pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20176 · v1 · pith:ELBWA2EWnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum-Accelerated Self-Consistent Field: A Hybrid Algorithm

Alexis Ralli , Tim Weaving , Thomas M. Bickley , Peter V. Coveney , Peter J. Love This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords GAS-SCFself-consistent fieldquantum chemistryamplitude amplificationGrover searchFock stateshybrid quantum algorithmquadratic speedup
0
0 comments X

The pith

GAS-SCF uses quantum arithmetic to build an oracle marking energy-improving Fock states and applies amplitude amplification for quadratic speedup in SCF.

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

The paper introduces the Grover adaptive search self-consistent field algorithm as a hybrid quantum-classical approach to molecular orbital optimization. Quantum arithmetic constructs an oracle that flags Fock states whose energy beats a given classical estimate. Amplitude amplification then raises the chance of sampling those states upon measurement. The result is a claimed quadratic reduction in the number of evaluations needed for the SCF search step. The work also positions this method as a simple reference against which more structured quantum optimizers can be measured.

Core claim

GAS-SCF leverages quantum arithmetic to construct an efficient oracle that marks target states (Fock states) which improve upon some initial classical energy estimate. Amplitude amplification then increases the probability of measuring these states. This approach offers a theoretical quadratic speed-up for the optimization problem encountered in SCF quantum chemistry and establishes a baseline against which structured optimization algorithms, such as QAOA and DQI may be compared.

What carries the argument

Quantum oracle constructed via arithmetic operations that identifies Fock states lowering the energy estimate, enabling amplitude amplification.

If this is right

  • Quadratic reduction in evaluations needed to locate lower-energy Fock states during SCF iterations.
  • Supplies an explicit reference point for assessing QAOA and DQI performance on the same SCF task.
  • Classical simulations confirm correctness on systems up to 26 qubits.
  • Resource analysis for systems up to 330 qubits indicates fault-tolerant hardware is required for chemical accuracy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If oracle overhead stays modest, the same marking-plus-amplification pattern could accelerate other iterative searches over discrete configuration spaces in chemistry.
  • The method isolates the pure search component of SCF, making it easier to quantify how much additional structure from variational algorithms is actually needed.
  • Practical deployment would require co-design of the arithmetic circuits with error-correction overhead to preserve the theoretical scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The oracle marking energy-improving Fock states can be built with quantum arithmetic at a cost low enough that the quadratic gain from amplitude amplification remains intact.

What would settle it

Implementation on quantum hardware that measures total oracle queries required to reach a target energy improvement and shows the count scales as the square root of the classical search space size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20176 by Alexis Ralli, Peter J. Love, Peter V. Coveney, Thomas M. Bickley, Tim Weaving.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Full outline of GAS-SCF algorithm (equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Outline of the full quantum circuit to implement the Grover Adaptive Search Self-Consistent Field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Outline of the full quantum circuit to implement Grover Adaptive Search Self-Consistent Field (GAS-SCF) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: GAS-SCF results for increasing number of iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: GAS-SCF Dicke simulation result for OH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of SCF initialization strategies and PySCF solution vs alternate single Fock state solution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the Grover adaptive search self-consistent field (GAS-SCF) algorithm. GAS-SCF leverages quantum arithmetic to construct an efficient oracle that marks target states (Fock states) which improve upon some initial classical energy estimate. Amplitude amplification then increases the probability of measuring these states. This approach offers a theoretical quadratic speed-up for the optimization problem encountered in SCF quantum chemistry and establishes a baseline against which structured optimization algorithms, such as QAOA and DQI may be compared. In this work, we classically simulate three examples as proofs of concept of the algorithm, the largest consisting of 26 qubits. We then extend our analysis to two larger systems, with O3 representing the largest case at 330 qubits. These examples are chosen to probe classically challenging SCF regimes. Achieving chemically relevant applications of GAS-SCF will require large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum hardware.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Grover Adaptive Search Self-Consistent Field (GAS-SCF) algorithm. It uses quantum arithmetic to construct an oracle marking Fock states that improve on an initial classical energy estimate, followed by amplitude amplification to increase the probability of sampling such states. This is claimed to yield a theoretical quadratic speedup for the optimization step in SCF quantum chemistry. Classical simulations are shown for three small examples (largest 26 qubits) as proofs of concept, with extrapolation to two larger systems (O3 at 330 qubits).

Significance. If the oracle resource costs can be shown to preserve a net quadratic advantage, the work supplies a baseline unstructured quantum search algorithm for SCF optimization against which structured methods such as QAOA can be compared. The simulations provide concrete proof-of-concept data, but the significance hinges on whether the claimed speedup survives realistic gate counts.

major comments (1)
  1. [oracle construction and complexity analysis] The central quadratic-speedup claim (abstract and algorithm description) rests on the oracle being realizable with gate cost low enough that O(√N) calls (N = Fock-space dimension) still yields asymptotic improvement. No section derives the total T-count or circuit depth of the quantum-arithmetic energy evaluation and comparison (which must incorporate O(M^4) two-electron integrals) as a function of system size and shows it remains o(√N). Without this bound the net advantage over classical direct-SCF heuristics is not established.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract states simulations up to 26 qubits but supplies no error bars, success-probability scaling, or explicit verification that the oracle preserves the Grover quadratic scaling in the reported runs.
  2. [results and extrapolation] The 330-qubit extrapolation for O3 is mentioned without detailing the scaling assumptions or resource model used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review. The major comment raises an important point about establishing the net complexity advantage, which we address directly below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [oracle construction and complexity analysis] The central quadratic-speedup claim (abstract and algorithm description) rests on the oracle being realizable with gate cost low enough that O(√N) calls (N = Fock-space dimension) still yields asymptotic improvement. No section derives the total T-count or circuit depth of the quantum-arithmetic energy evaluation and comparison (which must incorporate O(M^4) two-electron integrals) as a function of system size and shows it remains o(√N). Without this bound the net advantage over classical direct-SCF heuristics is not established.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not contain an explicit derivation of the total T-count or circuit depth for the oracle as a function of system size. The claimed quadratic speedup is with respect to the number of oracle calls (O(√N) versus O(N) for unstructured classical search). Each oracle invocation evaluates the energy via quantum arithmetic on the two-electron integrals. This evaluation requires O(M^4) terms but can be realized with a reversible circuit whose gate count (including T-count for fault-tolerant implementation) scales as O(poly(M) · b), where b is the bit precision; the dominant cost is polynomial in M because the integrals can be loaded and accumulated using standard quantum arithmetic primitives (addition, multiplication) whose depth is polylogarithmic in the value range. Since the Fock-space dimension satisfies N = 2^Θ(M) in the qubit encoding used, poly(M) · √N remains exponentially smaller than any classical exhaustive enumeration of the N states. We acknowledge that a side-by-side comparison with the best classical direct-SCF heuristics (which are already sub-exponential) would further strengthen the claim and will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript that (i) states the per-oracle gate complexity explicitly and (ii) shows that the total quantum cost is still asymptotically advantageous relative to brute-force classical search over Fock space. This addition will also include a brief resource estimate for the 330-qubit O3 example. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; speedup follows from standard amplitude amplification

full rationale

The paper claims a quadratic speedup for SCF optimization via Grover adaptive search, where an oracle marks improving Fock states using quantum arithmetic and amplitude amplification is applied. This rests on the established properties of amplitude amplification (external to the paper) rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. The 26-qubit simulations and 330-qubit extrapolations are presented as proofs of concept without altering the theoretical claim. No equation or section reduces the result to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract relies on standard quantum computing primitives (amplitude amplification, quantum arithmetic) and the existence of an efficient oracle for Fock states; no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard properties of Grover amplitude amplification yield quadratic speedup when an efficient oracle exists.
    Invoked implicitly when claiming theoretical quadratic speed-up for the SCF optimization problem.
  • domain assumption Quantum arithmetic can construct an oracle that correctly marks Fock states improving an initial energy estimate.
    Central to the algorithm description; no explicit construction details given.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5685 in / 1389 out tokens · 17352 ms · 2026-06-26T17:03:58.333336+00:00 · methodology

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

93 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Have a negative value in the QUBO cost function

  2. [2]

    To achieve this, a multi-controlled X gate is used, with controls defined by the bitstring representation of the de- sired binary occupation state

    Satisfy the correct number of alpha and beta elec- trons. To achieve this, a multi-controlled X gate is used, with controls defined by the bitstring representation of the de- sired binary occupation state. In Figure 2 this is repre- sented by the projectors in each control. See Figure S.6 in the supporting information for further details. This gate acts o...

  3. [3]

    Initialize a uniform superposition over all (or a se- lected subset of) bitstrings in then-qubit QUBO register; in this work, this state is denoted by|s⟩ or|d⟩

  4. [4]

    Initializetheregisterof(m+1)-qubits, whichstores the current value of the QUBO function, with the chosen starting value:−y(in the Fourier basis)

  5. [5]

    3: Outline of the full quantum circuit to implement Grover Adaptive Search Self-Consistent Field (GAS-SCF) algorithm searching over Dicke states

    Conditioned on then-qubit QUBO register, which encodes the bitstring inputs for the QUBO cost 6 |d⟩QU BO |0⟩f(⃗ x) |0⟩sign n m ˆH⊗m ˆH ˆA(−y) f(⃗ x) QF T† −ˆI ˆW† 2|d⟩⟨d| −I ˆW repeatLtimes FIG. 3: Outline of the full quantum circuit to implement Grover Adaptive Search Self-Consistent Field (GAS-SCF) algorithm searching over Dicke states. Here, a Dicke st...

  6. [6]

    Mark all bitstrings (in the QUBO register) with a negative sign if their value is less thanyandif they have the correct number of electrons

  7. [7]

    Undo steps 2 and 3 (W† in circuit)

  8. [8]

    In then-qubit QUBO register, apply a reflection around the input state (|s⟩or|d⟩) to increase the amplitude of marked states

  9. [9]

    Repeat the amplification routine (steps 2-6)L times to increase the probability of measuring marked bitstrings

  10. [10]

    With high probabil- ity, this yields a marked bitstring, representing an improved QUBO solution

    Measure the QUBO register. With high probabil- ity, this yields a marked bitstring, representing an improved QUBO solution

  11. [11]

    Setyto be the new QUBO value of this improved bitstring and repeat from step 1 until convergence. 7 The amplification routine should be repeatedLtimes where [46, 47]: L= π 4 " 1 arcsin q T N # − 1 2 < π 4 r N T − 1 2 , (6) Lshould be rounded to the nearest integer based on the toplineofthisequation(weassume0< T < N 2 ). Here,T is the number of marked stat...

  12. [12]

    The bond lengths studied were1.0Å,1.5Å and3.0Å respectively

    and OH–in the 6-31G basis set [75] in a (6o, (3e,3e)) active space. The bond lengths studied were1.0Å,1.5Å and3.0Å respectively. A restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF) calculation was performed for each problem. All Hamil- tonian operators were then written in the canonical ba- sis, where their coefficients were multiplied by a con- stant then rounded to integer...

  13. [13]

    13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A.R

    and GAS-SCF establishes a useful baseline for fu- ture quantum improvements of SCF methods. 13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A.R. and T.W. are supported by QMatter, Inc. T.M.B. is supported by theEngineeringand PhysicalSci- ences Research Council (grant numbers EP/T517793/1, EP/W524335/1). P.V.C. is grateful for funding from the EuropeanCommissionforVECMA(800925)andEPS...

  14. [14]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Science309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  15. [15]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N.P.Sawaya,et al.,Chemicalreviews119,10856 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Santagati, A

    R. Santagati, A. Aspuru-Guzik, R. Babbush, M. Deg- roote, L. González, E. Kyoseva, N. Moll, M. Oppel, R. M. Parrish, N. C. Rubin,et al., Nature Physics20, 549 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Chen and G

    J. Chen and G. K. Chan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15765 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Babbush, N

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, Physical Review X8, 011044 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Physical Re- view X8, 041015 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Physical review letters120, 110501 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    Babbush, D

    R. Babbush, D. W. Berry, J. R. McClean, and H. Neven, npj Quantum Information5, 92 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, PRX quantum2, 030305 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Bab- bush, PRX Quantum2, 040332 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    D. W. Berry, Y. Tong, T. Khattar, A. White, T. I. Kim, G. H. Low, S. Boixo, Z. Ding, L. Lin, S. Lee,et al., PRX Quantum6, 020327 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    G. H. Low, R. King, D. W. Berry, Q. Han, A. E. De- Prince III, A. F. White, R. Babbush, R. D. Somma, and N. C. Rubin, Physical Review X15, 041016 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    S. Lee, J. Lee, H. Zhai, Y. Tong, A. M. Dalzell, A. Ku- mar, P. Helms, J. Gray, Z.-H. Cui, W. Liu,et al., Nature communications14, 1952 (2023)

    1952

  27. [27]

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

    H. Zhai, C. Li, X. Zhang, Z. Li, S. Lee, and G. K.- L. Chan, “Classical solution of the femo-cofactor model to chemical accuracy and its implications,” (2026), arXiv:2601.04621 [physics.chem-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Babbush, W

    R. Babbush, W. J. Huggins, D. W. Berry, S. F. Ung, A. Zhao, D. R. Reichman, H. Neven, A. D. Baczewski, and J. Lee, Nature Communications14, 4058 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    D. R. Hartree, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society24, 89–110 (1928)

    1928

  30. [30]

    Szabo and N

    A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund,Modern Quantum Chem- istry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure The- ory, Dover Books on Chemistry (Dover Publications, Mi- neola, NY, 1996)

    1996

  31. [31]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jorgensen, and J. Olsen,Molecular electronic-structure theory(John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

    2013

  32. [32]

    J. D. Whitfield and Z. Zimborás, The Journal of chemical physics141(2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4903453

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4903453 2014

  33. [33]

    Ralli, T

    A. Ralli, T. Weaving, P. V. Coveney, and P. J. Love, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation21, 9511 (2025), pMID: 40985214

    2025

  34. [34]

    G. M. J. Barca, D. L. Poole, J. L. G. Vallejo, M. Alkan, C. Bertoni, A. P. Rendell, and M. S. Gordon, inPro- ceedings of the International Conference for High Per- formance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC ’20 (IEEE Press, 2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    A. J. Coleman, inReduced-Density-Matrix Mechanics: with applications to many-electron atoms and molecules (Wiley Online Library, 2007)

    2007

  36. [36]

    D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 083001 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. A102, 052819 (2020)

    2020

  38. [38]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, Science292, 472 (2001)

    2001

  39. [39]

    A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quan- tum approximate optimization algorithm,” (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    S. P. Jordan, N. Shutty, M. Wootters, A. Zalcman, A. Schmidhuber, R. King, S. V. Isakov, T. Khattar, and R. Babbush, Nature646, 831 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Farhi, S

    E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, D. Ranard, and B. Villalonga, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12789 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    L.K.Grover,inProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’96 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1996) p. 212–219

    1996

  43. [43]

    Quan- tum amplitude amplification and estimation,

    G. Brassard, P. Høyer, M. Mosca, and A. Tapp, “Quan- tum amplitude amplification and estimation,” (2002)

    2002

  44. [44]

    Babbush, J

    R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, M. Newman, C. Gidney, S. Boixo, and H. Neven, PRX Quantum2, 010103 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Hoefler, T

    T. Hoefler, T. Häner, and M. Troyer, Communications of the ACM66, 82 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Campbell, A

    E. Campbell, A. Khurana, and A. Montanaro, Quantum 3, 167 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Y. R. Sanders, D. W. Berry, P. C. Costa, L. W. Tessler, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, H. Neven, and R. Babbush, PRX Quantum1, 020312 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. Picard, H. Levine, M. En- dres, J. Preskill, H.-Y. Huang, and D. Bluvstein, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.28627 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Grover Adaptive Search,

    A. Ralli and T. Bickley, “Grover Adaptive Search,” https://github.com/qmatter-labs/GAS(2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    A quantum algorithm for finding the minimum,

    C. Durr and P. Hoyer, “A quantum algorithm for finding the minimum,” (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9607014 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  51. [51]

    Bulger, W

    D. Bulger, W. P. Baritompa, and G. R. Wood, Journal of optimization theory and applications116, 517 (2003)

    2003

  52. [52]

    Thouless, Nuclear Physics21, 225 (1960)

    D. Thouless, Nuclear Physics21, 225 (1960). 14

    1960

  53. [53]

    Gilliam, S

    A. Gilliam, S. Woerner, and C. Gonciulea, Quantum5, 428 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    W. P. Baritompa, D. W. Bulger, and G. R. Wood, SIAM Journal on Optimization15, 1170 (2005)

    2005

  55. [55]

    Addition on a quantum computer,

    T. G. Draper, “Addition on a quantum computer,” (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0008033 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  56. [56]

    F. Orts, G. Ortega, E. Combarro, and E. Garzón, Jour- nal of Network and Computer Applications170, 102810 (2020)

    2020

  57. [57]

    Bärtschi and S

    A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, inFundamentals of Com- putation Theory, edited by L. A. Gąsieniec, J. Jansson, and C. Levcopoulos (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019) pp. 126–139

    2019

  58. [58]

    Bärtschi and S

    A. Bärtschi and S. Eidenbenz, in2022 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE)(2022) pp. 87–96

    2022

  59. [59]

    Boyer, G

    M. Boyer, G. Brassard, P. Høyer, and A. Tapp, Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics46, 493 (1998)

    1998

  60. [60]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  61. [61]

    Ominato, T

    H. Ominato, T. Ohyama, and K. Yamaguchi, IEEE Ac- cess12, 74619 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    Brassard, Science275, 627 (1997)

    G. Brassard, Science275, 627 (1997)

    1997

  63. [63]

    L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 150501 (2005)

    2005

  64. [64]

    T. J. Yoder, G. H. Low, and I. L. Chuang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 210501 (2014)

    2014

  65. [65]

    Cremer, WIREs Computational Molecular Science3, 482 (2013)

    D. Cremer, WIREs Computational Molecular Science3, 482 (2013)

    2013

  66. [66]

    P. G. Szalay, T. Muller, G. Gidofalvi, H. Lischka, and R. Shepard, Chemical reviews112, 108 (2012)

    2012

  67. [67]

    Norimoto, R

    M. Norimoto, R. Mori, and N. Ishikawa, IEEE Transac- tions on Communications71, 1926 (2023)

    1926

  68. [68]

    Sun, Journal of Computa- tional Chemistry36, 1664 (2015), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jcc.23981

    Q. Sun, Journal of Computa- tional Chemistry36, 1664 (2015), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jcc.23981

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc.23981 2015

  69. [69]

    W. A. Simon, C. M. Gustin, K. Serafin, A. Ralli, G. R. Goldstein, and P. J. Love, Quantum9, 1953 (2025)

    1953

  70. [70]

    Faro and F

    S. Faro and F. P. Marino, inProceedings of the 34th International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing, HPDC ’25 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    Almlöf, K

    J. Almlöf, K. Fægri Jr, and K. Korsell, Journal of Com- putational Chemistry3, 385 (1982)

    1982

  72. [72]

    Van Lenthe, R

    J. Van Lenthe, R. Zwaans, H. J. Van Dam, and M. Guest, Journal of computational chemistry27, 926 (2006)

    2006

  73. [73]

    Lehtola, Journal of chemical theory and computation 15, 1593 (2019)

    S. Lehtola, Journal of chemical theory and computation 15, 1593 (2019)

    2019

  74. [74]

    N. C. Rubin, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, Journal of Chem- ical Theory and Computation18, 1480 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev.34, 1293 (1929)

    1929

  76. [76]

    E. U. Condon, Phys. Rev.36, 1121 (1930)

    1930

  77. [77]

    M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson, inProceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(1994) pp. 422–431

    1994

  78. [78]

    A. D. Daniels and G. E. Scuseria, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.2, 2173 (2000)

    2000

  79. [79]

    A. C. Vaucher and M. Reiher, Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation13, 1219 (2017)

    2017

  80. [80]

    A reusable library for second-order orbital optimization usingthetrustregionmethod,

    J. Greiner, I.-M. Høyvik, S. Lehtola, and J. J. Eriksen, “A reusable library for second-order orbital optimization usingthetrustregionmethod,” (2025),arXiv:2509.13931 [physics.chem-ph]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.