Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Spin-Adapted Fermionic Unitaries: From Lie Algebras to Compact Quantum Circuits

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin-adapted fermionic unitaries can be decomposed exactly into products of elementary spinorbital gates, yielding the most compact symmetry-preserving quantum circuits to date.

desk verdict A useful FEB circuit extension and a sound 5-dimensional result, but the abstract overclaims and the 120-dimensional exact decomposition is a numerical fit; needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.13485 v2 pith:DAAD4PPI submitted 2025-11-17 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Ilias Magoulas , Francesco A. Evangelista This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords fermionicalgebraquantummany-bodytheorycomputingspin-adaptationWei–Normandecompositionsymmetry-preservingcircuitsvariationaleigensolverLiealgebras
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 addresses a practical bottleneck in quantum simulation of molecules: enforcing the total-spin symmetry S² exactly without bloating the quantum circuit. It proves that unitaries built from singlet spin-adapted double excitations—the generators of symmetry-respecting ansätze—can be factored exactly into ordered products of simpler spinorbital unitaries via the Wei–Norman decomposition. The closed-form parameters make the resulting circuits the most compact known to date for these operations, with estimated CNOT counts of roughly 60, 750, and 3600 for the three double-excitation classes. In adaptive VQE tests on a distorted H6 chain, the symmetry-adapted pools reach exact ground-state energies with about half the parameters of a spin-unrestricted pool, and a minimal pool containing only perfect-pairing and intermediate-singlet doubles is identified as a candidate universal symmetry-adapted set.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Wei–Norman decomposition of a one-parameter unitary exp(θA) into a product of exponentials of a fixed ordered basis of the dynamical Lie algebra. The load-bearing identity is the closed-form similarity transformation e^{αE_j} E_i e^{-αE_j} = E_i - sin α [E_i,E_j] + (1-cos α)[[E_i,E_j],E_j], valid when E_j³ = -E_j and E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j = 0; this converts the Wei–Norman differential equations into a closed system whose solution yields the angles α_i(θ). The companion construction is the fermionic excitation-based (FEB) circuit framework, which maps each exponential to a Givens rotation with CNOT staircases for fermionic parity and occupancy-controlled angle gates, so

What would settle it

Symbolically compute E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j for all ordered pairs in the 28- and 120-dimensional Lie algebras; if any pair yields a nonzero result, Eq. (21) fails. Alternatively, numerically compute exp(θA) and the Wei–Norman product with the published α_i(θ) in a Fock space larger than 8 spinorbitals; any matrix-norm deviation greater than integration tolerance refutes the claimed exactness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For each singlet spin-adapted double excitation operator (A^{QR}_{PP}, [0]A^{RS}_{PQ}, [1]A^{RS}_{PQ}), the paper constructs an exact product formula exp(θA) = ∏_i exp(α_i(θ) E_i), where the E_i are elements of the finite dynamical Lie algebra generated by the spinorbital components. For the 5-dimensional algebra, closed-form global parameters are given; for the 28- and 120-dimensional algebras, parameters are obtained by solving the Wei–Norman system numerically or by optimization and are tabulated on a grid. Each elementary exponential is implemented with a CNOT-efficient fermionic excitation-based circuit that preserves particle number, S_z, point-group, and S² symmetries by construction.

Load-bearing premise

The entire closed-form construction rests on the condition E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j = 0 holding for every pair of basis elements in the dynamical Lie algebra; the paper supports this with a structural argument rather than an exhaustive symbolic check for the 120-dimensional case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exact singlet spin-adapted double-excitation unitaries can be implemented with an estimated 60, 750, and 3600 CNOTs (plus staircases) for the A^{QR}_{PP}, [0]A^{RS}_{PQ}, and [1]A^{RS}_{PQ} classes—a reduced cost compared with the earlier LCU-based exact approach.
  • Because the decompositions are exact and each factor preserves particle number, S_z, point-group, and S², symmetry breaking never occurs at the algorithmic level, eliminating postselection or penalty terms.
  • All α_i(θ) parameters are continuous and differentiable, so the parameter-shift rule yields analytic gradients for variational algorithms such as ADAPT-VQE.
  • The pDint0 pool (perfect-pairing plus intermediate-singlet doubles) reaches the exact ground state of a D2h-symmetric H6 model with fewer operators than the full saGSD pool, suggesting that the expensive [1]A^{RS}_{PQ} generators can be omitted while retaining universality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the condition E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j = 0 is verified symbolically for all pairs in the 120-dimensional algebra, the exactness of the closed-form decompositions becomes a fully rigorous theorem; until then, a single counterexample pair would invalidate Eq. (21) and force numerical integration of the Wei–Norman system.
  • The resource counts depend on the chosen basis ordering; exploring other orderings (beyond the 120 permutations tested for the 5-dimensional case) may yield even more compact circuits or expose orderings with better noise robustness.
  • The universality of the pDint0 pool is tested on one H6 system; extending the same ADAPT-VQE analysis to strongly correlated systems (e.g., nitrogen dimer, metal complexes) would indicate whether the pool is universal in practice or only for the tested point-group/symmetry sector.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes exact product formulas, obtained via the Wei–Norman decomposition, for unitaries generated by singlet spin-adapted generalized singles and doubles (saGSD) fermionic operators. For the simplest nontrivial case, exp(θ A_QR_PP), the authors give a closed-form parameterization after a basis change; for the 28-dimensional [0]A_RS_PQ and 120-dimensional [1]A_RS_PQ algebras, they report numerically obtained Wei–Norman parameters, either by integrating the Wei–Norman ODE system (28-dim) or by fitting the parameters with BFGS in an eight-spinorbital Fock space (120-dim). They then construct fermionic-excitation-based quantum circuits for all elementary unitaries and give CNOT/Ry gate counts. A numerical ADAPT-VQE study on a distorted H6/STO-6G system is used to argue that a restricted pool (pDint0) is the smallest universal symmetry-adapted pool.

Significance. If the exactness claims are correct, this is a substantial contribution to symmetry-preserving quantum simulation: it would provide the first compact, exact circuit realizations of saGSD unitaries beyond the simplest double-excitation class, together with explicit gate counts and a promising universal pool. The closed-form solution for exp(θ A_QR_PP) and the detailed circuit constructions are concrete and useful. The paper also contains honest resource estimates and a numerical comparison of symmetry-adapted pools. However, the advertised 'exact product formula' for the large algebras rests on an algebraic condition whose verification is only sketched, and the abstract is inconsistent with the body. These issues must be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (21); SM S2] The exactness of every Wei–Norman decomposition in this paper relies on Eq. (21), which is valid only if E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j = 0 for every ordered pair of basis elements. The proof in SM S2 is a structural sketch: it asserts that 'all indices of E_j appear in each E_k' and then appeals to nilpotency. No explicit verification is shown for the 120-dimensional basis of Table S2, and for this algebra the authors state that the Wei–Norman system was never constructed symbolically. The BFGS fitting procedure validates the factorization on a finite θ-grid in one Fock space, but it cannot certify the algebraic identity needed for a genuine exact product formula. Please provide a machine-checked verification of E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j = 0 for every ordered pair in Tables SI/SII, or a complete proof that the structural argument covers all cases. Without this, the 'exact' claim for the 28- and 120-dimensional
  2. [Abstract vs. Sections V and VI] The abstract claims 'closed-form parameters in the more challenging 28- and 84-dimensional dynamical Lie algebras', but the body reports numerical parameters for a 28-dimensional algebra and a 120-dimensional algebra, and Section VI explicitly states that most parameters do not admit simple analytic expressions. The 84-dimensional algebra never appears in the text. This is a direct internal inconsistency that misstates the main technical result. The abstract must be corrected to describe numerical Wei–Norman parameters and the protocol used to obtain them, and the discrepancy with the 120-dimensional algebra must be resolved.
  3. [Section V, [1]A_RS_PQ parametrization] For the 120-dimensional algebra, the parameters are obtained by minimizing the Frobenius norm of the difference between the target unitary and its Wei–Norman decomposition in an 8-spinorbital Fock space. The paper reports the BFGS tolerance (gtol = 1e-6) but does not report the achieved residual error, the number of convergence failures, or a comparison against an independent ODE solve on a coarser grid. Since the claims of exactness and 'most compact circuits to date' depend on the quality of these parameters, the maximum residual over the θ-grid and a clear statement of numerical precision are required. A finite grid also cannot certify exactness for all real θ; the authors should state precisely what is proven versus what is numerically validated.
  4. [Section VII and Section VIII (pDint0 claim)] Section VII asserts that 'pDint0 is the smallest universal symmetry-adapted operator pool', while Section VIII correctly calls this a conjecture supported by numerical evidence. The evidence is a single H6/STO-6G ADAPT-VQE calculation. Universality is a statement about all systems and all symmetry sectors, and one example cannot establish it. Please either temper the Section VII language to match the conjecture status or provide systematic evidence across multiple molecular systems and point groups. As written, the conclusion overstates the numerical finding.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (24)-(25) and following paragraph] The statement that the Wei–Norman decomposition is exact 'everywhere except at the singularities θ = (2κ+1)π/2' is not justified by det(M) = cos(α4) alone, since α4 is a nontrivial function of θ. Please clarify how the locations of the singularities in θ are determined.
  2. [Section VI, gate-count comparison] The claim of 'most compact circuits to date' would be stronger if the authors compared their CNOT/Ry counts with the explicit LCU-based implementation of Ref. [17] or with other published symmetry-preserving approaches, even at the level of order-of-magnitude estimates.
  3. [References] Several reference titles contain typos: 'Quatnum Sci. Technol.' in Ref. [31], 'qauntum' in Refs. [31] and [43], and 'Reaserch' in Ref. [52]. These should be corrected.
  4. [Supplemental Figures S1–S5] The permutation panels in Figs. S1–S5 are visually dense and the determinant formulas are hard to read. A table listing determinant expressions and singularity ranges would improve usability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Wei–Norman derivations are self-contained factorizations; the self-cited closed-form lemma is independently stated, and the large-algebra parameter optimization is transparently a numerical construction, not a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: compute the dynamical Lie algebra by Lie closure; postulate the ordered Wei–Norman product (Eq. 13); differentiate to obtain the ODE system (Eqs. 14–16); evaluate the required similarity transformations via Eq. (21); then solve the system, either by numerical integration (A_QR/PP and [0]A_RS/PQ) or by numerical optimization in an 8-spinorbital Fock space ([1]A_RS/PQ). No step reduces to its inputs by construction. Eq. (21) is taken from the authors' prior paper [95], which is a self-citation, but the present paper restates the sufficient conditions (E_j^3=-E_j and E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j=0) and gives a proof sketch in SM S2; the cited lemma is parameter-free and its assumptions do not include the target product formulas, so it is independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. For the 120-dimensional algebra, the parameters are obtained by minimizing the Frobenius norm between the target unitary and the product ansatz (SM S1). This is a numerical construction/verification, not a fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction: the paper explicitly describes the BFGS optimization and validates the strategy against ODE integration on the smaller algebras. The 'smallest universal symmetry-adapted operator pool' statement is explicitly presented as a conjecture supported by ADAPT-VQE numerics, not derived from the definition of the pool. The main gaps are correctness/support issues rather than circularity: the condition E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j=0 is verified only by a structural argument for the large basis, and the symbolic Wei–Norman system was not constructed for the 120-dimensional algebra. Those are unproven assumptions, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Wei–Norman theorem and the specific Lie algebra structure, but the condition E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j=0 is load-bearing and unproven for the largest algebra. The numerical parameters for the 28/120-dim cases are free parameters fit to the target unitary. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Numerical Wei–Norman parameters c_i(θ) for [0]A^RS_PQ (28-dim) = values shown in Fig. 3, not tabulated
    Obtained by numerical integration of the W-N ODE system; not closed-form.
  • Numerical Wei–Norman parameters c_i(θ) for [1]A^RS_PQ (120-dim) = values shown in Fig. 4, not tabulated
    Obtained by BFGS minimization of Frobenius norm in 8-spinorbital Fock space; fitted to the target unitary.
  • Grid step-size 0.005 = 0.005
    Chosen by hand for interpolation of W-N parameters; arbitrary.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Wei–Norman theorem
    Used to factor exp(θA) into a product of exponentials of Lie algebra basis elements (Section V).
  • domain assumption Lie closure and basis construction
    The dynamical Lie algebras are assumed finite-dimensional and spanned by the listed basis elements (Tables SI/SII).
  • ad hoc to paper Condition E_j[E_i,E_j]E_j = 0
    Necessary for closed-form similarity transformation Eq. (21); proof in S2 is a structural sketch, not verified for all pairs in the 120-dim algebra.
  • ad hoc to paper Faithfulness of 8-spinorbital Fock space
    For the 120-dim case, exactness is validated only in an 8-spinorbital representation; no proof that this representation is faithful for the full algebra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-Adapted Fermionic Unitaries: From Lie Algebras to Compact Quantum Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DAAD4PPI

@misc{pith2026251113485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-Adapted Fermionic Unitaries: From Lie Algebras to Compact Quantum Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DAAD4PPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.13485}
}
read the original abstract

Conservation of symmetries is crucial for reliable quantum simulations of molecular systems, yet compact circuit implementations of fully symmetry-adapted fermionic unitaries have remained elusive beyond the simplest excitation classes. Here we address this issue for the set of singlet spin-adapted generalized singles and doubles operators (saGSD). Using the Wei--Norman approach, we derive exact product formulas that express spin-adapted fermionic unitaries as products of elementary spin-orbital unitaries. To obtain closed-form parameters in the more challenging 28- and 84-dimensional dynamical Lie algebras, we develop a computational discovery-and-verification protocol combining numerical optimization, parameter-structure identification, closed-form inference, and exact validation against reduced Wei--Norman equations. We also introduce an algorithm for constructing closed-form fermionic unitary transformations on Krylov subspaces and extend the fermionic-excitation-based circuit formalism to generators consisting of an anti-Hermitian fermionic string multiplied by arbitrary linear combinations of number-operator products. Together, these developments yield the most compact circuits to date for exact implementation of saGSD unitaries. Finally, for non fully spin-polarized systems, we identify a compact universal symmetry-adapted subset of saGSD that further reduces the quantum resources required for chemically relevant simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum circuit implementation of unitary generated by a singlet spin-adapted double excitation operator. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Numerical values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Numerical values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Numerical values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Qubit excitation-based circuit implementing the unitary exp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fermionic excitation-based quantum circuit implementing the unitary exp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Fermionic excitation-based quantum circuit implementing exp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Fermionic excitation-based quantum circuit imple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. ADAPT-VQE simulations using the GSD and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.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. Symmetry Dilemmas in Quantum Computing for Chemistry: A Comprehensive Analysis

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Spatial-symmetry enforcement makes the saGSpD operator pool non-universal; ADAPT-VQE emulations then map exactly which symmetry must be enforced to avoid variational collapse.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Select the target unitary,U(θ)≡exp(θ P i ciAi)

  2. [2]

    Select an ordered basis{E i}of the dynamical Lie algebrag≡Lie ({A i}) and express the generatorA of the target unitary in this basis: A= X i diEi.(12)

  3. [3]

    Useθ-dependent parameters{α i(θ)}to postulate the factorization eθ P i diEi = Y i eαi(θ)Ei ,(13) with initial conditionsα i(0) = 0

  4. [4]

    Differentiate Eq. (13) with respect toθto obtain X i diEiU(θ) = X i α′ i(θ)( ¯Ei)i−1...1U(θ),(14) whereα ′ i(θ) = dαi(θ) dθ and, omitting theθ- dependence of theα i parameters for clarity, ( ¯Ei)i−1...1 =e α1E1 · · ·eαi−1Ei−1 Eie−αi−1Ei−1 · · ·e−α1E1 = X j Mji(α1, . . . , αi−1)Ej . (15)

  5. [5]

    Left-multiply Eq. (14) byU −1(θ) and equate the coefficients of the basis elements{E i}on both sides of the equality to obtain the Wei–Norman system of coupled ordinary differential equations for{α i(θ)}, which can be expressed in matrix form as M(α1, α2, . . .)(α′ 1, α′ 2, . . .)⊺ = (d1, d2, . . .)⊺ ⇒ (α′ 1, α′ 2, . . .)⊺ =M −1(α1, α2, . . .)(d1, d2, . ....

  6. [6]

    tan(θ−kπ)p 2 + tan2(θ−kπ) # ,(31) ˜α4(θ) = (−1)k arctan

    Solve Eq. (16) in the nonsingular det(M)̸= 0 re- gion of interest to obtain the numerical values of theθ-dependent parametersα i(θ). There are two degrees of freedom that affect the Wei– Norman decomposition. The first is the choice of basis of the dynamical Lie algebra, and the second is the ordering of the exponentials in the product formula. By appropr...

  7. [7]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Reiher, N

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on qaut- num computers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, 7555 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Paldus, Group theoretical approach to the configu- ration interaction and perturbation theory calculations for atomic and molecular systems, J

    J. Paldus, Group theoretical approach to the configu- ration interaction and perturbation theory calculations for atomic and molecular systems, J. Chem. Phys.61, 5321 (1974)

    1974

  4. [12]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of many-body Fermi systems on a universal quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2586 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm pro- viding exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5162 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, Commun. Math. Phys.270, 359 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Babbush, N

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, Low-depth quantum sim- ulations of materials, Phys. Rev. X8, 011044 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing, Chem. Rev.119, 10856 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan, Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quan- tum materials science, Chem. Rev.120, 12685 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Huggins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Qauntum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Aaronson, Quantum computing, postselection, and probabilistic polynomial-time, Proc

    S. Aaronson, Quantum computing, postselection, and probabilistic polynomial-time, Proc. R. Soc. A461, 3473 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Bonet-Monroig, R

    X. Bonet-Monroig, R. Sagastizabal, M. Singh, and T. E. O’Brien, Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verifi- cation, Phys. Rev. A98, 062339 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    McArdle, X

    S. McArdle, X. Yuan, and S. Benjamin, Error-mitigated digital quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 180501 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Magoulas and F

    I. Magoulas and F. A. Evangelista, Closed-form expres- sions for unitaries of spin-adapted fermionic operators, Mol. Phys. , e2534672 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nat Commun.10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    I. G. Ryabinkin, R. A. Lang, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Izmaylov, Iterative qubit coupled cluster approach with efficient screening of generators, J. Chem. Theory Com- put.16, 1055 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    N. H. Stair and F. A. Evangelista, Simulating many- body systems with a projective quantum eigensolver, PRX Quantum2, 030301 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Wei and E

    J. Wei and E. Norman, Lie algebraic solution of linear differential equations, J. Math. Phys.4, 575 (1963)

    1963

  20. [28]

    Wei and E

    J. Wei and E. Norman, On global representations of the solutions of linear differential equations as a product of exponentials, Proc. Am. Math. Soc.15, 327 (1964)

    1964

  21. [29]

    J. D. Whitfield, Communitation: Spin-free quan- tum computational simulations and symmetry adapted states, J. Chem. Phys.139, 021105 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    A. F. Izmaylov, On construction of projection operators, J. Phys. Chem. A123, 3429 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    K. Seki, T. Shirakawa, and S. Yunoki, Symmetry- adapted variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052340 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Seki and S

    K. Seki and S. Yunoki, Spatial, spin, and charge symme- try projections for a Fermi-Hubbard model on a quan- tum computer, Phys. Rev. A105, 032419 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Tsuchimochi, Y

    T. Tsuchimochi, Y. Mori, and S. L. Ten-no, Spin projec- tion for quantum computation: A low-depth approach to strong correlation, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043142 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Tsuchimochi, M

    T. Tsuchimochi, M. Taii, T. Nishimaki, and S. L. Ten- no, Adaptive construction of shallower quantum circuits with quantum spin projection for fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. Research4, 033100 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Siwach and D

    P. Siwach and D. Lacroix, Filtering states with total spin on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A104, 062435 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    E. A. R. Guzman and D. Lacroix, Restoring broken sym- metries using quantum search “oracles”, Phys. Rev. C 107, 034310 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Khamoshi, F

    A. Khamoshi, F. A. Evangelista, and G. E. Scuseria, Correlating AGP on a qauntum computer, Quatnum 16 Sci. Technol.6, 014004 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    E. A. R. Guzman and D. Lacroix, Accessing ground- state and excited-state energies in a many-body system after symmetry restoration using quantum computers, Phys. Rev. C105, 024324 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation us- ing linear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Inform. Comput.12, 901 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 090502 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum- classical algorithms, New J. Phys.18, 023023 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    I. G. Ryabinkin, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Izmaylov, Constrained variational quantum eigensolver: Quantum computer search engine in the fock space, J. Chem. The- ory Comput.15, 249 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Greene-Diniz and D

    G. Greene-Diniz and D. M. Ramo, Generalized unitary coupled cluster excitations for multireference molecular states optimized by the variational quantum eigensolver, Int. J. Quantum Chem.121, e26352 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Kuroiwa and Y

    K. Kuroiwa and Y. O. Nakagawa, Penalty methods for a variational quantum eigensolver, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 013197 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Selvarajan, M

    R. Selvarajan, M. Saijan, and S. Kais, Variational quan- tum circuits to prepare low energy symmetry states, Symmetry14, 457 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Bravyi, J

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

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Setia, R

    K. Setia, R. Chen, J. E. Rice, A. Mezzacapo, M. Pis- toia, and J. D. Whitfield, Reducing qubit requirements for quantum simulations using molecular point group symmetries, J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 6091 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Picozzi and J

    D. Picozzi and J. Tennyson, Symmetry-adapted encod- ings for qubit number reduction by point-group and other boolean symmetries, Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 035026 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Yamamoto, S. Nakazawa, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, Quantum chemistry on quantum computers: A polynomial-time quantum algorithm for constructing the wave functions of open- shell molecules, J. Phys. Chem. A120, 6459 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Yamamoto, S. Nakazawa, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui, Open shell electronic state calculations on quantum computers: A quantum circuit for the preparation of configuration state func- tions based on serber construction, Chem. Phys. Lett. 737, 1000...

    2019

  43. [51]

    B. T. Gard, L. Zhu, G. S. Baron, N. J. Mayhall, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Efficient symmetry- preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm, npj Quantum Informa- tion6, 10 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Carbone, D

    A. Carbone, D. E. Galli, M. Motta, and B. Jones, Quan- tum circuits for the preparation of spin eigenfunctions on quantum computers, Symmetry14, 624 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    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 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bacon, I

    D. Bacon, I. L. Chuang, and A. W. Harrow, Efficient quantum circuits for Schur and Clebsch-Gordan trans- forms, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 170502 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Gandon, A

    A. Gandon, A. Baiardi, M. Rossmannek, W. Dobrautz, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum computing in spin-adapted representations for efficient simulations of spin systems, PRX Quantum6, 030306 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    G.-L. R. Anselmetti, D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin, and R. M. Parrish, Local, expressive, quantum-number-preserving vqe ans¨ atze for fermionic systems, New J. Phys.23, 113010 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    H. G. A. Burton, D. Marti-Dafcik, D. P. Tew, and D. J. Wales, Exact electronic states with shallow quantum cir- cuits from global optimisation, npj Quantum Inf.9, 75 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    H. G. A. Burton, Accurate and gate-efficient quantum ans¨ atze for electronic states without adaptive optimisa- tion, Phys. Rev. Reaserch6, 023300 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Kutzelnigg, inMethods of Electronic Structure The- ory, edited by H

    W. Kutzelnigg, inMethods of Electronic Structure The- ory, edited by H. F. Schaefer, III (Springer, Boston,

  52. [60]

    Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space

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

    1982

  53. [61]

    Kutzelnigg and S

    W. Kutzelnigg and S. Koch, Quantum chemistry in Fock space. II. Effective Hamiltonians in Fock space, J. Chem. Phys.79, 4315 (1983)

    1983

  54. [62]

    Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space

    W. Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space. III. Particle-hole formalism, J. Chem. Phys.80, 822 (1984)

    1984

  55. [63]

    R. J. Bartlett, S. A. Kucharski, and J. Noga, Alternative coupled-cluster ans¨ atze II. The unitary coupled-cluster method, Chem. Phys. Lett.155, 133 (1989)

    1989

  56. [64]

    P. G. Szalay, M. Nooijen, and R. J. Bartlett, Alternative ans¨ atze in single reference coupled-cluster theory. III. A critical analysis of different methods, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 281 (1995)

    1995

  57. [65]

    A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett, New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 106, 3393 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    Cooper and P

    B. Cooper and P. J. Knowles, Benchmark studies of vari- ational, unitary and extended coupled cluster methods, J. Chem. Phys.133, 234102 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    F. A. Evangelista, Alternative single-reference coupled cluster approaches for multireference problems: The simpler, the better, J. Chem. Phys.134, 224102 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Harsha, T

    G. Harsha, T. Shiozaki, and G. E. Scuseria, On the dif- ference between variational and unitary coupled clutser theories, J. Chem. Phys.148, 044107 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Filip and A

    M.-A. Filip and A. J. W. Thom, A stochastic approach to unitary coupled cluster, J. Chem. Phys.153, 214106 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    J. K. Freericks, Operator relationship between conven- tional coupled cluster and unitary coupled cluster, Sym- metry14, 494 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    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, A quantum com- puting view on unitary coupled cluster theory, Chem. Soc. Rev.51, 1659 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Coester, Bound states of a many-particle system, Nucl

    F. Coester, Bound states of a many-particle system, Nucl. Phys.7, 421 (1958)

    1958

  65. [73]

    Coester and H

    F. Coester and H. K¨ ummel, Short-range correlations in nuclear wave functions, Nucl. Phys.17, 477 (1960). 17

    1960

  66. [74]

    ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, On the correlation problem in atomic and molecular systems

    J. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, On the correlation problem in atomic and molecular systems. Calculation of wavefunction compo- nents in Ursell-type expansion using quantum-field the- oretical methods, J. Chem. Phys.45, 4256 (1966)

    1966

  67. [75]

    ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, On the use of the cluster expansion and the technique of diagrams in calculations of correlation ef- fects in atoms and molecules, Adv

    J. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, On the use of the cluster expansion and the technique of diagrams in calculations of correlation ef- fects in atoms and molecules, Adv. Chem. Phys.14, 35 (1969)

    1969

  68. [76]

    ˇC ´ ıˇ zek and J

    J. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek and J. Paldus, Correlation problems in atomic and molecular systems III. Rederivation of the coupled- pair many-electron theory using the traditional quan- tum chemical methods, Int. J. Quantum Chem.5, 359 (1971)

    1971

  69. [77]

    Paldus, J

    J. Paldus, J. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, and I. Shavitt, Correlation prob- lems in atomic and molecular systems. IV. Extended coupled-pair many-electron theory and its application to the BH 3 molecule, Phys. Rev. A5, 50 (1972)

    1972

  70. [78]

    Nooijen, Can the eigenstates of a many-body Hamil- tonian be represented exactly using a general two-body cluster expansion?, Phys

    M. Nooijen, Can the eigenstates of a many-body Hamil- tonian be represented exactly using a general two-body cluster expansion?, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2108 (2000)

    2000

  71. [79]

    Nakatsuji, Structure of the exact wave function, J

    H. Nakatsuji, Structure of the exact wave function, J. Chem. Phys.113, 2949 (2000)

    2000

  72. [80]

    F. A. Evangelista, G. K.-L. Chan, and G. E. Scuse- ria, Exact parameterization of fermionic wave functions via unitary coupled cluster theory, J. Chem. Phys.151, 244112 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Y. S. Yordanov, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, and C. H. W. Barnes, Efficient quantum circuits for quan- tum computational chemistry, Phys. Rev. A102, 062612 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    Xia and S

    R. Xia and S. Kais, Qubit coupled cluster singles and doubles variational quantum eigensolver ansatz for elec- tronic structure calculations, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 015001 (2021)

    2021

  75. [83]

    Paldus, B

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

    1977

  76. [84]

    Paldus, J

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

    1977

  77. [85]

    B. G. Adams and J. Paldus, Phys. Rev. A20, 1 (1979)

    1979

  78. [86]

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

    1981

  79. [87]

    Piecuch and J

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

    1989

  80. [88]

    Geertsen, S

    J. Geertsen, S. Eriksen, and J. Oddershede, Adv. Quan- tum Chem.22, 167 (1991)

    1991

  81. [89]

    Piecuch and J

    P. Piecuch and J. Paldus, Theor. Chim. Acta83, 69 (1992)

    1992

  82. [90]

    Piecuch and J

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

    1994

  83. [91]

    E. R. Kjellgren, K. M. Ziems, P. Reinholdt, S. P. A. Sauer, S. Coriani, and J. Kongsted, Exact closed- form expressions for unitary spin-adapted fermionic sin- glet double excitation operators, J. Chem. Phys.163, 134115 (2025)

    2025

  84. [92]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das Paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys.47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  85. [93]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum com- putation, Ann. Phys.298, 210 (2002)

    2002

  86. [94]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, inProceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’14 (Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, N...

    2014

  87. [95]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, and R. Kothari, Hamilto- nian simulation with nearly optimal dependence on all parameters, in2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science(2015) pp. 792–809

    2015

  88. [96]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, inPro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019 (2019) pp. 193– 204

    2019

  89. [97]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal hamiltonian sim- ulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  90. [98]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    C. Altafini, Use of Wei–Norman formulæ and parame- ter differentiation in quantum computing, inProceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS 2002)(Uni- versity of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, USA) 6 pages

    2002

  92. [100]

    Charzy´ nski and M

    S. Charzy´ nski and M. Ku´ s, Wei–Norman equations for a unitary evolution, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.46, 265208 (2013)

    2013

  93. [101]

    F. A. Evangelista and I. Magoulas, Exact Closed-Form Unitary Transformations of Fermionic Operators, Phys. Rev. A111, 042825 (2025)

    2025

  94. [102]

    Magoulas and F

    I. Magoulas and F. A. Evangelista, CNOT-efficient cir- cuits for arbitrary rank many-body fermionic and qubit excitations, J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 822 (2023)

    2023

  95. [103]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. R. amd D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, I. Polat, Y. F...

    2020

  96. [104]

    Amerio and G

    L. Amerio and G. Prouse,Almost-Periodic Functions and Functionals(Springer New York, NY, 1971)

    1971

  97. [105]

    Meurer, C

    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. Johans- son, F. Pedregosa, M. J. Curry, A. R. Terrel, v. Rouˇ cka,...

    2017

  98. [106]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential product formulas of higher orders, inQuantum annealing and other optimization methods, edited by A. K. Das and B. Chakrabarti (Springer, 2005) pp. 37–68

    2005

  99. [107]

    Barthel and Y

    T. Barthel and Y. Zhang, Optimized lie–trotter–suzuki decompositions for two and three non-commuting terms, Ann. Phys.418, 168165 (2020)

    2020

  100. [108]

    W. J. Hehre, R. F. Stewart, and J. A. Pople, Self- consistent molecular-orbital methods. I. Use of Gaus- sian expansions of Slater-type atomic orbitals, J. Chem. Phys.51, 2657 (1969)

    1969

  101. [109]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. 18 O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun.5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  102. [110]

    C. G. Broyden, The convergence of a class of double- rank minimization algorithms: 2. The new algorithm, IMA J. Appl. Math.6, 222 (1970)

    1970

  103. [111]

    Fletcher, A new approach to variable metric algo- rithms, Comput

    R. Fletcher, A new approach to variable metric algo- rithms, Comput. J.13, 317 (1970)

    1970

  104. [112]

    Goldfarb, A family of variable-metric methods de- rived by variational means, Math

    D. Goldfarb, A family of variable-metric methods de- rived by variational means, Math. Comp.24, 23 (1970)

    1970

  105. [113]

    D. F. Shanno, Conditioning of quasi-Newton methods for function minimization, Math. Comp.24, 647 (1970)

    1970

  106. [114]

    N. H. Stair and F. A. Evangelista, QForte: An effi- cient state-vector emulator and quantum algorithms li- brary for molecular electronic structure, J. Chem. The- ory Comput.18, 1555 (2022)

    2022

  107. [115]

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

    2020

  108. [116]

    I. W. Bulik, T. M. Henderson, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Theory Comput.11, 3171 (2015)

    2015

  109. [117]

    Mitarai, M

    K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Quantum circuit learning, Phys. Rev. A98, 032309 (2018)

    2018

  110. [118]

    Schuld, V

    M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Evaluating analytic gradients on quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. A99, 032331 (2019)

    2019

  111. [119]

    J. S. Kottmann, A. Anand, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, A fea- sible approach for automatically differentiable unitary coupled-cluster on quantum computers, Chem. Sci.12, 3497 (2021)

    2021

  112. [120]

    A. F. Izmaylov, R. A. Lang, and T.-C. Yen, Analytic gradients in variational quantum algorithms: Algebraic extensions of the parameter-shift rule to general unitary transformations, Phys. Rev. A104, 062443 (2021). S1 Supplemental Material: Spin-Adapted Fermionic Unitaries: Fro...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.