Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Impact of molecular orbital localization on quantum computational resources for Hamiltonian simulation: A benchmark study of hydrogen chain systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Choosing localized molecular orbitals and truncating the Hamiltonian by operator locality reduces per-Trotter-step gate counts for hydrogen-chain simulation from polynomial to polylogarithmic growth in chain length.

desk verdict Useful benchmark data, but the polylog gate-count claim for localized orbitals is an artifact of finite-range fitting: the paper's own locality definition forces Ω(n^2) surviving R_z terms. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04481 v1 pith:TCVWMDFC submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Kenji Sugisaki , Yuhei Tachi , Masayoshi Terabe , Hiroyuki Tezuka This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords HamiltoniansimulationTrotterdecompositionorbitallocalizationhydrogenchainsquantumresourceestimationoperatorlocalitygatecountscalingground-statefidelity
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

This paper asks whether the choice of molecular orbitals and the way the Hamiltonian is thinned out can change how many quantum gates a simulation needs as the molecule grows. For one-dimensional hydrogen chains, it argues that the answer is yes. With Hartree–Fock canonical orbitals, truncating small Hamiltonian coefficients leaves the gate count growing as $O(n^4)$–$O(n^5)$ in the number of atoms $n$. With localized orbitals, truncating by operator locality—dropping Pauli terms whose spatial reach exceeds a cutoff—brings the growth down to $O((\log n)^{12})$–$O((\log n)^{14})$, a super-polynomial gap the paper calls an exponential advantage. If the benchmark transfers to real molecules, orbital localization becomes a first-class resource-reduction strategy for fault-tolerant quantum chemistry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operator-locality index $k$, defined for each two-electron Hamiltonian term as $k = |p-r| + |q-s| + 2$, which in the one-dimensional chain measures the separation between the orbital labels involved in the term. The argument pairs this index with an orbital-localization step that reorders orbitals by position, so that small $k$ literally means short range. The empirical threshold law $k_{\max} = \lceil 1.8912 (\log n)^{1.8614} \rceil$ is the bridge: it fixes how many Hamiltonian terms survive at each chain length and, combined with the $2(k-1)$ CNOT cost per Pauli string and the fact that the number of $R_z$ gates equals the number of retained Hamiltonian terms, converts Hamiltonian sparsity into the claimed gate-count scaling.

What would settle it

Compute the DMRG ground state of $\mathrm{H}_{100}$ at the predicted cutoff $k_{\max} = \lceil 1.8912 (\log n)^{1.8614} \rceil = 33$ and compare its fidelity $F$ against the untruncated Hamiltonian; if $F < 0.99$, or if reaching $F \ge 0.99$ at larger $n$ requires $k_{\max}$ to grow as a power of $n$ rather than of $\log n$, the claimed polylogarithmic gate-count advantage is not realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a pairing: coefficient-based truncation suits delocalized canonical orbitals, while locality-based truncation suits localized orbitals, and the two pairings scale very differently with system size. For CMO-based wave functions, keeping terms with coefficients above a threshold $c_{\mathrm{thre}}$ leaves the per-step Trotter gate count scaling as $O(n^4)$–$O(n^5)$, and truncation changes only the prefactor. For LMO-based wave functions, retaining Pauli strings of locality $k \le k_{\max}$, with $k_{\max} = \lceil 1.8912 (\log n)^{1.8614} \rceil$ fitted from density matrix renormalization group data, yields $O((\log n)^{12})$–$O((\log n)^{14})$ gate counts. The mechanism is spatial: after localization and reordering, operator locality tracks inter-orbital distance, so truncating by locality is truncating by physical distance, and distant correlations are negligible. The paper supports this with full configuration interaction and DMRG ground-state energies and fidelities for short chains plus threshold estimates extrapolated to H$_{100}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the required locality cutoff really grows only as a small power of the logarithm of chain length, as fitted to chains up to sixty atoms; if a longer-chain calculation shows the needed cutoff climbing faster, the polylogarithmic gate-count claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a single first-order Trotter step of a linear hydrogen chain, switching from canonical orbitals with coefficient truncation to localized orbitals with locality truncation changes the asymptotic gate-count growth from $O(n^4)$–$O(n^5)$ to $O((\log n)^{12})$–$O((\log n)^{14})$.
  • In the canonical-orbital basis, Hamiltonian truncation reduces the number of gates by a roughly constant factor for long chains but does not change the polynomial scaling, so it cannot by itself remove the resource bottleneck.
  • With locality truncation, the $R_z$-gate count equals the number of retained Hamiltonian terms; the LMO basis starts with roughly three times as many terms as CMO for small $n$ but overtakes it near $n \approx 80$.
  • Encoding choice matters: the Bravyi–Kitaev encoding lowers CNOT counts relative to Jordan–Wigner in the CMO basis but increases one-qubit Clifford counts, while LMO with Jordan–Wigner stays competitive.
  • Most retained $R_z$ gates have small rotation angles—over 99% have $|\theta| \le 0.005\pi$ even after truncation—so hardware tailored to small-angle rotations would amplify the savings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the polylogarithmic threshold law is fitted only to linear chains at fixed bond length; a testable follow-up is to repeat the benchmark on a bent chain or with nonuniform bond lengths to see whether the locality principle is really about spatial distance rather than index ordering.
  • Editorial extension: the paper counts one Trotter step at $M=1$; an end-to-end resource estimate should multiply by the number of Trotter steps needed for a fixed evolution time and target error, and the locality-truncation advantage could change depending on how truncation error and Trotter error interact.
  • Editorial extension: the observed dominance of small-angle $R_z$ gates suggests a quantitative follow-up that the paper does not do: estimate the cost of synthesizing or analog-rotating the truncated LMO circuits under early-fault-tolerant hardware assumptions.
  • Editorial extension: the benchmark uses a minimal basis set at 1.0 Å; testing larger basis sets with diffuse functions, which delocalize localized orbitals, would show whether the exponential advantage survives a more realistic electronic-structure setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript benchmarks the effect of molecular orbital choice (canonical versus Pipek-Mezey localized orbitals) and Hamiltonian truncation strategy (coefficient-based versus operator-locality-based) on the quantum-gate cost of Trotterized Hamiltonian simulation for one-dimensional hydrogen chains H_n with n = 8, ..., 100. For small chains, the authors perform full-CI and DMRG calculations to fit empirical formulas relating truncation thresholds to ground-state energy error and fidelity, and they use these fits to estimate thresholds that achieve F >= 0.99. They then count the number of one-qubit Clifford, CNOT, and Rz gates for a single first-order Trotter step, reporting that CMO-based truncation yields polynomial gate-count scaling O(n^4)-O(n^5) while LMO-based truncation yields polylogarithmic scaling O((log n)^12)-O((log n)^14), which they describe as an exponential advantage of the LMO approach.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would provide a practically useful benchmark: it combines exact per-term gate counts, DMRG validations at H30 (CMO) and H60 (LMO), and a systematic comparison of two truncation strategies across a wide range of chain lengths. The strengths of the paper include the explicit counting of Pauli-string terms, the out-of-sample DMRG checks, and the clear presentation of the fitting parameters. However, the central asymptotic claim is not established. The resource counts cover only a single Trotter step, the LMO polylog scaling is contradicted by an exact combinatorial lower bound on density-density terms, and the fitted threshold law for k_max is empirical and chosen after inspecting the data. The paper is therefore best viewed as a useful finite-size benchmark whose headline conclusion needs substantive revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C, Eq. (10)] The resource counts are for a single first-order Trotter step (M=1), but the abstract and the Conclusion claim that these are 'the number of quantum gates required for Hamiltonian simulation.' The total simulation cost also includes the number of Trotter steps needed to reach a target simulation time and error tolerance, which depends on the norm and commutator structure of the truncated Hamiltonian and is never analyzed in the paper. Therefore the headline claim is not backed by the reported data; the authors should either explicitly restrict all claims to per-step gate counts or provide a Trotter-error analysis with the required number of steps.
  2. [Section III.B, Eq. (5) and Table S4] For any density-density two-electron term with p = r and q = s, Eq. (5) gives locality k = 2, so all such terms survive the locality-based truncation whenever k_max >= 2 (and k_max = 33 for H100). Under the Jordan-Wigner transformation, each such term contributes at least one Rz Pauli string, and the paper itself states in Section III.C that the number of Rz gates equals the number of qubit Hamiltonian terms. Since there are n(n-1)/2 spatial orbital pairs, the truncated LMO Hamiltonian contains Omega(n^2) Rz strings; even restricting to nearest-neighbor density terms gives Omega(n) strings, which already dominates any polylogarithmic function. This exact lower bound is incompatible with the claimed O((log n)^12) asymptotic scaling, and it shows that the polylog fit in Table III is a finite-range description rather than an asymptotic law.
  3. [Section III.B, Figure 5b] The law k_max = ceil(1.8912 (log n)^1.8614) is an empirical fit chosen after a linear fit failed, and the authors explicitly note that the fitting functions have no theoretical justification. The subsequent O((log n)^12)-O((log n)^14) gate-count scalings in Table III are direct consequences of this fitted law, so the central separation claim inherits the extrapolation uncertainty. Combined with the exact lower bound above, the extrapolation is not merely uncertain but inconsistent with the paper's own truncation rule. A rigorous counting argument or a systematic model-selection analysis (for example, comparing n^2 (log n)^c, n^3, and n^2 (log n)^c forms) is needed before an asymptotic advantage can be claimed.
  4. [Section III.B, Eqs. (6)-(9)] The fidelity F used to set truncation thresholds is the ground-state fidelity of the truncated Hamiltonian, not a measure of the accuracy of Trotterized time evolution of the original Hamiltonian. The paper uses F >= 0.99 as a proxy for simulation accuracy, but no argument is given connecting ground-state fidelity to the Trotter error of a finite-time evolution. Since the gate-count analysis is limited to a single Trotter step, this proxy assumption is load-bearing and should be either justified or explicitly stated as a limitation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'exponential advantage' is misleading because both scalings are sub-exponential; the paper actually reports a polynomial-versus-polylogarithmic comparison. Please rephrase to avoid overstatement.
  2. [Section III.C, paragraph after Eq. (10)] There is a typo: 'approximately three times as may qubit Hamiltonian terms' should read 'as many qubit Hamiltonian terms.'
  3. [Conclusion] The sentence referring to 'the distance dependence of the intermolecular interaction energy obtained with the supramolecular approach' does not match the body of the paper, which fits fidelity thresholds from DMRG calculations; this sentence should be corrected or removed.
  4. [References] Reference [5] contains 'Crawford adn' instead of 'Crawford and', and several journal abbreviations are inconsistent (e.g., 'Proc. Natl. Acad. Soc. U.S.A.' should be 'Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.').

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Polylog LMO gate-count claim is largely inherited from the fitted k_max law rather than independently predicted, with an additional unsupported self-cited supramolecular premise.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.B (threshold fitting) and Section III.C (gate-count fitting), around Eqs. (5) and (10) and Tables II/III]
    "For the estimation of quantum gates required for Hamiltonian simulation, we adopt the following ceiling function k_max = ⌈1.8912(log n)^1.8614⌉. ... By assuming the scaling behaviors discussed in the previous section ... considering the fact that k_max scales as a polylogarithmic function, we also fitted the data using a(log n)^b ... With the Hamiltonian truncation, the number of quantum gate grows as O(n^4)–O(n^5) for the CMO basis, and O((log n)^12)–O((log n)^14) for the LMO basis."

    The LMO gate-count scaling is not an independent prediction: the truncated LMO Hamiltonians are generated using k_max = 1.8912(log n)^1.8614, a law fitted to the authors' own DMRG fidelity data, and then the resulting gate counts are fitted with a polylog function BECAUSE k_max is polylog. The paper itself states that 'the number of R_z(θ) gates is equal to the number of terms in the qubit Hamiltonian.' Under the paper's own locality definition, Eq. (5), every density–density term with p=r and q=s has k=2 and survives any k_max≥2, contributing at least n(n−1)/2 Pauli strings. Thus the true term count is Ω(n^2), so the pure O((log n)^12)–O((log n)^14) scaling reported from n=8..100 is a finite-range fitting artifact of the fitted k_max ansatz rather than a derived asymptotics.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section IV, Conclusion]
    "Based on the fitting of the threshold dependence of the computed ground-state fidelity and the distance dependence of the intermolecular interaction energy obtained with the supramolecular approach, we estimated the threshold required to achieve (F≥0.99)."

    The 'supramolecular approach' is not described anywhere in the Methods or Results; the only nearby support is reference [55], whose authors include Tachi, Terabe, and Sugisaki, overlapping with the present paper. If the polylog k_max law is justified by that preprint's distance-dependence result, then the central input to the LMO gate-count extrapolation is imported from a self-citation rather than established independently in this work. The paper's own DMRG threshold fits provide partial independent content, so this is load-bearing only to a limited extent, but it is a genuine unsupported self-citation in the summary of the method.

full rationale

The CMO-side analysis is not circular: c_thre is fitted to DMRG energies/fidelities, the fitted law is validated out-of-sample at H30 (F=0.992175), and the gate counts are then computed exactly from the resulting truncated Hamiltonians; the reported O(n^4)–O(n^5) scaling is consistent with a straightforward term-count analysis and is not equivalent to the fitted coefficient law by construction. The LMO-side claim is different. The paper fits k_max = 1.8912(log n)^1.8614 to achieve F≥0.99, uses that fitted law to generate all truncated LMO Hamiltonians, and then selects a polylog fitting function for the gate counts partly because k_max is polylog. The 'prediction' of O((log n)^12)–O((log n)^14) therefore inherits its asymptotic form from the fitted input rather than emerging from an independent count. Moreover, the paper's own Eq. (5) implies that all n(n−1)/2 density–density terms have locality 2 and survive every k_max≥2 used in the study, so the exact R_z count must be at least Ω(n^2); a pure polylog fit over n=8..100 is a finite-range artifact, not an asymptotically valid scaling. This is also a correctness problem, but it reinforces the circularity point: the claimed exponential separation is not a derived consequence of the Hamiltonian, it is an extrapolation of an empirical fitting form chosen from the fitted k_max. The out-of-sample checks (H30, H50, H60) validate the threshold law at single points but do not validate the asymptotic gate-count class. The unsupported reference to a 'supramolecular approach' in the Conclusion ties part of the threshold justification to a self-cited preprint, adding a further circularity concern. On balance, the paper is transparent about its empirical fitting and provides exact gate counts, so it is not wholly circular; but the central LMO gate-count scaling is substantially fitted input presented as a predicted asymptotic advantage. Score 5.0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling claims rest on several empirical fits with free parameters (a, b, alpha, beta) and on the domain assumption that LMO locality correlates with spatial distance in 1D chains. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • a, b in eqs (6)-(7) for CMO energy/fidelity fits = see Table I (e.g., H8 energy a=47.036, b=1.6549; H8 fidelity a=302.17, b=2.4269)
    Empirical parameters with no theoretical justification; used to estimate c_thre for F>=0.99 and |Delta E|<=1 kcal/mol. R^2 ranges from 0.53 to 0.99.
  • a, b in eqs (8)-(9) for LMO energy/fidelity fits = see Table I (e.g., H8 energy a=4.2836e-6, b=4.2357; H8 fidelity a=6.2391e-11, b=8.5329)
    Empirical fits used to assess kmax thresholds; R^2 for fidelity above 0.99 for H8-H20, but the functional form is chosen without theoretical justification.
  • alpha, beta for c_thre = alpha n^beta = alpha=1.3895, beta=-2.0707, R^2=0.9802
    Fitted to the estimated c_thre values for H10-H20 (H8 excluded). Used to set truncation thresholds for H30-H100 in the CMO basis.
  • alpha, beta for kmax = alpha(log n)^beta = alpha=1.8912, beta=1.8614, R^2=0.9995
    Fitted to kmax values actually achieving F>=0.99 for n=8..50. Used to set kmax for H60-H100 in the LMO basis. The entire polylog gate-count scaling follows from this assumption.
  • integral cutoff for LMO original Hamiltonian = 1e-10 Hartree
    Terms with coefficients smaller than 1e-10 are neglected in the LMO 'original' Hamiltonian (Section III.C), which affects the reported gate counts for the LMO basis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RHF/STO-3G wave functions at 1.0 A bond length are a sufficient benchmark for resource scaling in hydrogen chains
    The whole study is performed in this minimal-basis, fixed-geometry setting; extrapolation to other systems is speculative.
  • domain assumption Pipek-Mezey localization followed by reordering by position makes operator locality a proxy for spatial distance in the LMO basis
    Section II and III.A; this spatial-locality assumption underlies the choice of kmax-based truncation for LMOs.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical forms of eqs (6)-(9) describe the threshold dependence of energy and fidelity
    The paper explicitly states 'there is no theoretical justification for assuming that E and F follow these forms' (Section III.B).
  • ad hoc to paper The ground-state fidelity of the truncated Hamiltonian is an adequate proxy for the accuracy of Trotterized time evolution of the original Hamiltonian
    The paper sets truncation thresholds using ground-state F>=0.99 but then counts gates for time evolution without analyzing Trotter error or the number of steps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of molecular orbital localization on quantum computational resources for Hamiltonian simulation: A benchmark study of hydrogen chain systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCVWMDFC

@misc{pith2026260804481,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of molecular orbital localization on quantum computational resources for Hamiltonian simulation: A benchmark study of hydrogen chain systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCVWMDFC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04481}
}
abstract

We investigate how molecular orbitals used as the basis of wave function expansion and how operator coefficient-based and locality-based Hamiltonian truncation affects the computational cost of Trotter decomposition-based Hamiltonian simulation in one-dimensional hydrogen chain systems. The analysis is performed using both Hartree--Fock canonical molecular orbitals (CMOs) and Pipek--Mezey-based localized molecular orbitals (LMOs). For short hydrogen chains, we evaluate the ground-state energy and fidelity and find that, in the CMO-based wave function expansion, introducing a threshold on Hamiltonian coefficients is effective in reducing the gate cost while maintaining computational accuracy. In contrast, in the LMO-based wave function expansion, operator locality-based Hamiltonian truncation is found to be more effective. By fitting the relationship between the truncation threshold and the ground-state energies and fidelities with empirical formulas, we estimate the threshold values required to achieve high fidelity ($F \ge 0.99$) in the ground-state wave function. Using the estimated thresholds, we then perform quantum gate resource estimation for longer hydrogen chains up to H$_{100}$. The results suggest an exponential advantage of the LMO-based wave function expansion with Hamiltonian truncation: the number of quantum gates required for Hamiltonian simulation grows polynomially when the CMO-based wave function expansion with operator coefficient-based Hamiltonian truncation is adopted, whereas it grows polylogarithmically when the LMO-based wave function expansion is combined with operator locality-based Hamiltonian truncation. These results provide useful guidelines for choosing orbital representations and Hamiltonian truncation strategies in large-scale quantum chemical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04481 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Procedure of orbital localization, in the case of H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dependence of Hamiltonian truncation strategies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dependence of the threshold value ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of the maximum locality value ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence of the threshold value required for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Number of quantum gates required for one Trotter step of Hamiltonian simulation with the first-order Trotter decom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. John- son, M. Kieferov´ a, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Per- opadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru- Guzik. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum com- puting.Chem. Rev., 119:10856–10915, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Bauer, S

    B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K.-L. Chan. Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry and quan- tum materials science.Chem. Rev., 120:12685–12717, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    McArdle, S

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

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Motta and J

    M. Motta and J. E. Rice. Emerging quantum computing algorithms for quantum chemistry.WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 12:e1580, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    N. S. Blunt, J. Camps, O. Crawford adn R. Izs´ ak, S. Leontica, A. Mirani, A. E. Moylett, S. A. Scivier, C. S¨ underhauf, P. Schopf, J. M. Taylor, and N. Holz- mann. Perspective on the current state-of-the-art of quantum computing for drug discovery applications.J. Chem. Theory Comput., 18:7001–7023, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A. Y. Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem. arXiv:quant-ph/9511026, 1995

    arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd. Quantum algorithm pro- viding exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors.Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:5162–5165, 1999

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon. Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies.Science, 309:1704–1707, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Peruzzo, J

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

    2014

  2. [10]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices.Phys. Rep., 986:1– 128, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa. Quantum-selected configuration interaction: classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum comput- ers.Phys. Rev. Res., 8:023268, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi- Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y. Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mez- zacapo. Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonal- ization on a ...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Kanno, T. Itoko, R. Sakuma, and N. Yamamoto. Hamiltonian simulation-based quantum- selected configuration interaction for large-scale elec- 10 tronic structure calculations with a quantum computer. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 27:20869–20884, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Babbush, C

    R. Babbush, C. Gidney, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, J. Mc- Clean, A. Paler, A. Fowler, and H. Neven. Encoding electronic spectra in quantum circuit with linear T com- plexity.Phys. Rev. X, 8:041015, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Ku, Y.-C

    C. Ku, Y.-C. Chen, A. Hu, and M.-H. Hsieh. Benchmark- ing quantum simulation of chemical Hamiltonians using the sorted-list encoding.Phys. Rev. Res., 8:033091, 2026

    2026

  8. [16]

    Y. Su, D. W. Berry, N. Wiebe, N. Rubin, and R. Bab- bush. Fault-tolerant quantum simulations of chemistry in first quantization.PRX Quantum, 2:040332, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    J. S. Nelson and A. D. Baczewski. Assessment of quan- tum phase estimation protocols for early fault-tolerant quantum computers.Phys. Rev. A, 110:042420, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    von Burg, G

    V. von Burg, G. H. Low, T. H¨ aner, D. S. Steiger, M. Rei- her, M. Roetteler, and M. Troyer. Quantum comput- ing enhanced computational catalysis.Phys. Rev. Res., 3:033055, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. Mc- Clean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush. Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hy- percontraction.PRX Quantum, 2:030305, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    G. H. Low, R. King, D. W. Berry, Q. Han, A. Eugene De- Prince III, A. F. White, R. Babbush, R. D. Somma, and N. C. Rubin. Fast quantum simulation of electronic struc- ture by spectral amplification.Phys. Rev. X, 15:041016, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    R. King, G. H. Low, R. Babbush, R. D. Somma, and N. C. Rubin. Quantum simulation with sum-of-squares spectral amplification.Phys. Rev. Lett., 136:110601, 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Loaiza and A

    I. Loaiza and A. F. Izmaylov. Block-invariant symme- try shift: preprocessing technique for second-quantized Hamiltonians to improve their decompositions to linear combination of unitaries.J. Chem. Theory Comput., 19:8201–8209, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Caesura, C

    A. Caesura, C. L. Cortes, W. Pol, S. Sim, M. Steudtner, G.-L. R. Anselmetti, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santagati, M. Streif, and C. S. Tautermann. Faster quantum chem- istry simulations on a quantum computer with improved tensor factorization and active volume compilation.PRX Q...

    2025

  16. [24]

    N. C. Rubin, D. W. Berry, F. D. Malone, A. F. White, T. Khattar, A. Eugene DePrince, III, S. Sicolo, M. K¨ uehn, M. Kaicher, J. Lee, and R. Babbush. Fault- tolerant quantum simulations of materials usign Bloch orbitals.PRX Quantum, 4:040303, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    M. C. Rowe, C. A. Gaggioli, L. Szulakowska, D. Mu˜ noz Ramo, and D. Z. Manrique. Split-evolution qantum phase estimation for particle-conserving Hamiltonians. arXiv:2604.14921, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Reiher, N

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer. Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quan- tum computers.Proc. Natl. Acad. Soc. U.S.A., 114:7557– 7560, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Z. Li, J. Li, N. S. Dattani, C. J. Umrigar, and G. K.-L. Chan. The electronic complexity of the ground-state of the FeMo cofactor of nitrogenase as relevant to quantum simulations.J. Chem. Phys., 150:024302, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    G¨ unther, F

    J. G¨ unther, F. Witteveen, A. Schmidhuber, M. Miller, M. Christandl, and A. W. Harrow. Phase estimation with partially randomized time evolution.PRX Quan- tum, 7:020332, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    Kanasugi, R

    S. Kanasugi, R. Toshio, K. Maruyama, and H. Oshima. Enabling chemically accurate quantum phase estimation in the early fault-tolerant regime. arXiv:2603.22778, 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    J. J. Goings, A. White, J. Lee, C. S. Tautermann, M. De- groote, C. Gidney, T. Shiozaki, R. Babbush, and N. C. Rubin. Reliably assessing the electronic structure of cy- tochrome P450 on today’s classical computers and to- morrow’s quantum computers.Proc. Natl. Acad. Soc. U.S.A...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Otten, T

    M. Otten, T. W. Watts, S. D. Johnson, R. Sundareswara, Z. Wang, T. S. Hardikar, K. Heitritter, J. Brown, K. Setia, and A. Holmes. Quantum resources re- quired for binding affinity calculations of amyloid beta. arXiv:2406.18744, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bellonzi, A

    N. Bellonzi, A. Kunitsa, J. T. Cantin, J. A. Campos- Gonzalez-Angulo, M. D. Radin, Y. Zhou, P. D. John- son, L. A. Mart´ ınez-Mart´ ınez, M. R. Jangrouei, A. S. Brahmachari, L. Wang, S. Patel, M. Kodrycka, I. Loaiza, R. A. Lang, A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. F. Izmaylov, J. Romero Fonta...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Y. Gu, L. Hector Jr, P. Giusto, M. Titsworth, A. Warey, D. Rajpathak, and E. Atesoglu. Validation of quantum computing for transition metal oxide-based automotive catalysis. arXiv:2512.19778, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    P. A. M. Casares, R. Campos, and M. A. Martin- Delgado. TFermion: A non-Clifford gate cost assessment library of quantum phase estimation algorithms for quan- tum chemistry.Quantum, 6:768, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Otten, B

    M. Otten, B. Kang, D. Fedorov, J.-H. Lee, A. Benali, S. Habib, S. K. Gray, and Y. Alexeev. QREChem: quan- tum resource estimation software for chemistry applica- tions.Front. Quantum Sci. Technol., 2:1232624, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    M. E. Beverland, P. Murali, M. Troyer, K. M. Svore, T. Hoefler, V. Kliuchnikov, G. H. Low, M. Soeken, A. Sundaram, and A. Vaschillo. Assessing re- quirements to scale to practical quantum advantage. arXiv:2211.07629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. P. Harrigan, T. Khattar, C. Yuan, A. Peduri, N. Yosri, F. D. Malone, R. Babbush, and N. C. Rubin. Express- ing and analyzing quantum algorithms with Qualtran. arXiv:2409.04643, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    benchq: Resource estimation for fault- tolerant quantum computation.https://github.com/ zapatacomputing/benchq(accessed August 2026)

    Zapata AI. benchq: Resource estimation for fault- tolerant quantum computation.https://github.com/ zapatacomputing/benchq(accessed August 2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    Harkness, S

    A. Harkness, S. Kan, C. Liu, M. Wang, J. M. Martyn, S. Xu, D. Chamaki, E. Decker, Y. Mao, L. F. Zuluaga, T. Terlaky, A. Li, and S. Stein. FTCircuitBench: A benchmark suite for fault-tolerant quantum compilation and architecture. arXiv:2601.03185, 2026

    2026

  32. [40]

    H. J. A. Jensen, P. Jørgensen, H. ˚Agren, and J. Olsen. Second-order Møller–Plesset perturbation theory as a configuration and orbital generator in multiconfiguration self-consistent field calculation.J. Chem. Phys., 88:3834– 3839, 1988

    1988

  33. [41]

    Neese, A

    F. Neese, A. Hansen, and G. D. Liakos. Efficient and ac- curate approximations to the local coupled cluster singles doubles method using a truncated pair natural orbital basis.J. Chem. Phys., 131:064103, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    Riplinger, P

    C. Riplinger, P. Pinski, U. Becker, E. F. Valeev, and F. Neese. Sparse maps—a systematic infrastructure for reduced-scaling electronic structure methods. II. linear 11 scaling domain based pair natural orbital coupled cluster theory.J. Chem. Phys., 144:024109, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Ben Amor, S

    N. Ben Amor, S. Evangelisti, T. LEininger, and D. An- drae. Local orbitals in quantum chemistry. In E. Perlt, editor,Basis Sets in Computational Chemistry. Lecture Notes in Chemistry, volume 107. Springer, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Yamamoto, S. Nakazawa, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui. Quantum chemistry on quantum computers: a polynomial-time quantum al- gorithm for constructing the wave functions of open-shell molecules.J. Phys. Chem. A, 120:6459–6466, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Izs´ ak, A

    R. Izs´ ak, A. V. Ivanov, N. S. Blunt, N. Holzmann, and F. Neese. Measuring electron correlation: the impact of symmetry and orbital transformations.J. Chem. Theory Comput., 19:2703–2720, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Yamamoto, S. Nakazawa, K. Toyota, K. Sato, D. Shiomi, and T. Takui. Open shell electronic state calculations on quantum computers: a quantum circuit for the preparation of configuration state func- tions based on Serber construction.Chem. Phys. Lett., 737S:100002, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Marti-Dafcik, H

    D. Marti-Dafcik, H. G. A. Burton, and D. P. Tew. Spin coupling is all you need: encoding strong electron corre- lation in molecules on quantum computers.Phys. Rev. Res., 7:013191, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Babbush, J

    R. Babbush, J. McClean, D. Wecker, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and N. Wiebe. Chemical basis of Trotter–Suzuki errors in quantum chemistry simulation.Phys. Rev. A, 91:022311, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Koridon, S

    E. Koridon, S. Yalouz, B. Senjean, F. Buda, T. E. O’Brien, and L. Visscher. Orbital transformations to re- duce the 1-norm of the electronic structure Hamiltonian for quantum computing applications.Phys. Rev. Res., 3:033127, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Izs´ ak, C

    R. Izs´ ak, C. Riplinger, N. S. Blunt, B. de Souza, N. Holz- mann, O. Crawford, J. Camps, F. Neese, and P. Schopf. Quantum computing in pharma: A multilayer embed- ding approach for near future applications.J. Comput. Chem., 44:406–421, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Besserve, M

    P. Besserve, M. Ferrero, and T. Ayral. Compact fermionic quantum state preparation with a natural- orbitalizing variational quantum eigensolving scheme. arXiv:2406.14170, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Materia, L

    D. Materia, L. Ratini, C. Angeli, and L. Guidoni. Quan- tum information reveals that orbital-wise correlation is essentially classical in natural orbitals.J. Chem. Phys., 161:244108, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Sugisaki, T

    K. Sugisaki, T. Nakano, and Y. Mochizuki. Size- consistency and orbital-invariance issues revealed by VQE-UCCSD calculations with the FMO scheme.J. Comp. Chem., 45:2204–2213, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Sugisaki

    K. Sugisaki. Does the full configuration interaction method based on quantum phase estimation with Trot- ter decomposition satisfy the size consistency condition? AIP Adv., 14:095021, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Tachi, A

    Y. Tachi, A. Arakawa, T. Osawa, M. Terabe, and K. Sug- isaki. Supramolecular approach-based intermolecular in- teraction energy calculations using quantum phase esti- mation algorithm. arXiv:2512.04587, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Shajan, D

    A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, A. Mitra, J. Robledo Moreno, Z. Li, M. Motta, C. Johnson, A. A. Saki, S. Das, I. Sit- dikov, A. Mezzacapo, and K. M. Merz. Toward quantum- centric simulations of extended molecules: sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embed...

    2025

  49. [57]

    K. M. Merz, Jr., A. Shajan, D. Kaliakin, F. Liang, Y. Ot- suka, T. Shirakawa, L. Broers, H. Xu, M. Tsuji, M. Sato, S. Yunoki, R. Wakizaka, Y. Kawashima, J. Doi, T. Itoko, H. Horii, T. Pellegrini, J. Robledo Moreno, K. J. Sung, E. Fejer, R. Walkup, S. Seelan, and M. Motta. Cros...

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Anand, P

    A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P. W. K. Jensen, S. Sim, M. D´ ıaz-Tinoco, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. A quantum com- puting view on unitary coupled cluster theory.Chem. Soc. Rev., 51:1659–1684, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    W. J. Hehre, R. F. Stewart, and J. A. Pople. Self- consistent molecular-orbital methods. I. use of Gaussian expansion of Slater-type atomic orbitals.J. Chem. Phys., 51:2657–2664, 1969

    1969

  52. [60]

    Pipek and P

    J. Pipek and P. G. Mezey. A fast intrinsic localization procedure applicable for ab initio and semiempirical lin- ear combination of atomic orbital wave functions.J. Chem. Phys., 90:4916–4926, 1989

    1989

  53. [61]

    Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, J. J. Eriksen, Y. Gao, S. Guo, J. Hermann, M. R. Hermes, K. Koh, P. Koval, S. Lehtola, Z. Li, J. Liu, N. Mardirossian, J. D. McClain, M. Motta, B. Mussard, H. Q. Pha...

    2020

  54. [62]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner. ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot.Z. Phys., 47:631–651, 1928

    1928

  55. [63]

    J. R. McClean, N. C. Rubin, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, X. Bonet-Monroig, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. Schuyler Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. H¨ aner, T. Hardikar, V. Havl` ıˇ cek, O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M. Neeley, T. O’Brien, B. O’Go...

    2020

  56. [64]

    Richer, G

    M. Richer, G. S´ anchez-D´ ıaz, M. Mart´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, V. Chuiko, T. D. Kim, A. Tehrani, S. Wang, P. B. Gaik- wad, C. E. V. de Moura, C. Masschelein, R. A. Miranda- Quintana, A. Gerolin, F. Heider-Zadeh, and P. W. Ayers. PyCI: a Python-scriptable library for arbitrary deter...

    2024

  57. [65]

    H. Zhai, H. R. Larsson, S. Lee, Z.-H. Chui, T. Zhu, C. Sun, L. Peng, K. Liao, J. T¨ olle, J. Yang, S. Li, and G. K.-L. Chan. BLOCK2: A comprehensive open source framework to develop and apply state-of-the-art DMRG algorithms in electronic structure and beyond.J. Chem. Phys., 1...

    2023

  58. [66]

    Campbell

    E. Campbell. Random compiler for fast Hamiltonian sim- ulation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:070503, 2019. 12

    2019

  59. [67]

    Virtanen, R

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

    2020

  60. [68]

    S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, S. Benjamin, and X. Yuan. Mit- igating algorithmic errors in a Hamiltonian simulation. Phys. Rev. A, 99:012334, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    H. F. Trotter. On the product of semi-groups of opera- tors.Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 10:545–551, 1959

    1959

  62. [70]

    M. Suzuki. Relationship betweend-dimensional quan- tal spin systems and (d+ 1)-dimensional Ising systems: equivalence, critical exponents and systematic approx- imants of the partition function and spin correlations. Prog. Theor. Phys., 56:1454–1469, 1976

    1976

  63. [71]

    Therefore, the quantum gate counts obtained in this study should be regarded as upper bounds

    and analyze the gate count without applying any quantum circuit optimization. Therefore, the quantum gate counts obtained in this study should be regarded as upper bounds. The numbers of one-qubit Clifford gates (H,R x(π/2), andR x(−π/2)), CNOT gates, andR z(θ) (non-Clifford) ...

    1930

  64. [72]

    J. D. Whitfield, J. Biamonte, and A. Aspuru-Guzik. Sim- ulation of electronic structure Hamiltonians using quan- tum computers.Mol. Phys., 109:735–750, 2011

    2011

  65. [73]

    J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love. The Bravyi– Kitaev transformation for quantum computation of elec- tronic structure.J. Chem. Phys., 137:224109, 2012

    2012

  66. [74]

    Tranter, P

    A. Tranter, P. J. Love, F. Mintert, and P. V. Coveney. A comparison of the Bravyi–Kitaev and Jordan–Wigner transformations for the quantum simulation of quantum chemistry.J. Chem. Theory Comput., 14:5617–5630, 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    Preskill

    J. Preskill. Beyond NISQ: the megaquop machine.ACM Trans. Quantum Comput., 6:18, 2025

    2025

  68. [76]

    Akahoshi, K

    Y. Akahoshi, K. Maruyama, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii. Partially fault-tolerant quantum computing ar- chitecture with error corrected Clifford gates and space- time efficient analog rotations.PRX Quantum, 5:010337, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    Toshio, Y

    R. Toshio, Y. Akahoshi, J. Fujisaki, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii. Practical quantum advantage on par- tially fault-tolerant quantum computer.Phys. Rev. X, 15:021057, 2025

    2025

  70. [78]

    Toshio, S

    R. Toshio, S. Kanasugi, J. Fujisaki, H. Oshima, S. Sato, and K. Fujii. STAR-magic mutation: even more effi- cient analog rotation gates for early fault-tolerant quan- tum computer. arXiv:2603.22891, 2026

    2026

  71. [79]

    Ismail, M

    R. Ismail, M. Kornjaˇ ca, H.-Y. Hu, N. Maskara, S.-T. Wang, H. Zhou, and C. Zhao. Fast and parallel high-rate STAR architecture for megaquop quantum simulation. arXiv:2606.25011, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  72. [80]

    S. Lee, J. Lee, H. Zhai, Y. Tong, A. M. Dalzell, A. Kumar, P. Helms, J. Gray, Z.-H. Cui, W. Liu, M. Kastoryano, R. Babbush, J. Preskill, D. R. Reichman, E. T. Camp- bell, E. F. Valeev, L. Lin, and G. K.-L. Chan. Evaluat- ing the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in gr...

    1952

  73. [81]

    Fomichev, K

    S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, M. Kiser, J. Fraxanet, P. A. M. Casares, A. Delgado, J. Huh, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola. Initial state preparation for quantum chemistry on quantum computers.PRX Quantum, 5:040339, 2024. S1 VII. SUPPOR TING INFORMA TION A...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.