Quantum States and Transformations: From Quantum Money to Black Holes . arXiv 2016,

    2016

  47. [55]

    H.; Evangelista, F

    Stair, N. H.; Evangelista, F. A. Exploring Hilbert space on a budget: Novel benchmark set and performance metric for testing electronic structure methods in the regime of strong correlation . J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 153, 104108

    2020

  48. [56]

    How many distinct and reliable multireference diagnostics are there? J

    Xu, X.; Soriano-Agueda, L.; López, X.; Ramos-Cordoba, E.; Matito, E. How many distinct and reliable multireference diagnostics are there? J. Chem. Phys. 2025, 162, 124102

    2025

  49. [57]

    P.; Murphy, P.; Paterson, M

    Coe, J. P.; Murphy, P.; Paterson, M. J. Applying Monte Carlo configuration interaction to transition metal dimers: Exploring the balance between static and dynamic correlation . Chem. Phys. Lett. 2014, 604, 46--52

    2014

  50. [58]

    P.; Paterson, M

    Coe, J. P.; Paterson, M. J. Investigating Multireference Character and Correlation in Quantum Chemistry . J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 4189--4196

    2015

  51. [59]

    V.; Blunt, N

    Izsák, R.; Ivanov, A. V.; Blunt, N. S.; Holzmann, N.; Neese, F. Measuring Electron Correlation: The Impact of Symmetry and Orbital Transformations . J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2023, 19, 2703--2720

    2023

  52. [60]

    J.; Taylor, P

    Lee, T. J.; Taylor, P. R. A diagnostic for determining the quality of single‐reference electron correlation methods . Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1989, 36, 199--207

    1989

  53. [61]

    L.; Nielsen, I

    Janssen, C. L.; Nielsen, I. M. New diagnostics for coupled-cluster and Møller–Plesset perturbation theory . Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998, 290, 423--430

    1998

  54. [62]

    Nielsen, I. M. B.; Janssen, C. L. Double-substitution-based diagnostics for coupled-cluster and Møller–Plesset perturbation theory . Chem. Phys. Lett. 1999, 310, 568--576

    1999

  55. [63]

    R.; Bochicchio, R

    Alcoba, D. R.; Bochicchio, R. C.; Lain, L.; Torre, A. On the measure of electron correlation and entanglement in quantum chemistry based on the cumulant of the second-order reduced density matrix . J. Chem. Phys. 133, 144104

  56. [64]

    Raeber, A.; Mazziotti, D. A. Large eigenvalue of the cumulant part of the two-electron reduced density matrix as a measure of off-diagonal long-range order . Phys. Rev. A 2015, 92, 052502

    2015

  57. [65]

    O.; Sager-Smith, L

    Schouten, A. O.; Sager-Smith, L. M.; Mazziotti, D. A. Large cumulant eigenvalue as a signature of exciton condensation . Phys. Rev. B 2022, 105, 245151

    2022

  58. [66]

    S.; Fedorov, D

    Gordon, M. S.; Fedorov, D. G.; Pruitt, S. R.; Slipchenko, L. V. Fragmentation Methods: A Route to Accurate Calculations on Large Systems . Chem. Rev. 2012, 112, 632--672

    2012

  59. [67]

    C.; Miyake, A

    Zhao, A.; Rubin, N. C.; Miyake, A. Fermionic Partial Tomography via Classical Shadows . Phys. Rev. Lett. 2021, 127, 110504

    2021

  60. [68]

    White, S. R. Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups . Phys. Rev. Lett. 1992, 69, 2863--2866

    1992

  61. [69]

    Quantum chemistry in Fock space

    Kutzelnigg, W. Quantum chemistry in Fock space. I. The universal wave and energy operators . J. Chem. Phys. 1982, 77, 3081--3097

    1982

  62. [70]

    Normal order and extended Wick theorem for a multiconfiguration reference wave function

    Kutzelnigg, W.; Mukherjee, D. Normal order and extended Wick theorem for a multiconfiguration reference wave function . J. Chem. Phys. 1997, 107, 432--449

    1997

  63. [71]

    Density-cumulant functional theory

    Kutzelnigg, W. Density-cumulant functional theory . J. Chem. Phys. 2006, 125, 171101--171101--4

    2006

  64. [72]

    P.; Turney, J

    Misiewicz, J. P.; Turney, J. M.; Schaefer III, H. F.; Sokolov, A. Y. Assessing the orbital-optimized unitary Ansatz for density cumulant theory . J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 153, 244102

    2020

  65. [73]

    Kong, L.; Valeev, E. F. A novel interpretation of reduced density matrix and cumulant for electronic structure theories . J. Chem. Phys. 2011, 134, 214109

    2011

  66. [74]

    A.; Li, C.; Verma, P.; Hannon, K

    Evangelista, F. A.; Li, C.; Verma, P.; Hannon, K. P.; Schriber, J. B.; Zhang, T.; Cai, C.; Wang, S.; He, N.; Stair, N. H.; Huang, M.; Huang, R.; Misiewicz, J. P.; Li, S.; Marin, K.; Zhao, Z.; Burns, L. A. Forte: A suite of advanced multireference quantum chemistry methods . J....

    2024

  67. [75]

    Smith, D. G. A.; Burns, L. A.; Simmonett, A. C.; Parrish, R. M.; Schieber, M. C.; Galvelis, R.; Kraus, P.; Kruse, H.; Remigio, R. D.; Alenaizan, A.; James, A. M.; Lehtola, S.; Misiewicz, J. P.; Scheurer, M.; Shaw, R. A.; Schriber, J. B.; Xie, Y.; Glick, Z. L.; Sirianni, D. A.;...

    2020

  68. [76]

    VMD -- V isual M olecular D ynamics

    Humphrey, W.; Dalke, A.; Schulten, K. VMD -- V isual M olecular D ynamics. Journal of Molecular Graphics 1996, 14, 33--38

    1996

  69. [77]

    Evangelista, F. A. VMDCube. https://github.com/fevangelista/vmdcube, 2025

    2025

  70. [78]

    Dunning, T. H. Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. I. The atoms boron through neon and hydrogen . J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 90, 1007--1023

    1989

  71. [79]

    P.; Herzberg, G

    Huber, K. P.; Herzberg, G. Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure, IV. Constants of Diatomic Molecules . 1979, 8--689

    1979

  72. [80]

    A.; Hanauer, M.; K\" o hn, A.; Gauss, J

    Evangelista, F. A.; Hanauer, M.; K\" o hn, A.; Gauss, J. A sequential transformation approach to the internally contracted multireference coupled cluster method . J. Chem. Phys. 2012, 136, 204108

    2012

  73. [81]

    Pipek, J.; Mezey, P. G. A fast intrinsic localization procedure applicable for ab initio and semiempirical linear combination of atomic orbital wave functions . J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 90, 4916--4926

    1989

  74. [82]

    Pipek–Mezey Orbital Localization Using Various Partial Charge Estimates

    Lehtola, S.; Jónsson, H. Pipek–Mezey Orbital Localization Using Various Partial Charge Estimates . J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 642--649

    2014

  75. [83]

    " id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d

    Keller, S.; Boguslawski, K.; Janowski, T.; Reiher, M.; Pulay, P. Selection of active spaces for multiconfigurational wavefunctions . J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 142, 244104 mcitethebibliography document n2.pdf0000664000000000000000000373424115006453362010612 0ustar rootroot 1 0 obj <...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.