pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20805 · v1 · pith:SI3CDSFFnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP

Distribution Complexity of Electronic Structure Simulations on Quantum Supercomputers

Jason Necaise , Namit Anand , Gaurav Gyawali , K. Grace Johnson , James D. Whitfield , Masoud Mohseni This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 16:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MP
keywords electronic structure simulationdistribution complexityquantum networksentanglement estimationdouble-factorized representationhybrid quantum-classicalquantum supercomputers
0
0 comments X

The pith

An algorithm estimates distribution complexity for electronic structure simulations on quantum supercomputers with O(N^3) scaling and reduced communication costs.

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

The paper introduces an algorithm to estimate the distribution complexity of simulating electronic structure Hamiltonians on quantum supercomputers. It relies on analytical evaluation of entanglement boundaries in a double-factorized representation to achieve O(N^3) scaling per fragment. This estimation reveals that quantum networks reduce per-fragment distribution cost from O(N^2) to O(N), while conventional interconnects reduce worst-case costs from exponential in N squared to exponential in N. The approach characterizes regimes based on entanglement patterns from orbital rotations and Coulomb interactions. A sympathetic reader would care because it provides a way to plan efficient workflows for large-scale quantum chemistry on future quantum hardware.

Core claim

The central claim is that the distribution complexity of hybrid quantum-classical electronic structure simulations can be estimated analytically with O(N^3) cost by evaluating low entanglement boundaries for orbital rotations and dephasing-induced localization in tensor fragments using a double-factorized representation. This leads to quadratic reductions in distribution costs when QPUs communicate over quantum networks and exponential reductions for hybrid approaches using conventional HPC links. Emergent entanglement is governed by coherent Gaussian orbital rotations interacting with disordered Coulomb terms, allowing characterization of three hardness regimes and tunable model systems.

What carries the argument

The algorithm for efficient analytical evaluation of low entanglement boundaries for orbital rotations and dephasing-induced localization within tensor fragments in a double-factorized representation.

If this is right

  • Distribution costs per fragment scale linearly with N over quantum networks instead of quadratically.
  • Hybrid quantum-classical simulations see worst-case costs drop from exp(N^2) to exp(N) with conventional interconnects.
  • Three distinct regimes of distribution hardness and classical simulability can be identified based on fragment localizability and rotation overlap.
  • Tunable model systems can be constructed to study the interplay between orbital rotations and Coulomb interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This framework could be used to dynamically choose fragmentations that minimize distribution overhead in real quantum chemistry applications.
  • Similar entanglement estimation techniques might apply to other fermionic simulations or quantum many-body problems on distributed quantum hardware.
  • If the analytical method generalizes, it suggests that distribution complexity is more tractable than previously assumed for utility-scale quantum computing.

Load-bearing premise

Low entanglement boundaries for orbital rotations and dephasing-induced localization can be efficiently and accurately evaluated analytically in a double-factorized representation.

What would settle it

Direct numerical computation of exact entanglement measures for a molecular Hamiltonian with 20 orbitals showing that the analytical O(N^3) estimates differ by more than a constant factor from the true distribution complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20805 by Gaurav Gyawali, James D. Whitfield, Jason Necaise, K. Grace Johnson, Masoud Mohseni, Namit Anand.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distributed quantum simulation workflow for double-factorized electronic Hamiltonians. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Trotter circuits for double-factorized electronic Hamiltonians. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Complexity of protocols for distributing random or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution complexity of the diagonal Coulomb layers appearing in Trotter circuits for double-factorized electronic struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution complexity as a function of the truncation error for correlation energy estimation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution cost of orbital rotations as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution cost of localized fragment Hamiltonians [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Drifting Fragments model and the Trotter-order and gauge dependence of Gaussian distribution complexity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution complexity of Fourier orbital rotations across contiguous real-space cuts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Distribution complexity is independent from classical simulability.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Efficient simulation of strongly-interacting fermionic systems on quantum processing units (QPUs) is a challenging task due to nonlocal mode entanglement generation. However, it is not yet well understood how the structure of entanglement governs the hardness of large-scale quantum chemistry simulations or the scaling of distributing such workloads. Here, we introduce an algorithm for estimating the distribution complexity of hybrid quantum-classical simulation for electronic structure Hamiltonians over heterogeneous high-performance architectures. Our algorithm relies on efficient analytical evaluation of the low entanglement boundaries for the orbital rotations and dephasing-induced localization within tensor fragments, in a double-factorized representation. Our entanglement estimation scales as $O(N^3)$ for each fragment, where $N$ is the number of orbitals. When QPUs are communicating via a quantum network, the cost of distribution per fragment is reduced quadratically from $O(N^2)$ to $O(N)$. Similarly, for hybrid quantum-classical approaches, with access to only conventional HPC interconnects, the worst-case cost is reduced from $O(\exp(N^2))$ to $O(\exp(N))$. We show that emergent entanglement patterns are induced by the interplay between coherent Gaussian orbital rotations and disordered Coulomb interactions. We discuss the underlying physical mechanisms that govern distribution complexity and introduce model systems that are tunable based on the localizability of fragments and the overlap of interfragment rotations. We characterize three different regimes of hardness for distribution complexity and classical simulability. The framework introduced here enables novel and more efficient quantum-classical application workflows towards utility-scale quantum computing.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an algorithm to estimate the distribution complexity of hybrid quantum-classical electronic structure simulations over heterogeneous HPC architectures. It relies on analytical evaluation of low-entanglement boundaries for orbital rotations and dephasing-induced localization within tensor fragments in a double-factorized representation, achieving O(N^3) scaling per fragment (N = number of orbitals). This is claimed to reduce per-fragment distribution cost quadratically from O(N^2) to O(N) when QPUs communicate over a quantum network, and exponentially from O(exp(N^2)) to O(exp(N)) for hybrid approaches using only classical HPC interconnects. The work identifies entanglement patterns arising from coherent Gaussian orbital rotations and disordered Coulomb interactions, introduces tunable model systems based on fragment localizability and interfragment rotation overlap, and characterizes three regimes of hardness for distribution complexity and classical simulability.

Significance. If the central analytical evaluation of entanglement boundaries can be rigorously established with explicit expressions and complexity guarantees, the framework would offer a concrete tool for quantifying and minimizing communication overheads in distributed quantum chemistry workloads. The identification of tunable model systems and hardness regimes could help guide architecture choices for utility-scale quantum simulations, particularly in distinguishing regimes where quantum networks provide substantial advantage over classical interconnects.

major comments (2)
  1. [abstract and distribution complexity section] The quadratic and exponential cost reductions (abstract and § on distribution complexity) are load-bearing claims that presuppose an efficient, exact analytical computation of low-entanglement boundaries in the double-factorized representation. No explicit closed-form expressions, derivation, or formal complexity proof for this O(N^3) boundary extraction is supplied, nor is it shown that the procedure remains exact and non-iterative for arbitrary Hamiltonians rather than requiring numerical search or fragment-specific fitting whose cost or error would invalidate the scaling.
  2. [regimes of hardness and physical mechanisms] The characterization of three hardness regimes and the physical mechanisms (Gaussian rotations + disordered Coulomb interactions) rests on the same boundary-evaluation step. Without a concrete demonstration that the localization assumptions hold with controllable error for the claimed O(N^3) procedure, the regime classification and the claimed reductions in distribution complexity cannot be assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [algorithm description] Notation for the double-factorized Coulomb integrals and the precise definition of 'dephasing-induced localization' should be introduced with explicit equations before the scaling claims are stated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. The points raised correctly identify areas where the manuscript would benefit from greater explicitness in the derivations and demonstrations. We address each major comment below and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract and distribution complexity section] The quadratic and exponential cost reductions (abstract and § on distribution complexity) are load-bearing claims that presuppose an efficient, exact analytical computation of low-entanglement boundaries in the double-factorized representation. No explicit closed-form expressions, derivation, or formal complexity proof for this O(N^3) boundary extraction is supplied, nor is it shown that the procedure remains exact and non-iterative for arbitrary Hamiltonians rather than requiring numerical search or fragment-specific fitting whose cost or error would invalidate the scaling.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not supply the requested closed-form expressions or formal derivation. The O(N^3) procedure follows directly from the analytic structure of Gaussian orbital rotations applied to the double-factorized tensor and the dephasing localization criterion; no iterative search or fitting is involved. In the revised version we will insert a dedicated subsection containing the explicit boundary formulas, the derivation from the rotation and Coulomb terms, and the complexity argument establishing exact O(N^3) evaluation for arbitrary Hamiltonians in this representation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [regimes of hardness and physical mechanisms] The characterization of three hardness regimes and the physical mechanisms (Gaussian rotations + disordered Coulomb interactions) rests on the same boundary-evaluation step. Without a concrete demonstration that the localization assumptions hold with controllable error for the claimed O(N^3) procedure, the regime classification and the claimed reductions in distribution complexity cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit verification. The revised manuscript will add a section that applies the O(N^3) boundary procedure to the tunable model systems, reports the resulting localization errors with explicit bounds, and shows how these errors remain controllable across the three hardness regimes without altering the claimed quadratic or exponential distribution-cost reductions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation chain self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The provided abstract and text introduce an algorithm whose central step is an analytical O(N^3) entanglement-boundary evaluation in double-factorized form. No equations, self-citations, fitted parameters, or uniqueness theorems are quoted that reduce the claimed cost reductions (O(N^2)→O(N) or exp(N^2)→exp(N)) to inputs by construction. The derivation therefore does not exhibit any of the enumerated circular patterns; the scaling claims rest on the (unverified here) analytical step rather than on a self-referential loop. This is the normal honest outcome when no load-bearing reduction is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities is available from the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5827 in / 981 out tokens · 24684 ms · 2026-06-26T16:51:40.237698+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

167 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mohseni, A

    M. Mohseni, A. Scherer, K. G. Johnson, O. Wertheim, M. Ot- ten, N. Anand, N. A. Aadit, Y . Alexeev, G. Ben-Shach, K. M. Bresniker, K. Y . Camsari, B. Chapman, S. Chatter- jee, S. Chowdhury, G. A. Dagnew, T. Dvir, A. Esposito, F. Fahim, M. Ferguson, M. Fiorentino, A. Gajjar, K. Gratsea, G. Gyawali, C. Heiter, A. H. Z. Kavaki, A. Khalid, X. Kong, B. Kulchyt...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Chung, A

    M.-Z. Chung, A. H. Z. Kavaki, A. Scherer, A. Khalid, X. Kong, T. Kawakubo, N. Anand, G. A. Dagnew, Z. Webb, A. Silva, G. Gyawali, T. Yan, K. Fujii, A. Ho, M. Mohseni, P. Ronagh, and J. Martinis, Partially fault- tolerant quantum computation for megaquop applications (2026), arXiv:2603.13093 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Babbush, A

    R. Babbush, A. Zalcman, C. Gidney, M. Broughton, T. Khat- tar, H. Neven, T. Bergamaschi, J. Drake, and D. Boneh, Securing elliptic curve cryptocurrencies against quantum vulnerabilities: Resource estimates and mitigations (2026), arXiv:2603.28846 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Webster, L

    P. Webster, L. Berent, O. Chandra, E. T. Hockings, N. Baspin, F. Thomsen, S. C. Smith, and L. Z. Cohen, The pinna- cle architecture: Reducing the cost of breaking rsa-2048 to 100 000 physical qubits using quantum ldpc codes (2026), arXiv:2602.11457 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2048

  5. [5]

    M. Cain, Q. Xu, R. King, L. R. B. Picard, H. Levine, M. En- dres, J. Preskill, H.-Y . Huang, and D. Bluvstein, Shor’s algo- rithm is possible with as few as 10,000 reconfigurable atomic qubits (2026), arXiv:2603.28627 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Barral, F

    D. Barral, F. J. Cardama, G. Díaz-Camacho, D. Faílde, I. F. Llovo, M. Mussa-Juane, J. Vázquez-Pérez, J. Villasuso, C. Piñeiro, N. Costas, J. C. Pichel, T. F. Pena, and A. Gómez, Computer Science Review57, 100747 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Y . Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chem- ical Reviews119, 10856–10915 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Motta, E

    M. Motta, E. Ye, J. R. McClean, Z. Li, A. J. Minnich, R. Bab- bush, and G. K.-L. Chan, npj Quantum Information7, 83 (2021), arXiv:1808.02625

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, PRX Quantum2, 030305 (2021), arXiv:2011.03494 [quant-ph]. 21

    arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    T. Peng, A. W. Harrow, M. Ozols, and X. Wu, Physical Review Letters125, 150504 (2020), arXiv:1904.00102

    arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    W. Tang, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, J. Larson, and M. Martonosi, inProceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Oper- ating Systems, ASPLOS ’21 (ACM, 2021) p. 473–486

    2021

  12. [12]

    Bravyi, O

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, Journal of Applied Physics132, 10.1063/5.0082975 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0082975 2022

  13. [13]

    A. Lowe, M. Medvidovi ´c, A. Hayes, L. J. O’Riordan, T. R. Bromley, J. M. Arrazola, and N. Killoran, Quantum7, 934 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Carrera Vazquez, C

    A. Carrera Vazquez, C. Tornow, D. Ristè, S. Woerner, M. Takita, and D. J. Egger, Nature636, 75–79 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Piveteau and D

    C. Piveteau and D. Sutter, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory70, 2734–2745 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Piveteau and D

    C. Piveteau and D. Sutter, Quantum8, 1500 (2024), arXiv:2205.00016

    arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    A. W. Harrow and A. Lowe, PRX Quantum6, 010316 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    M. Jing, C. Zhu, and X. Wang, Physical Review A111, 012433 (2025), arXiv:2404.03619 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Zanardi, Phys

    P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A63, 040304 (2001)

    2001

  20. [20]

    Styliaris, N

    G. Styliaris, N. Anand, and P. Zanardi, Physical Review Let- ters126, 030601 (2021), arXiv:2007.08570 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    G. M. Jones and H.-A. Jacobsen, Analyzing common elec- tronic structure theory algorithms for distributed quantum computing (2025), arXiv:2507.01902 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Motta, K

    M. Motta, K. J. Sung, K. B. Whaley, M. Head-Gordon, and J. Shee, Chemical Science14, 11213–11227 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Shirakawa, J

    T. Shirakawa, J. Robledo-Moreno, T. Itoko, V . Tripathi, K. Ueda, Y . Kawashima, L. Broers, W. Kirby, H. Pathak, H. Paik, M. Tsuji, Y . Kodama, M. Sato, C. Evangelinos, S. Seelam, R. Walkup, S. Yunoki, M. Motta, P. Jurcevic, H. Horii, and A. Mezzacapo, Closed-loop calculations of elec- tronic structure on a quantum processor and a classical super- compute...

    2025

  24. [24]

    Günther, T

    J. Günther, T. Weymuth, M. Bensberg, F. Witteveen, M. S. Teynor, F. E. Thomasen, V . Sora, W. Bro-Jørgensen, R. T. Hu- sistein, M. Erakovic, M. Miller, L. Weisburn, M. Cho, M. Eck- hoff, A. W. Harrow, A. Krogh, T. Van V oorhis, K. Lindorff- Larsen, G. Solomon, M. Reiher, and M. Christandl, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation22, 4329 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Kirby, B

    W. Kirby, B. Pokharel, J. R. Moreno, K. C. Smith, S. Bravyi, A. Deshpande, C. Evangelinos, B. Fuller, J. R. Garrison, B. Jaderberg, C. Johnson, P. Jurcevic, S.-u. Lee, S. Martiel, M. Motta, S. Seelam, O. Shtanko, K. J. Sung, M. Tran, V . Tri- pathi, K. Seki, K. Shinjo, H. Xu, L. Broers, T. Shirakawa, S. Yunoki, K. Sharma, and A. Mezzacapo, Observation of ...

    2026

  26. [26]

    Yue and E

    Q. Yue and E. Chitambar, Journal of Mathematical Physics60, 10.1063/1.5087815 (2019), 1808.10516

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5087815 2019

  27. [27]

    J.-Y . Wu, K. Matsui, T. Forrer, A. Soeda, P. Andrés-Martínez, D. Mills, L. Henaut, and M. Murao, Quantum7, 1196 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Mitarai and K

    K. Mitarai and K. Fujii, Quantum5, 388 (2021), arXiv:2006.11174

    arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    K. G. Johnson, A. Esposito, G. Gyawali, X. Zhan, R. Ganti, N. Anand, R. G. Beausoleil, and M. Mohseni, Distributed quantum computing via adaptive circuit knitting (2026), arXiv:2603.12411 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Piveteau, L

    C. Piveteau, L. Schmitt, and D. Sutter, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033063 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    A. W. Harrow and M. A. Nielsen, Physical Review A68, 10.1103/physreva.68.012308 (2003)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.68.012308 2003

  32. [32]

    Theurer, K

    T. Theurer, K. Fang, and G. Gour, Single-shot entangle- ment manipulation of states and channels revisited (2023), arXiv:2312.17088 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. Tarrach, Physical Review A59, 141 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9806094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  34. [34]

    Szabo and N

    A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund,Modern Quantum Chemistry: In- troduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY , 1996)

    1996

  35. [35]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen,Molecular Electronic- Structure Theory(John Wiley & Sons, 2000)

    2000

  36. [36]

    R. W. Chien, M. Chiew, B. Harrison, J. Necaise, W. Wang, M. Mudassar, C. McLauchlan, T. M. Henderson, G. E. Scuse- ria, S. Strelchuk, and J. D. Whitfield, Nature Reviews Physics 8, 131 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    S. B. Bravyi and A. Y . Kitaev, Annals of Physics298, 210 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0003137 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  38. [38]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 224109 (2012)

    2012

  39. [39]

    X. Gao, W. Li, J. Li, Z. Li, Y . Huang, C. Iancu, and E. Z. Zhang, Linear complexity fermionic simulation on quan- tum devices with hardware connectivity constraints (2026), arXiv:2606.00982 [cs.AR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Setia and J

    K. Setia and J. D. Whitfield, The Journal of Chemical Physics 148, 164104 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Jiang, A

    Z. Jiang, A. Kalev, W. Mruczkiewicz, and H. Neven, Quantum 4, 276 (2020), arXiv:1910.10746 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Miller, Z

    A. Miller, Z. Zimboras, S. Knecht, S. Maniscalco, and G. Garcia-Perez, PRX Quantum4, 030314 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Miller, A

    A. Miller, A. Glos, and Z. Zimborás, npj Quantum Information 12, 26 (2026), arXiv:2403.03992 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Harrison, M

    B. Harrison, M. Chiew, J. Necaise, A. M. Projansky, S. Strelchuk, and J. D. Whitfield, A Sierpinski triangle fermion-to-qubit transform (2024), arXiv:2409.04348 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Derby, J

    C. Derby, J. Klassen, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, Physical Re- view B104, 035118 (2021), arXiv:2003.06939 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    W. M. Kirby, S. Hadi, M. Kreshchuk, and P. J. Love, Physical Review A104, 042607 (2021), arXiv:2105.10941 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Kirby, B

    W. Kirby, B. Fuller, C. Hadfield, and A. Mezzacapo, PRX Quantum3, 020351 (2022), arXiv:2109.14465 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Carolan and L

    J. Carolan and L. Schaeffer, in16th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2025), Leibniz Interna- tional Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), V ol. 325 (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2025) pp. 32:1– 32:21, arXiv:2410.04015 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Bab- bush, Quantum3, 208 (2019), arXiv:1902.02134

    arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    For a single balanced bipartition for each sector, this would result in four QPUs of sizeN/2qubits each to sim- ulate the evolution of2Nspin-orbitals

    We could think of partitioning the spin sectors onto two QPUs, after which we would have to partition spatial orbitals within each sector. For a single balanced bipartition for each sector, this would result in four QPUs of sizeN/2qubits each to sim- ulate the evolution of2Nspin-orbitals

  51. [51]

    J. L. Whitten, The Journal of Chemical Physics58, 4496 (1973)

    1973

  52. [52]

    Aquilante, L

    F. Aquilante, L. Boman, J. Boström, H. Koch, R. Lindh, A. Sánchez de Merás, and T. B. Pedersen, inLinear- Scaling Techniques in Computational Chemistry and Physics (Springer, 2011) pp. 301–343

    2011

  53. [53]

    Peng and K

    B. Peng and K. Kowalski, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation13, 4179 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    Bellonzi, J

    N. Bellonzi, J. T. Cantin, M. R. Jangrouei, A. Kunitsa, J. Necaise, N. Nguyen, J. Penuel, M. D. Radin, J. R. Fontalvo, R. Sundareswara, L. Wang, T. Watts, Y . Zhou, M. C. Garrett, A. Holmes, A. F. Izmaylov, and M. Otten, QB ground state en- 22 ergy estimation benchmark (2025), arXiv:2508.10873 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    B. O. Roos, P. R. Taylor, and P. E. M. Siegbahn, Chemical Physics48, 157 (1980)

    1980

  56. [56]

    Knizia and G

    G. Knizia and G. K.-L. Chan, Physical Review Letters109, 186404 (2012), arXiv:1204.5783 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Kitaura, E

    K. Kitaura, E. Ikeo, T. Asada, T. Nakano, and M. Uebayasi, Chemical Physics Letters313, 701 (1999)

    1999

  58. [58]

    Mochizuki, S

    Y . Mochizuki, S. Tanaka, and K. Fukuzawa, eds.,Recent Ad- vances of the Fragment Molecular Orbital Method: Enhanced Performance and Applicability(Springer Singapore, 2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    fermionic fragments

    The semantics vary across the literature, for e.g., “fermionic fragments”[85], “leafs” [85], “pairwise operators” for ˆGℓ[8], “Cholesky vectors” for|g (ℓ)⟩[68]. Our exact fragment termi- nology is from [54]

  60. [60]

    Bravyi, Quantum Information and Computation5, 216 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 [quant-ph]

    S. Bravyi, Quantum Information and Computation5, 216 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  61. [61]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gidney, A. Aspuru- Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Physical Review Let- ters120, 110501 (2018), arXiv:1711.04789 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    B. I. Dunlap, J. W. D. Connolly, and J. R. Sabin, The Journal of Chemical Physics71, 3396 (1979)

    1979

  63. [63]

    Vahtras, J

    O. Vahtras, J. Almlöf, and M. W. Feyereisen, Chemical Physics Letters213, 514 (1993)

    1993

  64. [64]

    N. H. F. Beebe and J. Linderberg, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry12, 683 (1977)

    1977

  65. [65]

    H. Koch, A. Sánchez de Merás, and T. B. Pedersen, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics118, 9481 (2003)

    2003

  66. [66]

    S. D. Folkestad, E. F. Kjønstad, and H. Koch, The Journal of Chemical Physics150, 194112 (2019), arXiv:1811.12890

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Aquilante, M

    F. Aquilante, M. G. Delcey, T. B. Pedersen, I. Fdez. Galván, and R. Lindh, Molecular Physics115, 2052 (2017)

    2052

  68. [68]

    Motta, J

    M. Motta, J. Shee, S. Zhang, and G. K.-L. Chan, Jour- nal of Chemical Theory and Computation15, 3510 (2019), arXiv:1810.01549

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    A. M. Childs, Y . Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Phys- ical Review X11, 011020 (2021), arXiv:1912.08854 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    E. T. Campbell, Quantum Science and Technology7, 015007 (2021), 2012.09238

    arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    S. G. Mehendale, L. A. Martínez-Martínez, P. D. Kamath, and A. F. Izmaylov, Digital Discovery4, 3540 (2025), arXiv:2312.13282 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Quantum3, 163 (2019), arXiv:1610.06546 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven, Physical Review X8, 041015 (2018), arXiv:1805.03662 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    Leimkuhler and K

    O. Leimkuhler and K. B. Whaley, Exponential quantum speedups for near-term molecular electronic structure meth- ods (2026), arXiv:2503.21041 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Peschel, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36, L205 (2003)

    I. Peschel, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36, L205 (2003)

    2003

  76. [77]

    WhereR[A, A]is defined as theN A ×N A submatrix whose elements are defined asR[A, A] ij =R A[i],A[j]

  77. [78]

    R. R. Tucci, An introduction to cartan’s kak decomposition for qc programmers (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0507171 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  78. [79]

    Hoffman, R

    K. Hoffman, R. C. Raffenetti, and K. Ruedenberg, Journal of Mathematical Physics13, 528 (1972)

    1972

  79. [80]

    C. C. Paige and M. Wei, Linear Algebra and its Applications 208–209, 303 (1994)

    1994

  80. [81]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan,Matrix Computations, 4th ed. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013)

    2013

Showing first 80 references.