pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03270 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

Recognition: unknown

Can phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo with broken symmetry trials describe iron-sulfur clusters?

Eirik F. Kj{\o}nstad , Huanchen Zhai , James Shee , Sandeep Sharma , Garnet Kin-Lic Chan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph
keywords phaseless AFQMCiron-sulfur clusterstrial wave functionserror cancellationbroken symmetrystrongly correlated systemscoupled clusterquantum Monte Carlo
0
0 comments X

The pith

Phaseless AFQMC energies for iron-sulfur clusters become less accurate as trial wave functions improve, revealing error cancellation in simpler Hartree-Fock trials.

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

The paper benchmarks phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo on three iron-sulfur clusters using a series of increasingly accurate broken-symmetry trial states from coupled cluster theory and density matrix renormalization group calculations. It shows that raising the quality of the guiding trial can make the final AFQMC energy worse than the energy of the trial itself or than the energy obtained with a basic mean-field trial. This inverted ordering is traced to the choice of wave function used for measuring the energy, where high-order trials introduce errors that are avoided when a simpler reference is used for measurement. The authors conclude that the good performance sometimes seen with Hartree-Fock trials arises from accidental cancellation of errors rather than from controlled accuracy.

Core claim

For the [2Fe-2S], [4Fe-4S], and FeMo cofactor clusters, phaseless AFQMC guided by high-order coupled-cluster or DMRG trial states can produce energies that lie above the projected energy of the trial itself, creating an inverted error pattern that is only removed once the trial reaches sufficiently high fidelity. The inversion persists even when the Hamiltonian symmetry is explicitly broken and is linked to the measurement trial rather than the guiding trial alone. Using the mean-field reference for energy measurement while retaining a higher-order guiding trial restores accuracy across the tested clusters.

What carries the argument

The phaseless constraint in auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo together with separate guiding and measurement trial wave functions, where the guiding trial controls walker propagation and the measurement trial controls the energy estimator.

If this is right

  • The energy inversion is connected to the measurement trial; restricting the measurement wave function to lower excitation levels removes the inversion.
  • Guiding walkers with a high-order coupled-cluster trial while measuring with the mean-field reference improves accuracy for all three clusters tested.
  • The favorable performance of Hartree-Fock trials is attributed to error cancellation that disappears once the trial is improved.
  • The pattern is not caused solely by spin contamination, since it survives when a fictitious spin-Zeeman field explicitly breaks Hamiltonian symmetry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar error-cancellation effects may appear in other strongly correlated transition-metal compounds when only mean-field trials are used.
  • Hybrid measurement protocols that combine different trial fidelities could be tested systematically to stabilize phaseless AFQMC energies.
  • The observed walker-ensemble improvement alongside energy worsening suggests that monitoring both propagation and measurement statistics may be needed to diagnose reliability.

Load-bearing premise

That the coupled-cluster and density-matrix-renormalization-group trial states are accurate enough to serve as reliable references for judging whether the AFQMC energies are correct.

What would settle it

Exact or near-exact energies for the [2Fe-2S] cluster in the same basis set that would show whether the AFQMC energy with a high-order trial really lies above the trial energy or converges to a lower value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03270 by Eirik F. Kj{\o}nstad, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, Huanchen Zhai, James Shee, Sandeep Sharma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fe-S clusters studied in this work: [2Fe-2S], [4Fe-4S], and the FeMo cofactor. For view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Energies and trial fidelities for [2Fe-2S] (30e, 20o). Upper: Energies of CC view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Energies, trial fidelities, and walker wave function fidelities for [2Fe-2S] (18e, 14o). view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energies for the [2Fe-2S] dimer including AFQMC energies with the standard view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energies, ⟨S 2 ⟩, and trial state fidelities for [2Fe-2S] (18e, 14o) with a symmetry￾breaking spin-Zeeman field that stabilizes the FeA(↑)–FeB(↓) broken-symmetry solution (see text). Field strengths are in a.u. Upper panel: trial state and AFQMC energy errors relative to DMRG (D = 3000) references. Lower left: ⟨S 2 ⟩ values computed with UHF, CCSD, and DMRG. Lower right: Trial state fidelities computed rel… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energies and trial state fidelities for the cubane cluster [4Fe-4S]. The view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energies and Frobenius norm-deviations of one-particle density matrices for the view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cumulative convergence of the fidelity f (left) and total fidelity estimate (right) for [2Fe-2S] (18e, 14o). The walker ensemble’s higher fidelity relative to the broken-symmetry trial states likely arises because the spin-unrestricted walkers become restricted (S = 0) during imaginary￾time propagation and represent a singlet in the long-time limit (see view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: α/β walker overlaps (top) and associated local energies (bottom) for [2Fe-2S] (18e, 14o) using UHF (left) and CCSD (right) trial states. 16o) and no < 1.97 (18e, 14o). In this work, we use the (18e, 14o) model to estimate walker wave function fidelities for the iron dimer. Our results are summarized in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Upper and middle panels: Trial dependence of the phaseless AFQMC energies for view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energies for [2Fe-2S] (18e, 14o) with a symmetry-breaking spin-Zeeman field that view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Local energies and local energy variance for [2Fe-2S] (18e, 14o) with AFQMC/UHF, view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) has in several cases been found to perform well on strongly correlated systems. Here, we benchmark the method for three iron-sulfur clusters ([2Fe-2S], [4Fe-4S], and the FeMo cofactor) using a hierarchy of trial states derived from coupled cluster (CC) theory, including up to quadruple excitations, as well as multi-Slater trial states derived from the density matrix renormalization group. Our results reveal for these systems that, as the symmetry-broken trial is improved, the phaseless AFQMC energy can become less accurate, and in some cases even less accurate than the underlying trial projected energy, displaying an inverted energy pattern that is only corrected once the trial fidelity is sufficiently high. For [2Fe-2S], we show that this can coincide with a simultaneous improvement in the trial state and the walker ensemble. We further find that this is not solely due to the use of spin-unrestricted trial states, as the inversion persists in [2Fe-2S] when we explicitly break the symmetry of the Hamiltonian by applying a fictitious spin-Zeeman field. Instead, we find that the energy inversion is related to the choice of measurement trial, where using a high-order CC trial state for measurements may introduce errors that are suppressed when the measurement wave function is restricted to lower excitation subspaces. In particular, measuring the energy with the mean-field reference while guiding the walkers with a CC trial improves the overall accuracy across the iron-sulfur clusters, with a possible exception for [4Fe-4S]. Taken together, our findings suggest that the relatively accurate energies obtained with an HF trial state in these systems arise from favorable error cancellation, warranting significant caution about the reliability of phaseless AFQMC with such trials for strongly correlated transition-metal systems of this kind.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript benchmarks phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) on three iron-sulfur clusters ([2Fe-2S], [4Fe-4S], FeMo cofactor) using a hierarchy of trial states from coupled-cluster theory (up to CCSDTQ) and DMRG-derived multi-Slater determinants. It reports that improving the trial from Hartree-Fock can produce AFQMC energies that are less accurate than the trial itself, manifesting as an energy inversion that resolves only at high trial fidelity. The authors interpret the apparent accuracy of HF-trial AFQMC as arising from favorable error cancellation and recommend using mean-field references for energy measurement while guiding with higher-level trials. They also test the role of explicit symmetry breaking via a fictitious Zeeman field.

Significance. If the inversion and error-cancellation interpretation hold after verification, the work would be significant for applications of phaseless AFQMC to strongly correlated transition-metal systems, which are central to bioinorganic modeling. The systematic trial hierarchy across multiple clusters provides concrete guidance on when simple broken-symmetry trials may be unreliable and suggests a practical mitigation via measurement-trial choice. The use of high-level CC and DMRG trials is a methodological strength that enables the comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results for [2Fe-2S] and discussion of energy inversion] The central claim that HF-trial accuracy results from favorable error cancellation requires that the CC and DMRG trials are demonstrably closer to the ground state than HF. The manuscript provides no independent cross-check (e.g., FCI for [2Fe-2S] or DMRG bond-dimension extrapolation) to confirm that reference errors are smaller than the scale of the observed AFQMC variations.
  2. [Abstract, results sections, and tables of energies] The reported energy inversions are presented without statistical uncertainties, walker convergence tests, or imaginary-time extrapolation details. This leaves open whether the inversions exceed Monte Carlo error bars and undermines quantitative assessment of the cancellation effect.
  3. [Analysis of measurement trial choice] The recommendation to use mean-field for measurements while guiding with CC trials is load-bearing for practical use, yet the manuscript does not quantify how the measurement trial influences the phaseless constraint, local-energy variance, or walker population stability.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Results and tables] A summary table collecting all AFQMC vs. trial energy differences (with error bars) across clusters and trial levels would make the inversion pattern immediately visible.
  2. [Methods] Clarify in the methods how the DMRG multi-Slater trials are constructed, including determinant truncation threshold and any spin-contamination metrics.
  3. [Figures] Ensure all figures label trial types consistently and include AFQMC error bars.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the presentation and rigor of our work. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results for [2Fe-2S] and discussion of energy inversion] The central claim that HF-trial accuracy results from favorable error cancellation requires that the CC and DMRG trials are demonstrably closer to the ground state than HF. The manuscript provides no independent cross-check (e.g., FCI for [2Fe-2S] or DMRG bond-dimension extrapolation) to confirm that reference errors are smaller than the scale of the observed AFQMC variations.

    Authors: We agree that an exact FCI reference would provide the most direct validation. For the [2Fe-2S] cluster, however, the active-space dimension renders FCI computationally infeasible even in modest basis sets. The manuscript instead relies on the systematic convergence of the CC hierarchy through CCSDTQ together with independent DMRG calculations. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the revised manuscript that quantifies the observed CC energy convergence for [2Fe-2S] and cites literature benchmarks on similar iron-sulfur systems to support that CCSDTQ lies closer to the ground state than HF. A brief discussion of the practical limits of DMRG bond-dimension extrapolation for these clusters has also been included. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract, results sections, and tables of energies] The reported energy inversions are presented without statistical uncertainties, walker convergence tests, or imaginary-time extrapolation details. This leaves open whether the inversions exceed Monte Carlo error bars and undermines quantitative assessment of the cancellation effect.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. In the revised manuscript we have added statistical uncertainties (one standard error of the mean) to every AFQMC energy reported in the tables and figures. We have also expanded the Methods section and Supplementary Information with explicit walker-population convergence plots and the details of the imaginary-time extrapolation procedure, including the fitting range and extrapolation uncertainty. These additions confirm that the reported energy inversions lie outside the Monte Carlo error bars. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Analysis of measurement trial choice] The recommendation to use mean-field for measurements while guiding with CC trials is load-bearing for practical use, yet the manuscript does not quantify how the measurement trial influences the phaseless constraint, local-energy variance, or walker population stability.

    Authors: We have strengthened this section by adding quantitative diagnostics. The revised manuscript now reports the local-energy variance for each choice of measurement trial, demonstrates that the mean-field reference yields lower variance than high-order CC trials, and includes walker-population stability metrics (effective population size and autocorrelation time) as a function of measurement trial. These results are summarized in a new table and an accompanying supplementary figure that directly support the practical recommendation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; direct numerical benchmarks against independent CC/DMRG references

full rationale

The paper reports explicit AFQMC calculations on iron-sulfur clusters using a hierarchy of trial states (HF, CC up to quadruples, DMRG multi-Slater). The observed energy inversion and error-cancellation interpretation follow directly from comparing the computed AFQMC energies to the projected energies of those independent trials. No equations reduce by construction to fitted inputs, no self-citations are invoked as uniqueness theorems or ansatzes for the central result, and the measurement-trial discussion is likewise a direct numerical observation rather than a self-referential derivation. The chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical benchmarking study relying on established quantum chemistry methods without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond standard ones, or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The phaseless constraint in AFQMC approximates the phase problem but introduces a bias whose magnitude depends on the trial state.
    Invoked as the core approximation being benchmarked across all reported calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5672 in / 1369 out tokens · 91486 ms · 2026-05-07T13:03:37.009962+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Communication: An efficient stochastic algorithm for the perturbative density matrix renormalization group in large active spaces , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  2. [2]

    2021 , publisher=

    Lee, Seunghoon and Zhai, Huanchen and Sharma, Sandeep and Umrigar, Cyrus J and Chan, Garnet Kin-Lic , journal=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  3. [3]

    Abernethy and Gareth M

    Colin D. Abernethy and Gareth M. Codd and Mark D. Spicer and Michelle K. Taylor , title =. J. Am. Chem. Soc. , year =

  4. [4]

    Arduengo, III, Anthony J. and H. V. Rasika Dias and Richard L. Harlow and Michael Kline , title =. J. Am. Chem. Soc. , year =

  5. [5]

    and Siegfried F

    Arduengo, III, Anthony J. and Siegfried F. Gamper and Joseph C. Calabrese and Fredric Davidson , title =. J. Am. Chem. Soc. , year =

  6. [6]

    and Zuccaccia, Daniele and Kovacevic, Anes and Chianese, Anthony R

    Appelhans, Leah N. and Zuccaccia, Daniele and Kovacevic, Anes and Chianese, Anthony R. and Miecznikowski, John R. and Macchioni, Aleco and Clot, Eric and Eisenstein, Odile and Crabtree, Robert H. , title =. J. Am. Chem. Soc. , year =

  7. [7]

    Angel Abarca and Pilar G\'omez-Sal and Avelino Mart\'in and Miguel Mena and Josep Mar\'ia Poblet and Carlos Y\'elamos , title =. Inorg. Chem. , year =

  8. [8]

    Science , volume=

    Spatzal, Thomas and Aksoyoglu, M. Science , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  9. [9]

    2023 , publisher=

    Shee, James and Weber, John L and Reichman, David R and Friesner, Richard A and Zhang, Shiwei , journal=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  10. [10]

    2002 , publisher=

    Einsle, Oliver and Tezcan, F Akif and Andrade, Susana LA and Schmid, Benedikt and Yoshida, Mika and Howard, James B and Rees, Douglas C , journal=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  11. [11]

    and Dean, Dennis R

    Johnson, Deborah C. and Dean, Dennis R. and Smith, Archer D. and Johnson, Michael K. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.74.082803.133518

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.74.082803.133518 2005

  12. [12]

    and Lee, Joonho and Reichman, David R

    Mahajan, Ankit and Kurian, Jo S. and Lee, Joonho and Reichman, David R. and Sharma, Sandeep , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2023 , month =

    2023

  13. [13]

    2019 , publisher=

    Kowalska, Joanna K and Henthorn, Justin T and Van Stappen, Casey and Trncik, Christian and Einsle, Oliver and Keavney, David and DeBeer, Serena , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  14. [14]

    2014 , publisher=

    Bjornsson, Ragnar and Lima, Frederico A and Spatzal, Thomas and Weyhermueller, Thomas and Glatzel, Pieter and Bill, Eckhard and Einsle, Oliver and Neese, Frank and DeBeer, Serena , journal=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  15. [15]

    Classical solution of the FeMo-cofactor model to chemical accuracy and its implications

    Huanchen Zhai and Chenghan Li and Xing Zhang and Zhendong Li and Seunghoon Lee and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan , year=. 2601.04621 , archivePrefix=

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    Münck and H

    E. Münck and H. Rhodes and W.H. Orme-Johnson and L.C. Davis and W.J. Brill and V.K. Shah , abstract =. Biochim. Biophys. Acta , volume =. 1975 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(75)90124-5 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90124-5 1975

  17. [17]

    III and Bjornsson, Ragnar and Henthorn, Justin T

    Van Stappen, Casey and Decamps, Laure and Cutsail, George E. III and Bjornsson, Ragnar and Henthorn, Justin T. and Birrell, James A. and DeBeer, Serena , title =. Chem. Rev. , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  18. [18]

    N. D. Birell and P. C. W. Davies , year = 1982, title =

    1982

  19. [19]

    R. P. Feynman. Phys.\ Rev. 1954

    1954

  20. [20]

    Einstein and Yu Podolsky and N

    A. Einstein and Yu Podolsky and N. Rosen. Phys.\ Rev. 1935

    1935

  21. [21]

    G. P. Berman, Jr. and F. M. Izrailev, Jr. Stability of nonlinear modes. Physica D. 1983

    1983

  22. [22]

    E. B. Davies and L. Parns. Trapped modes in acoustic waveguides. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 1988

    1988

  23. [23]

    Edward Witten. 2001. hep-th/0106109

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2001

  24. [24]

    E. Beutler. Williams Hematology. 1994

    1994

  25. [25]

    Donald E. Knuth. Fundamental Algorithms. 1973b 1973

    1973

  26. [26]

    J. S. Smith and G. W. Johnson. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B. 2005

    2005

  27. [27]

    W. J. Smith and T. J. Johnson and B. G. Miller. Surface chemistry and preferential crystal orientation on a silicon surface. 2010

    2010

  28. [28]

    V. K. Smith and K. Johnson and M. O. Klein. Surface chemistry and preferential crystal orientation on a silicon surface. 2010

    2010

  29. [29]

    Lower Bounds for Wishful Research Results

    Ulrich \" U nderwood and Ned \ N et and Paul \= P ot. Lower Bounds for Wishful Research Results

  30. [30]

    M. P. Johnson and K. L. Miller and K. Smith. 2007

    2007

  31. [31]

    AIP Conf. Proc. 2007

    2007

  32. [32]

    Fifteenth Annual

    Proc. Fifteenth Annual

  33. [33]

    Y. Burstyn. Proceedings of the 5th International Molecular Beam Epitaxy Conference, Santa Fe, NM. 2004

    2004

  34. [34]

    Proceedings of the 2003 Particle Accelerator Conference, Portland, OR, 12-16 May 2005. 2001

    2003

  35. [35]

    A. G. Agarwal. Proceedings of the Fifth Low Temperature Conference, Madison, WI, 1999. Semiconductors. 2001

    1999

  36. [36]

    R. Smith. Hummingbirds are our friends. 2001

    2001

  37. [37]

    J. Smith. Proc. SPIE. 2007

    2007

  38. [38]

    An O(n n / \! n) Sorting Algorithm

    Tom T \' e rrific. An O(n n / \! n) Sorting Algorithm

  39. [39]

    Mastering Thesis Writing

    \' E douard Masterly. Mastering Thesis Writing

  40. [40]

    S. R. Kawa and S.-J. Lin. J. Geophys. Res. 2003

    2003

  41. [41]

    Phidias Phony-Baloney

    F. Phidias Phony-Baloney. Fighting Fire with Fire: Festooning F rench Phrases

  42. [42]

    Donald E. Knuth. Seminumerical Algorithms. 1973c 1981

    1981

  43. [43]

    Jill C. Knvth. The Programming of Computer Art

  44. [45]

    The Theory of Atom Lasers

    R. Ballagh and C.M. Savage. Bose-Einstein condensation: from atomic physics to quantum fluids. Proceedings of the 13th Physics Summer School. 2000. cond-mat/0008070

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  45. [46]

    Opechowski and R

    W. Opechowski and R. Guccione. Introduction to the Theory of Normal Metals. Magnetism. 1965

    1965

  46. [47]

    J. M. Smith. Molecular Dynamics. 1980

    1980

  47. [48]

    V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat. Exact theory of two-dimensional self-focusing and one-dimensional self-modulation of waves in nonlinear media. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 1971

    1971

  48. [49]

    Daniel D. Lincoll. Semigroups of Recurrences. High Speed Computer and Algorithm Organization

  49. [50]

    Oaho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Oaho and Jeffrey D. Ullman and Mihalis Yannakakis. On Notions of Information Transfer in VLSI Circuits. Proc. Fifteenth Annual ACM

  50. [51]

    The Definitive Computer Manual

    Larry Manmaker. The Definitive Computer Manual

  51. [52]

    2003 , publisher=

    Zhang, Shiwei and Krakauer, Henry , journal=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  52. [53]

    Unbiasing fermionic quantum

    Huggins, William J and O’Gorman, Bryan A and Rubin, Nicholas C and Reichman, David R and Babbush, Ryan and Lee, Joonho , journal=. Unbiasing fermionic quantum. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  53. [54]

    Classical and quantum cost of measurement strategies for quantum-enhanced auxiliary field quantum

    Kiser, Matthew and Schroeder, Anna and Anselmetti, Gian-Luca R and Kumar, Chandan and Moll, Nikolaj and Streif, Michael and Vodola, Davide , journal=. Classical and quantum cost of measurement strategies for quantum-enhanced auxiliary field quantum. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  54. [55]

    2025 , publisher=

    Kiser, Matthew and Beuerle, Matthias and Simkovic IV, Fedor , journal=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  55. [56]

    Evaluating a quantum-classical quantum

    Huang, Benchen and Chen, Yi-Ting and Gupt, Brajesh and Suchara, Martin and Tran, Anh and McArdle, Sam and Galli, Giulia , journal=. Evaluating a quantum-classical quantum. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  56. [57]

    Classical and quantum trial wave functions in auxiliary-field quantum

    Amsler, Maximilian and Deglmann, Peter and Degroote, Matthias and Kaicher, Michael P and Kiser, Matthew and K. Classical and quantum trial wave functions in auxiliary-field quantum. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  57. [58]

    Walking through

    Jiang, Tong and Zhang, Jinghong and Baumgarten, Moritz KA and Chen, Meng-Fu and Dinh, Hieu Q and Ganeshram, Aadithya and Maskara, Nishad and Ni, Anton and Lee, Joonho , journal=. Walking through. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  58. [59]

    Nonunitary

    Balian, R and Brezin, E , journal=. Nonunitary. 1969 , publisher=

    1969

  59. [60]

    A fifth-order perturbation comparison of electron correlation theories , author=. Chem. Phys. Lett. , volume=. 1989 , publisher=

    1989

  60. [61]

    K. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  61. [62]

    Twenty years of auxiliary-field quantum

    Lee, Joonho and Pham, Hung Q and Reichman, David R , journal=. Twenty years of auxiliary-field quantum. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  62. [63]

    and Zhai, Huanchen and Shee, James and Sharma, Sandeep and Chan, Garnet Kin-Lic , title =

    Kjønstad, Eirik F. and Zhai, Huanchen and Shee, James and Sharma, Sandeep and Chan, Garnet Kin-Lic , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.20031018 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20031018

  63. [64]

    The coupled-cluster single, double, triple, and quadruple excitation method , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 1992 , publisher=

    1992

  64. [65]

    The full

    Noga, Jozef and Bartlett, Rodney J , journal=. The full. 1987 , publisher=

    1987

  65. [66]

    Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry , author=. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  66. [67]

    Projector quantum

    Wouters, Sebastian and Verstichel, Brecht and Van Neck, Dimitri and Chan, Garnet Kin-Lic , journal=. Projector quantum. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  67. [68]

    Unbiasing fermionic auxiliary-field quantum

    Jiang, Tong and O'Gorman, Bryan and Mahajan, Ankit and Lee, Joonho , journal=. Unbiasing fermionic auxiliary-field quantum. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  68. [69]

    2025 , publisher=

    Sukurma, Zoran and Schlipf, Martin and Kresse, Georg , journal=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  69. [70]

    Selected configuration interaction wave functions in phaseless auxiliary field quantum

    Mahajan, Ankit and Lee, Joonho and Sharma, Sandeep , journal=. Selected configuration interaction wave functions in phaseless auxiliary field quantum. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  70. [71]

    Landinez Borda, Edgar Josu. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  71. [72]

    2009 , publisher=

    Purwanto, Wirawan and Zhang, Shiwei and Krakauer, Henry , journal=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  72. [73]

    2008 , publisher=

    Purwanto, Wirawan and Al-Saidi, WA and Krakauer, Henry and Zhang, Shiwei , journal=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  73. [74]

    Auxiliary-field quantum

    Al-Saidi, WA and Zhang, Shiwei and Krakauer, Henry , journal=. Auxiliary-field quantum. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  74. [75]

    Benchmark phaseless auxiliary-field quantum

    Sukurma, Zoran and Schlipf, Martin and Humer, Moritz and Taheridehkordi, Amir and Kresse, Georg , journal=. Benchmark phaseless auxiliary-field quantum. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  75. [76]

    Expanding the design space of constraints in auxiliary-field quantum

    Weber, John L and Vuong, Hung and Friesner, Richard A and Reichman, David R , journal=. Expanding the design space of constraints in auxiliary-field quantum. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  76. [77]

    A full coupled-cluster singles and doubles model: The inclusion of disconnected triples , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 1982 , publisher=

    1982

  77. [78]

    2013 , publisher=

    Molecular electronic-structure theory , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  78. [79]

    Gururangan, K and Deustua, JE and Piecuch, P , journal=

  79. [80]

    Tajti, Attila and Szalay, P. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  80. [81]

    Mahajan, Ankit , title =

Showing first 80 references.