Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Comparing the Performance of Leading VQE Algorithms for Computing Ground-State Energies of Amino Acids

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A single open pipeline benchmarks more than ten VQE ansatzes on amino-acid Hamiltonians across noise, trainability, and cost.

desk verdict Useful open multi-ansatz VQE pipeline on QMProt amino acids with fair cost-eval comparisons; rankings are real within aggressive 6-orbital truncations, not yet stress-tested beyond them. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02620 v1 pith:VJK4VNC5 submitted 2026-07-02 quant-ph cs.ET

Sanskriti Shindadkar , Clyde Villacrusis , Jasper Andrews , Brandon Yan This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.ET
keywords variationalquantumeigensolveraminoacidsNISQbenchmarkinghardware-efficientansatzADAPT-VQEactive-spacetruncationbarrenplateausnoiseresilience
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 argues that fair comparison of variational quantum eigensolver variants has been impossible because each study used different molecules, optimizers, and hardware. It supplies one integrated repository that runs more than ten published ansatzes plus two Hamiltonian-truncation methods on the same mapped amino-acid Hamiltonians. Four controlled experiments then measure noise-induced parameter drift, barren-plateau gradient variance under different initializations, adaptive versus fixed circuits at matched parameter budgets (counting total cost-function evaluations), and energy error versus the number of retained adaptive operators. The result is a reproducible multi-axis ranking that researchers can extend to any new mapped Hamiltonian set, giving a practical map of which circuit families remain usable for biologically relevant molecules on near-term devices.

What carries the argument

The centralized benchmarking pipeline: identical mapped Hamiltonians, shared active-space or contextual-subspace truncation, and a uniform cost-function-evaluation counter that lets adaptive growth and fixed-depth hardware-efficient circuits be ranked on equal footing.

What would settle it

Rerun the matched-parameter trainability and accuracy-versus-k experiments on the same amino acids after expanding the active space beyond the default six orbitals (or after switching to Bravyi-Kitaev mapping); if the ranking of adaptive versus hardware-efficient circuits reverses or the energy-error curves change order, the central comparability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

An integrated open repository that standardizes more than ten VQE ansatzes and two truncation methods on QMProt amino-acid Hamiltonians enables previously missing multi-axis comparisons of noise resilience, barren-plateau trainability, matched-parameter cost, and accuracy-versus-expressivity, so that algorithm choice for larger biomolecules can rest on reproducible rather than fragmented evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The default six-orbital active-space cuts and the chosen classical optimizers keep a chemically fair landscape, so relative ansatz rankings stay valid when the same pipeline is later applied to larger or differently truncated systems.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an open, integrated benchmarking repository that unifies more than ten published VQE ansatzes and two Hamiltonian truncation schemes (active-space reduction and contextual subspace reduction) and applies them to mapped amino-acid Hamiltonians from QMProt. Four experiments are reported: (i) noise resilience of a fixed hardware-efficient ansatz under PennyLane noise channels, quantified by parameter L2 drift, cosine similarity, and noisy vs noiseless energies; (ii) barren-plateau / initialization diagnostics via gradient variance and optimization trajectories for near-identity, small-random, and random-uniform starts; (iii) matched-parameter trainability of qubit-ADAPT versus layered hardware-efficient circuits, with total cost-function evaluations as the primary fairness metric; and (iv) accuracy versus retained adaptive operators (and, separately, Hamiltonian prefix terms) relative to HF/CASCI references. The central claim is that a single reproducible pipeline enables fair multi-axis comparison of leading VQE methods on biologically relevant fragments.

Significance. If the pipeline and rankings hold under broader validation, the work supplies a practically useful community resource: a single entry point for comparing chemically inspired, adaptive, and hardware-efficient VQEs on standardized amino-acid Hamiltonians, with explicit attention to total cost evaluations rather than outer-loop iterations alone. The open repository, HF-reference verification, and multi-axis experimental design are genuine strengths that address the fragmentation the authors correctly diagnose in the VQE literature. The biological intermediate scale (amino acids as protein building blocks) is a reasonable step beyond H2/LiH-style benchmarks. Significance is therefore primarily infrastructural and empirical rather than a new algorithmic breakthrough; that is still valuable for NISQ chemistry benchmarking provided the fairness of the reported rankings is better substantiated.

major comments (4)
  1. §2.1 and Table 2: the default active-space protocol freezes most systems to ~4–6 STO-3G frontier orbitals (~8–12 qubits). The load-bearing claim of a “fair” matched-parameter ranking of qubit-ADAPT vs hardware-efficient VQE (Figs. 11, 16; Experiment 3) and the accuracy-vs-k curves (Fig. 10) are measured only inside this heavily reduced landscape. Adaptive growth and HEA depth scale differently with orbital count; without at least one controlled enlargement (e.g., 8–10 orbitals, or CS on/off) showing that cost-eval and energy-error orderings are stable, the multi-axis ranking cannot be taken as algorithm-fair beyond the truncated setting. Limitations §4.2 discusses optimizer dependence but not truncation sensitivity of the ranking itself.
  2. §3.4 / Fig. 10 and abstract claim of mapping “accuracy versus expressive capacity”: adaptive operator sweeps stop at k=3. For systems whose CASCI–HF gap is order 1 Ha (e.g., methionine, Fig. 4), three operators are insufficient to characterize the accuracy–expressivity trade-off or to support general conclusions about retained adaptive operators. Either extend k substantially on a subset of molecules or reframe the claim as a small-k pilot rather than a capacity map.
  3. Abstract and §1 advertise “over 10 different ansatzes” and a unified multi-axis comparison, yet Experiments 1–4 almost exclusively report hardware-efficient and qubit-ADAPT (plus initialization variants). Table 1 lists CB-VQE, NN-VQA, CS-VQE, iQCC, VAns, Hamiltonian variational ansatz, etc., but the Results section does not present head-to-head energy, cost-eval, or noise metrics for most of them. Either add a compact multi-ansatz summary table under fixed budgets or narrow the abstract claim to the ansatzes actually benchmarked.
  4. §1 defines chemical accuracy as 1.6 mHa, yet reported residual errors (Figs. 3–6, 10, 12) remain on the order of 0.1–1 Ha after optimization. The manuscript never states whether any method reaches chemical accuracy on the truncated Hamiltonians, nor how truncation error itself compares to that threshold. Without that accounting, “accuracy” axes risk being misread as chemically meaningful rather than relative within a reduced model.
minor comments (6)
  1. Figure numbering and experiment labels are inconsistent: §3.2 is titled “Experiment 1: Influence of Initialization…” while Methodology §2.5 lists noise resilience first; align numbering throughout.
  2. Fig. 12 caption and body text say “first n parameters” while the experiment description refers to Hamiltonian prefix terms; use one terminology consistently.
  3. Several figures (e.g., Fig. 8) note that L2 drift alone is hard to interpret; consider reporting relative drift (||θ_noisy − θ_noiseless|| / ||θ_noiseless||) alongside absolute L2.
  4. Typos and orthography: “ansatzes/ansätze” mixed; “ans¨ atze”; “hartree-fock” vs “Hartree–Fock”; “do not have any noise strengths in them” repeated awkwardly in several captions.
  5. Table 1: some entries list “Paper: None written”; either cite the original demos/docs properly or mark them as library baselines to avoid implying peer-reviewed provenance.
  6. Code availability URL is given; please also pin dependency versions (PennyLane/Qiskit/PySCF) and random seeds used for the four experiments so the heatmaps are bit-reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical multi-axis VQE benchmarks measured against external classical references (HF/CASCI), with no definitional loops or fitted-as-prediction steps.

full rationale

The manuscript is a benchmarking and repository paper. Its load-bearing claims are measured quantities—energies relative to HF and CASCI, L2/cosine parameter drift under PennyLane noise channels, gradient-variance diagnostics, wall-clock time, and total cost-function evaluations at matched parameter budgets—obtained by running published ansatzes (HEA, ADAPT/Qubit-ADAPT, iQCC-inspired, etc.) on QMProt Hamiltonians after active-space or contextual-subspace truncation. None of these quantities is defined in terms of a free parameter that is later re-labeled a prediction; the variational principle is used only as an upper-bound check (optimized energy ≤ HF), and classical references are external (PySCF CASCI/HF). Citations are to standard literature (Peruzzo, Kandala, Grimsley, Kirby, etc.) and the QMProt dataset; there is no self-citation of a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the present results. Truncation choices and optimizer dependence affect the fairness of rankings but do not create circularity by construction. Score 0 is therefore the correct, proportionate finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The work is an empirical benchmarking study. It inherits the variational principle, standard fermion-to-qubit mappings, and published ansatz constructions; free choices are the truncation rules, active-orbital counts, noise models, depths, and optimizers that define the experimental axes. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • active_orbital_count_per_amino_acid = typically 4–6 spatial orbitals
    Default truncation keeps a fixed small number of orbitals (mostly 6, Table 2) chosen by frontier-window / AVAS-style rules; rankings depend on this hand-chosen width.
  • hardware_efficient_depth_and_layer_structure = 2-layer 6-qubit example used for noise; variable for trainability
    Number of Ry+CNOT layers is chosen to match target parameter budgets (10/50/100); depth is a free experimental knob.
  • noise_channel_and_strength_p = swept p values (reference noise shown in Figs 8–9)
    PennyLane noise models and strength p are swept by hand to produce drift heatmaps; not derived from device calibration.
  • max_adaptive_operators_k = k ≤ 3
    Accuracy-vs-parameters experiment retains only k=1..3 operators due to compute limits; the reported error curve is truncated by this choice.
  • Hamiltonian_prefix_term_count = n ≤ 10
    Experiment 4 keeps the first n Pauli terms (n≤10); the local minimum at n=4 is observed only inside this hand-limited range.
  • optimizer_choice_and_hyperparameters = COBYLA; Bayesian with 5 trials per init
    COBYLA and Bayesian optimization with fixed trial counts are selected by the authors; Limitations note that other optimizers can change operation counts.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Variational principle: expectation value of H for any normalized trial state is an upper bound to the true ground-state energy.
    Stated in Introduction and used to justify all VQE energy comparisons.
  • domain assumption Jordan–Wigner fermion-to-qubit mapping of the QMProt fermionic Hamiltonians is a faithful representation for the purposes of these benchmarks.
    Methodology adopts JW for consistency with QMProt; alternative mappings (Bravyi–Kitaev) are noted as future work.
  • domain assumption Active-space / frozen-core truncation and contextual-subspace reduction preserve the dominant energetic features needed for relative algorithm ranking.
    §2.1–2.2; without this, comparisons on 6-qubit reduced systems would not inform full-system behavior.
  • domain assumption Published ansatz constructions (ADAPT, qubit-ADAPT, HEA, iQCC-inspired, CS-VQE, etc.) are correctly re-implemented in the PennyLane/Qiskit pipeline.
    Table 1 and Code Availability; correctness is checked mainly via HF energy recovery.
  • domain assumption CASCI / HF classical references are accurate enough ground-truth for the truncated active spaces used.
    Used throughout Results as the energy baseline for error plots.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing the Performance of Leading VQE Algorithms for Computing Ground-State Energies of Amino Acids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJK4VNC5

@misc{pith2026260702620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing the Performance of Leading VQE Algorithms for Computing Ground-State Energies of Amino Acids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJK4VNC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02620}
}
read the original abstract

Simulating molecules is a major application of quantum computing, with the potential to overcome exponential scaling constraints of classical computation. Researchers use different methods in order to evaluate the readiness of NISQ computers in order to test current simulation capabilities. We present an integrated repository with reproducible benchmarks of over 10 different ansatzes from published papers and two different truncation methods, applicable to any set of mapped hamiltonians, providing a single pipeline for comparing performance along multiple axes, including variance and computational time, among others. We apply them to simulate different amino acids, using hamiltonians taken from the QMProt Dataset. We then ran four separate experiments. First, we quantified noise resilience by optimizing the same hardware-efficient ansatzes under identical initialization while sweeping PennyLane noise channels and strengths, and measuring parameter drift, cosine similarity of optimal parameters, and energies evaluated on noiseless versus noisy backends. We then studied barren-plateau-related trainability via gradient-variance diagnostics and optimization trajectories across initialization strategies and ansatzes depth on small systems. We then compared adaptive versus fixed ansatzes at matched parameter budgets, reporting outer-loop iterations, wall time, and especially total cost-function evaluations to fairly contrast greedy adaptive growth with layered hardware-efficient circuits. Lastly, we mapped accuracy versus expressive capacity by sweeping the number of retained adaptive operators and recording ground-state energy error relative to classical references.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02620 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Number of atoms, electrons, orbitals, and qubits for the molecules available in the QMProt dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Active orbitals of model amino acids, visualized. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. HF Verification VS other metrics on the 24 QMProt molecules. Bayesian Optimizations was also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In the Methionine example, all three initialization strategies quickly settle into similar oscillatory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This panel figure presents per-molecule convergence-by-initialization curves, enabling side-by-side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This panel figure summarizes per-molecule final-energy-by-initialization comparisons, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparing the mean variance across molecules, compared to the number of layers, for the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parameter L2 Drift at Reference Noise. These, on their own, don’t tell you much about how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Heatmap of parameter drift measured using the L2 norm. Notice how when the noise strength p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Investigating energy error vs n parameters for Adapt-VQE, compared to the CASCI. All of the amino acids in the QMProt dataset were run up to k = 3. Larger experiments can be run. Error decreases as n-parameters increases, though cost increases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Investigating cost-function evals for all molecules between qubit-ADAPT and hardware-efficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Investigating how much keeping the first n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Investigating convergence for different strategies for amino acids from the dataset, using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Investigating convergence for different strategies for amino acids from the dataset, using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: This panel figure summarizes per-molecule final-energy-by-initialization comparisons in another [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Cost-function evaluations required by Qubit-ADAPT-VQE and hardware-efficient VQE across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Cosine similarity heatmap, with the same conditions as Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    First- principles models of polymorphism of pharmaceuticals: Maximizing the accuracy-to-cost ratio.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(7):2858–2870, 2024

    Jan Lud´ ık, Veronika Kostkov´ a,ˇStefan Kocian, Petr Touˇ s, Vojtˇ echˇStejfa, and Ctirad ˇCervinka. First- principles models of polymorphism of pharmaceuticals: Maximizing the accuracy-to-cost ratio.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(7):2858–2870, 2024. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00099. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00099

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00099 2024

  2. [2]

    Dral, Matthias Rupp, and O

    Raghunathan Ramakrishnan, Pavlo O. Dral, Matthias Rupp, and O. Anatole von Lilienfeld. Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules.Scientific Data, 1(1):140022, 2014. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2014.22. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2014.22

    doi:10.1038/sdata.2014.22 2014

  3. [3]

    Redfern, Rajeev S

    Badri Narayanan, Paul C. Redfern, Rajeev S. Assary, and Larry A. Curtiss. Accurate quantum chemical energies for 133 000 organic molecules.Chemical Science, 10(31):7449–7455, 2019. doi: 10.1039/C9SC 02834J. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1039/C9SC02834J

    work page doi:10.1039/c9sc 2019

  4. [4]

    Rand, and Adji Bousso Dieng

    Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Craig Arnold, Barry P. Rand, and Adji Bousso Dieng. LLM-Prop: Predict- ing the properties of crystalline materials using large language models.npj Computational Materials, 11(1):186, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41524-025-01536-2. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-025-015 36-2

    doi:10.1038/s41524-025-01536-2 2025

  5. [5]

    In-Context Molecular Property Prediction with LLMs: A Blinding Study on Memorization and Knowledge Conflicts

    Matthias Busch, Marius Tacke, Sviatlana V. Lamaka, Mikhail L. Zheludkevich, Christian J. Cyron, Christian Feiler, and Roland C. Aydin. In-context molecular property prediction with LLMs: A blinding study on memorization and knowledge conflicts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25857, 2026. doi: 10.48550 /arXiv.2603.25857. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.25857

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.25857 2026

  6. [6]

    Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Simon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum computational chemistry.Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(1):015003, 2020. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys .92.015003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2020

  7. [7]

    Olson, Matthias Degroote, Peter D

    Yudong Cao, Jonathan Romero, Jonathan P. Olson, Matthias Degroote, Peter D. Johnson, M´ aria Kieferov´ a, Ian D. Kivlichan, Tim Menke, Borja Peropadre, Nicolas P. D. Sawaya, Sukin Sim, Libor Veis, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing.Chemical Reviews, 119 (19):10856–10915, 2019. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00803

    doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00803 2019

  8. [8]

    Whitfield, Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz, Man-Hong Yung, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik

    Ivan Kassal, James D. Whitfield, Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz, Man-Hong Yung, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. Simulating chemistry using quantum computers.Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 62:185–207,

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    doi: 10.1146/annurev-physchem-032210-103512

    doi

  2. [10]

    Mayhall, and David Casanova

    Nonia Vaquero-Sabater, Abel Carreras, Rom´ an Or´ us, Nicholas J. Mayhall, and David Casanova. Physically motivated improvements of variational quantum eigensolvers.Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation, 20(12):5133–5144, 2024. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00329. URLhttps: /...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Simulating the electronic structure of spin defects on quantum computers.PRX Quantum, 3(1):010339, 2022

    Benchen Huang, Marco Govoni, and Giulia Galli. Simulating the electronic structure of spin defects on quantum computers.PRX Quantum, 3(1):010339, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010339. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010339

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018. doi: 10.22331 /q-2018-08-06-79. URLhttps://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2018-08-06-79/

    2018

  5. [13]

    Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature Communications, 5:4213, 2014. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5213

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik

    Jarrod R. McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023023. 24

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Chow, and Jay M

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.Nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nature23879

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Cavasotto

    Claudio N. Cavasotto. Binding free energy calculation using quantum mechanics aimed for drug lead optimization.Frontiers in Chemistry, 8:246, 2020. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2020.00246

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Pedro E. M. Lopes, Olgun Guvench, and Alexander D. MacKerell. Current status of protein force fields for molecular dynamics simulations.Methods in Molecular Biology, 1215:47–71, 2015. doi: 10.1007/97 8-1-4939-1465-4 3

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Stefano Piana, Paul Robustelli, David Tan, Shi Chen, and David E. Shaw. Development of a force field for the simulation of single-chain proteins and protein–protein complexes.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 16(4):2494–2507, 2020. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00251

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Qupepfold: A python package for hybrid quantum-classical protein folding simulations with cvar-optimized vqe.PLOS ONE, 21(2): e0342012, 2026

    Akshay Uttarkar, Vidya Niranjan, Amit Saxena, and Vinay Kumar. Qupepfold: A python package for hybrid quantum-classical protein folding simulations with cvar-optimized vqe.PLOS ONE, 21(2): e0342012, 2026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342012

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    Abhinav Anand, Philipp Schleich, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Phillip W. K. Jensen, Sukin Sim, Manuel D´ ıaz-Tinoco, Jakob S. Kottmann, Matthias Degroote, Artur F. Izmaylov, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. A quantum computing view on unitary coupled cluster theory.Chemical Society Reviews, 51...

  13. [21]

    doi: 10.1039/D1CS00932J

    doi

  14. [22]

    McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature Communications, 9:4812, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Grimsley, Sophia E

    Harper R. Grimsley, Sophia E. Economou, Edwin Barnes, and Nicholas J. Mayhall. An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer.Nature Communications, 10:3007, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Steinmann

    Nawras Abidi and Stephan N. Steinmann. How are transition states modeled in heterogeneous electro- catalysis?Current Opinion in Electrochemistry, 33:100940, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.coelec.2022.100940

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    QMProt: A comprehensive dataset of quantum properties for proteins.Electronics, 14(14):2825, 2025

    Laia Coronas Sala and Parfait Atchade-Adelomou. QMProt: A comprehensive dataset of quantum properties for proteins.Electronics, 14(14):2825, 2025. doi: 10.3390/electronics14142825. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/14/14/2825

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    Booth, and Jonathan Tennyson

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H. Booth, and Jonathan Tennyson. The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022. do...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Delcey, and G¨ oran Wendin

    Juan Angel de Gracia Trivi˜ no, Mickael G. Delcey, and G¨ oran Wendin. Complete active space methods for NISQ devices: The importance of canonical orbital optimization for accuracy and noise resilience. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(10):2863–2872, 2023. doi: 1...

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Bishop, Jerry M

    Nikolaj Moll, Panagiotis Barkoutsos, Lev S. Bishop, Jerry M. Chow, Andrew Cross, Daniel J. Eg- ger, Stefan Filipp, Andreas Fuhrer, Jay M. Gambetta, Marc Ganzhorn, Abhinav Kandala, Anto- nio Mezzacapo, Peter M¨ uller, Walter Riess, Gian Salis, John Smolin, Ivano Tavernelli, and...

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Gambetta

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M. Gambetta. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits.Physical Review Letters, 119(18):180509, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02058. 25

    2017 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Optimization of VQE-UCC algorithm based on spin state symmetry

    Qing Guo and Ping-Xing Chen. Optimization of VQE-UCC algorithm based on spin state symmetry. Frontiers in Physics, 9:735321, 2021. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2021.735321. URLhttps://doi.org/10.338 9/fphy.2021.735321

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    A general second order complete active space self-consistent-field solver for large-scale systems.Chemical Physics Letters, 683:291–299, 2017

    Qiming Sun, Jun Yang, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. A general second order complete active space self-consistent-field solver for large-scale systems.Chemical Physics Letters, 683:291–299, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cplett.2017.03.004

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    PySCF user guide: Multi-configuration self-consistent field (MCSCF).https: //pyscf.org/user/mcscf.html, 2026

    PySCF Developers. PySCF user guide: Multi-configuration self-consistent field (MCSCF).https: //pyscf.org/user/mcscf.html, 2026. Accessed May 24, 2026

    2026

  25. [33]

    Kirby, Andrew Tranter, and Peter J

    William M. Kirby, Andrew Tranter, and Peter J. Love. Contextual subspace variational quantum eigensolver.Quantum, 5:456, 2021. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-05-14-456. URLhttps://quantum-journal .org/papers/q-2021-05-14-456/

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Paudel, and Yuhua Duan

    Dominic Alfonso, Yueh-Lin Lee, Hari P. Paudel, and Yuhua Duan. Chemical applications of variational quantum eigenvalue-based quantum algorithms: Perspective and survey.Applied Physics Reviews, 12 (3):031304, 2025. doi: 10.1063/5.0245874. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0245874

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    Variational quantum simulation of ground states and thermal states for lattice gauge theory with multi-objective optimization.Physics Letters A, 546:130516, 2025

    Li-Xiang Cheng and Dan-Bo Zhang. Variational quantum simulation of ground states and thermal states for lattice gauge theory with multi-objective optimization.Physics Letters A, 546:130516, 2025. ISSN 0375-9601. doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2025.130516. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j...

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Nicoli, Luca J

    Kim A. Nicoli, Luca J. Wagner, and Lena Funcke. Machine-learning-enhanced optimization of noise- resilient variational quantum eigensolvers, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17689

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    McCaskey, Zachary P

    Alexander J. McCaskey, Zachary P. Parks, Jacek Jakowski, Shirley V. Moore, Titus D. Morris, Travis S. Humble, and Raphael C. Pooser. Quantum chemistry as a benchmark for near-term quantum computers. npj Quantum Information, 5(1):99, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41534-019-0209-0. URLhtt...

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Dattani, C

    Zhendong Li, Junhao Li, Nikesh S. Dattani, C. J. Umrigar, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. The electronic complexity of the ground-state of the FeMo cofactor of nitrogenase as relevant to quantum simulations. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 150(2):024302, 2019. doi: 10.1063/1.5063376

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Ho Lun Tang, V. O. Shkolnikov, George S. Barron, Harper R. Grimsley, Nicholas J. Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware- efficient ans¨ atze on a quantum processor.PRX Quantum, 2(2):020310, 2021. doi: 10....

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Ryabinkin, Robert A

    Ilya G. Ryabinkin, Robert A. Lang, Scott N. Genin, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Iterative qubit coupled cluster approach with efficient screening of generators.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 16(2):1055–1063, 2020. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01084. URLhttps://doi.org/10.102...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.