Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Quantum Circuit for Non-Unitary Linear Transformation of Basis Sets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Polynomial-size quantum circuit implements non-unitary basis changes

desk verdict Novel SVD-based circuit for non-unitary basis transformations is sound at its core, but the advertised swap-test inner-product circuits are algebraically wrong and the O(n) depth claim overstates what the body actually proves. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08962 v1 pith:3YZBJI7O submitted 2025-02-13 quant-ph

Guorui Zhu , Joel Bierman , Jianfeng Lu , Yingzhou Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6815A7515A18
keywords non-unitarybasistransformationwedgedmapexterioralgebrasingularvaluedecompositionblockencodingfermionicoverlaporbitaloptimizationquantumcircuitdepth
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

Orbital basis rotations used in quantum chemistry are usually restricted to unitary transformations; this paper removes that restriction. It constructs a quantum circuit that implements the wedged map $\wedge u$ on the many-body Fock space for any contraction matrix $u$, so a wavefunction can be moved from one one-electron basis to another even when the bases are not orthogonal rotations of each other. The construction writes $u = LDR$ by singular value decomposition, applies the two unitary factors with parallel plane-rotation circuits, and encodes the diagonal singular-value factors with ancilla qubits and post-selection; the paper's resource statement is $O(n^2)$ gates and $O(n)$ depth for an $n$-orbital basis, with an extra $O((n-r)^2)$ term from the joint encoding of zero singular values. The payoff is a quantum estimator for the overlap of two many-body states represented in different bases, which is what state-specific orbital-optimized excited-state methods need.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the wedged map $\wedge u$: the linear map on the many-body Fock space obtained by applying the one-body map $u$ separately to every factor of a wedge product. Its importance is that overlaps of Slater determinants are determinants, so $\langle\Phi|\Psi\rangle$ for basis many-body states is exactly the inner product of one wedge product with the image of another under $\wedge u$. The construction splits $\wedge u$ through a singular value decomposition $\wedge u = (\wedge L)(\wedge D)(\wedge R)$; the unitary factors are implemented by the linear-depth parallel plane-rotation circuit, and the diagonal factor is implemented by block encoding each per-orbital operator $\nu_j = 1 + (\sigma_j - 1)n_j$, with controlled rotations for interior singular values and one joint multi-controlled NOT gate for the zero block. Rounding singular values to $1$ or $0$ is justified by the bound $\lVert\wedge u - \wedge\tilde{u}\rVert \le \sum_j |\epsilon_j|$.

What would settle it

On a simulator, take an 8-orbital, 4-electron system, choose a pair of bases whose overlap matrix has all four relevant singular values equal to 0.5, prepare the same Slater determinant in both bases, and run the proposed overlap circuit; the probability of all ancillas measuring 0 should match the predicted product of squared singular values while the swap-test readout should equal the classically computed determinant. If the observed success probability is far smaller due to the multi-controlled NOT decomposition, or if the measured overlap deviates from the classical result, the practical resource claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-unitary linear transformation of a basis set can be executed exactly, not merely approximated, inside a quantum circuit, provided the transformation matrix $u$ has operator norm at most one. On the one-body level $u$ is the matrix of overlaps $\langle\psi_i|\phi_j\rangle$ between the old and new orbitals; on the many-body level the transformation is the wedged map $\wedge u$, whose action on a Slater determinant is to replace every one-particle factor by its image under $u$. The paper proves $\wedge u = (\wedge L)(\wedge D)(\wedge R)$ from the SVD $u = LDR$, shows the diagonal part $\wedge D$ factorizes as a product of simple per-orbital operators $\nu_j = 1 + (\sigma_j - 1)n_j$, and gives block encodings for each factor: controlled rotations for singular values strictly between $0$ and $1$, a single shared multi-controlled NOT gate for all zero singular values, and the existing parallel plane-rotation circuits for the unitary factors $L$ and $R$. Singular values close to $1$ or $0$ may be rounded or truncated, and the resulting error is bounded by the sum of the perturbations. It concludes that the overlap between two encoded many-body states in different bases equals $\langle\Psi_q|\Xi|\Phi_q\rangle$ with $\Xi$ the block-encoded $\wedge u$, and proposes three swap- and phase-test circuits that read out this overlap; the quoted total depth is $O((n-r)^2+n)$, recovering pure $O(n)$ depth when the rank $r$ is close to $n$.

Load-bearing premise

The construction gives a valid non-unitary map only after post-selecting all ancilla qubits to be in $|0\rangle$; if the one-particle overlap matrix has many small singular values, the probability of that post-selection is a product of their squares and can vanish exponentially fast, and the paper does not bound this probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Overlap estimation between states in different orbital bases becomes a polynomial-resource subroutine, removing a classically exponential bottleneck for dense many-body configurations.
  • State-specific orbital optimization becomes implementable: ground and excited eigenstates can each keep their own optimized orbitals, with the overlap enforced or evaluated through this circuit.
  • VQE-type workflows no longer have to freeze one basis for all target states, so energy accuracy for multiple states can be improved simultaneously.
  • Non-unitary changes of basis open the door to representing wavefunctions in non-orthogonal bases on a quantum computer, not only to measuring overlaps.
  • Rounding and truncating singular values gives a tunable trade-off between circuit cost and accuracy, with an error bound linear in the applied perturbations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not bound the post-selection success probability; for a $k$-particle state whose basis-overlap matrix has singular values all near $s<1$, the success probability scales like $s^{2k}$, so the practical savings over classical overlap evaluation may vanish precisely when the two bases are strongly non-orthogonal.
  • The classical SVD preprocessing of the $n\times n$ overlap matrix costs $O(n^3)$, so the proposed quantum speedup applies to the many-body part of the overlap; for large $n$ this classical step may dominate in a hybrid workflow.
  • The same block encoding can be read as a primitive for non-orthogonal configuration interaction on quantum hardware, since general matrix elements between differently rotated Slater determinants require exactly this type of overlap factor.
  • A near-term testable extension is to replace the multi-controlled NOT gate with an ancilla-free decomposition and benchmark the observed success probability against the predicted product of squared singular values on systems of 8-16 spin-orbitals.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum circuit to implement the wedged map ∧u on the Fock space of an n-orbital fermionic system for a non-unitary contraction u. The construction uses the SVD u = LDR, implements ∧L and ∧R with the linear-depth Givens-rotation circuits of Kivlichan et al., block-encodes the diagonal singular-value factor ∧D with one ancilla per intermediate singular value and a single multi-controlled Toffoli for the zero singular values, and approximates singular values near 0 or 1 to reduce cost. The authors then apply the block encoding to the evaluation of overlaps between many-body states expressed in different one-body bases, proposing three circuits (a swap test with the block encoding, an alternative swap test, and a Hadamard test).

Significance. If the construction is correct, the block encoding of ∧u is a clean and useful tool: it gives an explicit polynomial-size circuit for non-unitary basis changes and overlap estimation between different basis representations, with a self-contained exterior-algebra derivation of the Thouless theorem. The paper is honest about the approximation error from rounding and truncating singular values and about the extra ancilla cost. However, the main application is undermined by an algebraic error in the swap-test circuits (Figs. 7 and 8), and the advertised O(n) depth is not supported by the paper's own bound in Section III. The Hadamard-test circuit (Fig. 9) appears correct, so the central idea remains salvageable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Figs. 7 and 8] The caption of Fig. 7 claims that |⟨Φ|Ψ⟩|² is the probability of all measurements yielding |0⟩. This is algebraically incorrect. Writing the block encoding as ~Ξ|0_a⟩|Φ_q⟩ = |0_a⟩Ξ|Φ_q⟩ + |⊥⟩, the component of the final state with the control qubit and all ancillas in |0⟩ after the controlled swap and second Hadamard is proportional to |Ψ_q⟩|0_a⟩Ξ|Φ_q⟩ + |0_a⟩Ξ|Φ_q⟩|Ψ_q⟩, whose squared norm is (∥Ξ|Φ_q⟩∥² + |⟨Ψ_q|Ξ|Φ_q⟩|²)/2, not |⟨Ψ_q|Ξ|Φ_q⟩|². Since Ξ is a contraction, the two expressions differ. A concrete counterexample is a two-orbital system with u = diag(0.5, 1) and one-particle states |Φ_q⟩ = |ω_1⟩, |Ψ_q⟩ = |ω_2⟩: the true overlap is 0, while the all-zero probability is 1/8. Thus Figs. 7 and 8 do not compute the advertised overlap. The paper should either remove these circuits or replace them with a correct construction, and should use the Hadamard test of Fig. 9, which appears to compute the correct matrix element, as the primary overlap circuit.
  2. [Section III, last paragraph; abstract and Section V] The abstract, the Introduction, and Section V claim that the circuit depth is O(n), but the body of Section III gives the bound O((n−r)² + n) for the total depth, where r is the rank after truncation. For small r, the multi-open-controlled Toffoli block has depth O((n−r)²), which is O(n²). The O(n) claim holds only when n−r is small (e.g., constant or O(√n)), and even then it rests on the specific decomposition cited from [8]. The complexity statements in the abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion must be qualified to reflect the paper's own rank-dependent bound.
  3. [Section III, step 8, and Section IV] The post-selection success probability for projecting all block-encoding ancillas to |0⟩ is never analyzed. For a k-particle state whose occupied orbitals carry singular values σ_{i_1},…,σ_{i_k} with 0<σ<1, the success probability of step 8 is Π σ_{i_j}², which can be exponentially small in k. This directly affects the practical efficiency of the inner-product circuits in Figs. 7 and 8, both of which require that projection. The Hadamard test in Fig. 9 does not require this post-selection, so the paper should either provide a bound on the success probability, state the regime of singular values for which the algorithm is efficient, or explicitly present Fig. 9 as the only circuit whose expected runtime is polynomial for general contractions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (27)] The block encoding ~Ξ is never defined explicitly with its orthogonal component |⊥⟩; adding the explicit form ~Ξ|0_a⟩|Φ_q⟩ = |0_a⟩Ξ|Φ_q⟩ + |⊥⟩ with ⟨0_a|⊥⟩ = 0 would make the Hadamard-test analysis in Eq. (27) easier to verify.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (22)] The bound ∥∧u − ∧ũ∥ ≤ Σ_j ε_j is stated without proof. A short telescoping argument using the product structure of ∧D would make the approximation claim rigorous.
  3. [Introduction, contribution list] The phrase 'The 1 and 0 singular values of the overlapping matrix' is ambiguous; it should read 'singular values equal to 1 and to 0'.
  4. [Appendix A] There is a minor typo: 'for |σk⟩ being its eigenstate' should be 'for |σk⟩ being its eigenvector'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-unitary circuit is built from SVD and explicit block encodings, and the inner-product identity is a determinant identity, not a restatement of the target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a constructive circuit for the wedged map ∧u (Definition 1) for a general linear map u. The construction is self-contained: u is decomposed by SVD as LDR, Lemma 2 gives (∧L)(∧D)(∧R), ∧L and ∧R are implemented by the external Givens-rotation circuits of Kivlichan et al. [11], and ∧D is implemented by explicitly displayed controlled-RY block encodings (Eq. (21) and Fig. 3), whose action Pa˜ν|0⟩|α⟩ = |0⟩ν|α⟩ is verifiable from the stated 4x4 matrix. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction; the only input is the one-body overlap matrix u, which is not the many-body overlap being computed. The inner-product application reduces ⟨Φ|Ψ⟩ to a determinant of matrix elements of u, then to ⟨Ψ_q|Ξ(ψ,ϕ)|Φ_q⟩ through the encoding identity Qψ = Qω on identical index strings; this is a mathematical equivalence, not a definition of the desired quantity in terms of the circuit output. Self-citations [35, 39, 40, 69] appear only for context (orbital-optimization applications and alternative overlap circuits) or for a standard creator/annihilator transformation formula in Appendix A; they are not load-bearing evidence for the central construction. No uniqueness theorem is imported. The paper's Section III step 8 does acknowledge that the block encoding requires projection of ancillas to |0⟩, and the success probability is not bounded; this is a practical efficiency limitation, and any algebraic issue in the Fig. 7-8 probability relations would be a correctness problem, not circularity. The derivation chain therefore does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction relies on standard linear algebra (SVD, exterior algebra) and standard quantum information (block encoding, Jordan-Wigner mapping). The only paper-specific parameter is the threshold ε for rounding and truncating singular values; no entities are invented. The main unexamined cost is the post-selection probability, which is not a ledger item but limits the application.

free parameters (1)
  • threshold epsilon
    Introduced in Section III for rounding singular values near 1 to 1 and truncating those near 0 to 0; controls the approximation error bound in Eq. (22) and the circuit depth via r.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Exterior algebra (wedge) map properties, including Lemma 2 composition property.
    Used to extend linear maps to Fock space in Sections II and III.
  • standard math Singular value decomposition of matrices.
    SVD is the basis of the construction in Section III, Eq. (20).
  • domain assumption Jordan-Wigner transformation maps creation and annihilation operators to Pauli strings as in Definition 3.
    Required for all circuit implementations; the authors note other encodings like parity and Bravyi-Kitaev could be used.
  • domain assumption The overlap matrix u has singular values bounded by 1 (2-norm at most 1).
    Assumed in Section III to ensure the controlled-RY block encoding has angles θ = 2 arccos σ well-defined; holds for overlap matrices of orthonormal basis subsets.
  • ad hoc to paper Rounding up and truncating singular values with threshold ε.
    Introduced to reduce circuit depth and ancilla count at the cost of an approximation error bounded in Eq. (22).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Circuit for Non-Unitary Linear Transformation of Basis Sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YZBJI7O

@misc{pith2026250208962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Circuit for Non-Unitary Linear Transformation of Basis Sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YZBJI7O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08962}
}
abstract

This paper introduces a novel approach to implementing non-unitary linear transformations of basis on quantum computational platforms, a significant leap beyond the conventional unitary methods. By integrating Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) into the process, the method achieves an operational depth of $O(n)$ with about $n$ ancilla qubits, enhancing the computational capabilities for analyzing fermionic systems. The non-unitarity of the transformation allows us to transform a wave function from one basis to another, which can span different spaces. By this trick, we can calculate the overlap of two wavefunctions that live in different (but non-distinct Hilbert subspaces) with different basis representations. This provides the opportunity to use state specific ansatzes to calculate different energy eigenstates under orbital-optimized settings and may improve the accuracy when computing the energies of multiple eigenstates simultaneously in VQE or other framework. It allows for a deeper exploration of complex quantum states and phenomena, expanding the practical applications of quantum computing in physics and chemistry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08962 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Through the elimination procedure, the complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Quantum circuit for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Quantum circuit of embedded 2-qubit gate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Block encoding for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: An example for a nonunitary matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Swap test circuit to calculate the modulus of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Swap test circuit to calculate the inner-product 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Hadamard test circuit to calculate Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Alternative swap test circuit to calculate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Project all ancilla qubits to |0⟩ state via measure- ment and post-selection. In Fig. 5, we provide the quantum circuit for a non- unitary matrix u of dimension 8. After the rounding- up and truncating, the approximated non-unitary matrix has 2 singular values equal to 1 and of rank 5. Remark. If we remove step 8 and stop at step 7, we actually obtain the...

    work page

  2. [1]

    We rewrite the unitary linear transformation of ba- sis set using wedge exterior notation, which can then be easily extended to the non-unitary case

  3. [2]

    The 1 and 0 sin- gular values of the overlapping matrix between two basis sets are further compressed to reduce the gate complexity

    A quantum circuit is proposed for non-unitary lin- ear transformations of basis sets. The 1 and 0 sin- gular values of the overlapping matrix between two basis sets are further compressed to reduce the gate complexity

    work page

  4. [3]

    The rest of the paper is organized as follows

    Quantum circuits are proposed to evaluate the in- ner product of two states in different basis sets. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec- tion II, we review the quantum circuit for unitary linear transformations [11] and rewrite the derivation of the uni- tary transformation operator in the language of exterior algebra. Section III propo...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Apply the unitary operator JψU (R; ψ)J −1 ψ to the n working qubits following the circuit construction in Section II

    work page

  6. [5]

    Calculate the SVD of u, i.e., uij = Pn k=1 σkLikRkj , with singular values σis in non-increasing ordering

    work page

  7. [6]

    Let the number of ˜σi = 1 be s and the rank after truncation be r

    Round up large singular values of u and truncate small singular values of u, i.e., ˜σi =    1 σi ≥ 1 − ε σi ε < σi < 1 − ε 0 σi ≤ ε . Let the number of ˜σi = 1 be s and the rank after truncation be r

    work page

  8. [7]

    Prepare r − s + 1 ancilla qubits to state |0⟩, denote them as as+1, as+1, . . . , ar+1

    work page

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Apply controlled-RY gates controlling from qi tar- geting ai for i = s + 1, . . . , r

  2. [10]

    , qn targeting ar+1

    Apply an X gate to flip ancilla qubit ar+1 and then apply a multi-open-controlled Toffoli gate control- ling from qr+1, . . . , qn targeting ar+1

  3. [11]

    complex Givens rotation

    proposes a tailored quantum circuit based on Givens QR factorization of u. In the original work [11], real 4 orthogonal matrix u are considered in detail, and an ex- pression for complex unitary u is provided without detail. In this paper, we revisit and rederive the decomposi...

  4. [12]

    Apply the unitary operator JψU (L; ψ)J −1 ψ to the n working qubits following the circuit construction in Section II

  5. [13]

    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, Nature Communications 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Bauer, D

    B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A. J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Hybrid quantum-classical approach to cor- related materials, Physical Review X 6, 031045 (2016), pRX

    2016

  7. [15]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware- efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, and L. Cincio, Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem, arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026 (1995)

    1995 arXiv

  10. [18]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of many-body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer, Physical Review Letters 79, 2586 (1997), pRL

    1997

  11. [19]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm provid- ing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Physical Review Letters 83, 5162 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, USA, 2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062318 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    I. D. Kivlichan, J. R. McClean, N. Wiebe, C. Gid- ney, A. Aspuru-Guzik, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. Babbush, Quantum simulation of electronic structure with linear depth and connectivity, Physical Review Letters 120, 110501 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Babbush, N

    R. Babbush, N. Wiebe, J. McClean, J. McClain, H. Neven, and G. K.-L. Chan, Low-depth quantum sim- ulation of materials, Physical Review X 8, 10.1103/phys- revx.8.011044 (2018)

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    J. C. Slater, Note on hartree’s method, Physical Review 35, 210 (1930)

    1930

  18. [26]

    J. C. Slater, A simplification of the hartree-fock method, Physical review 81, 385 (1951)

    1951

  19. [27]

    C. C. J. Roothaan, Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 32, 179 (1960), rMP

    1960

  20. [28]

    Vautherin and D

    D. Vautherin and D. t. Brink, Hartree-fock calculations with skyrme’s interaction. i. spherical nuclei, Physical Review C 5, 626 (1972)

    1972

  21. [29]

    E. J. Baerends, D. Ellis, and P. Ros, Self-consistent molecular hartree—fock—slater calculations i. the com- putational procedure, Chemical Physics 2, 41 (1973)

    1973

  22. [30]

    E. R. Johnson and A. D. Becke, A post-hartree-fock model of intermolecular interactions, The Journal of chemical physics 123 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Neese, F

    F. Neese, F. Wennmohs, A. Hansen, and U. Becker, Effi- cient, approximate and parallel hartree–fock and hybrid dft calculations. a ‘chain-of-spheres’ algorithm for the hartree–fock exchange, Chemical Physics 356, 98 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Siegbahn, A

    P. Siegbahn, A. Heiberg, B. Roos, and B. Levy, A com- parison of the super-ci and the newton-raphson scheme in the complete active space scf method, Physica Scripta 21, 323 (1980)

    1980

  25. [33]

    P. E. Siegbahn, J. Alml¨ of, A. Heiberg, and B. O. Roos, The complete active space scf (casscf) method in a new- ton–raphson formulation with application to the hno molecule, The Journal of Chemical Physics 74, 2384 (1981)

    1981

  26. [34]

    B. O. Roos, P. R. Taylor, and P. E. M. Sigbahn, A com- plete active space scf method (casscf) using a density matrix formulated super-ci approach, Chemical Physics 13 48, 157 (1980)

    1980

  27. [35]

    P. J. Knowles and H.-J. Werner, An efficient second-order mc scf method for long configuration expansions, Chem- ical Physics Letters 115, 259 (1985)

    1985

  28. [36]

    Zgid and M

    D. Zgid and M. Nooijen, The density matrix renormal- ization group self-consistent field method: Orbital opti- mization with the density matrix renormalization group method in the active space, The Journal of chemical physics 128, 144116 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Ghosh, J

    D. Ghosh, J. Hachmann, T. Yanai, and G. Chan, Or- bital optimization in the density matrix renormalization group, with applications to polyenes and β-carotene, The Journal of chemical physics 128, 144117 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Yanai, Y

    T. Yanai, Y. Kurashige, D. Ghosh, and G. K.-L. Chan, Accelerating convergence in iterative solution for large- scale complete active space self-consistent-field calcula- tions, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 109, 2178 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Olsen, The casscf method: A perspective and commen- tary, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 111, 3267 (2011)

    J. Olsen, The casscf method: A perspective and commen- tary, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 111, 3267 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Wouters, T

    S. Wouters, T. Bogaerts, P. Van Der Voort, V. Van Spey- broeck, and D. Van Neck, Communication: Dmrg- scf study of the singlet, triplet, and quintet states of oxo-mn(salen), The Journal of Chemical Physics 140, 10.1063/1.4885815 (2014)

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Freitag, S

    L. Freitag, S. Knecht, C. Angeli, and M. Reiher, Multiref- erence perturbation theory with cholesky decomposition for the density matrix renormalization group, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 13, 451 (2017), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00778

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    J. E. T. Smith, B. Mussard, A. A. Holmes, and S. Sharma, Cheap and near exact casscf with large ac- tive spaces, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computa- tion 13, 5468 (2017), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00900

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Q. Sun, J. Yang, and G. K.-L. Chan, A general second order complete active space self-consistent-field solver for large-scale systems, Chemical Physics Letters 683, 291 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Freitag, Y

    L. Freitag, Y. Ma, A. Baiardi, S. Knecht, and M. Rei- her, Approximate analytical gradients and nonadiabatic couplings for the state-average density matrix renor- malization group self-consistent-field method, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 15, 6724 (2019), doi: 10...

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    D. A. Kreplin, P. J. Knowles, and H.-J. Werner, Second-order mcscf optimization revisited. i. improved algorithms for fast and robust second-order casscf convergence, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150, 10.1063/1.5094644 (2019)

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    D. S. Levine, D. Hait, N. M. Tubman, S. Lehtola, K. B. Whaley, and M. Head-Gordon, Casscf with ex- tremely large active spaces using the adaptive sam- pling configuration interaction method, Journal of Chem- ical Theory and Computation 16, 2340 (2020), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01255

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. Lu, Optimal orbital selection for full config- uration interaction (optorbfci): Pursuing basis set limit under budget., Journal of chemical theory and computa- tion (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Mizukami, K

    W. Mizukami, K. Mitarai, Y. O. Nakagawa, T. Ya- mamoto, T. Yan, and Y.-y. Ohnishi, Orbital optimized unitary coupled cluster theory for quantum computer, Physical Review Research 2, 033421 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Tilly, P

    J. Tilly, P. Sriluckshmy, A. Patel, E. Fontana, I. Rung- ger, E. Grant, R. Anderson, J. Tennyson, and G. H. Booth, Reduced density matrix sampling: Self-consistent embedding and multiscale electronic structure on cur- rent generation quantum computers, Physical Review Research...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Yalouz, B

    S. Yalouz, B. Senjean, J. G¨ unther, F. Buda, T. E. O’Brien, and L. Visscher, A state-averaged orbital- optimized hybrid quantum–classical algorithm for a democratic description of ground and excited states, Quantum Science and Technology 6, 024004 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Bierman, Y

    J. Bierman, Y. Li, and J. Lu, Improving the accu- racy of variational quantum eigensolvers with fewer qubits using orbital optimization, Journal of Chem- ical Theory and Computation 19, 790 (2023), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00895

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Bierman, Y

    J. Bierman, Y. Li, and J. Lu, Qubit count reduction by orthogonally constrained orbital optimization for varia- tional quantum excited-state solvers, Journal of Chem- ical Theory and Computation 20, 3131 (2024), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01297

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Y. Shen, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J.-N. Zhang, M.-H. Yung, and K. Kim, Quantum implementation of the unitary coupled cluster for simulating molecular electronic struc- ture, Physical Review A 95, 020501 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    A. G. Taube and R. J. Bartlett, New perspectives on unitary coupled-cluster theory, International journal of quantum chemistry 106, 3393 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    J. Lee, W. J. Huggins, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Wha- ley, Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation, Journal of chemical theory and computation 15, 311 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Romero, R

    J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Strategies for quantum com- puting molecular energies using the unitary coupled clus- ter ansatz, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 014008 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    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 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    H. F. Trotter, On the product of semi-groups of opera- tors, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 10, 545 (1959)

    1959

  51. [59]

    Suzuki, Improved trotter-like formula, Physics Letters A 180, 232 (1993)

    M. Suzuki, Improved trotter-like formula, Physics Letters A 180, 232 (1993)

    1993

  52. [60]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Finding exponential prod- uct formulas of higher orders, in Quantum annealing and other optimization methods(Springer, 2005) pp. 37–68

    2005

  53. [61]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Physical review letters 91, 147902 (2003)

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Physical review letters 91, 147902 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    Thouless, Stability conditions and nuclear rotations in the hartree-fock theory, Nuclear Physics 21, 225 (1960)

    D. Thouless, Stability conditions and nuclear rotations in the hartree-fock theory, Nuclear Physics 21, 225 (1960)

    1960

  55. [63]

    Skylaris, A

    C.-K. Skylaris, A. A. Mostofi, P. D. Haynes, O. Di´ eguez, and M. C. Payne, Nonorthogonal generalized wannier function pseudopotential plane-wave method, Physical Review B 66, 035119 (2002)

    2002

  56. [64]

    Skylaris, P

    C.-K. Skylaris, P. D. Haynes, A. A. Mostofi, and M. C. Payne, Introducing onetep: Linear-scaling density func- tional simulations on parallel computers, The Journal of chemical physics 122 (2005)

    2005

  57. [65]

    Maslov, Linear depth stabilizer and quantum fourier 14 transformation circuits with no auxiliary qubits in finite- neighbor quantum architectures, Phys

    D. Maslov, Linear depth stabilizer and quantum fourier 14 transformation circuits with no auxiliary qubits in finite- neighbor quantum architectures, Phys. Rev. A 76, 052310 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Experimental realization of any discrete unitary opera- tor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 58 (1994)

    1994

  59. [67]

    C. A. Jim´ enez-Hoyos, R. Rodr ´ ıguez-Guzm´ an, and G. E. Scuseria, n-electron slater determinants from nonunitary canonical transformations of fermion operators, Physical Review A 86, 052102 (2012), pRA

    2012

  60. [68]

    Malmqvist and B

    P.-A. Malmqvist and B. O. Roos, The casscf state interac- tion method, Chemical Physics Letters 155, 189 (1989)

    1989

  61. [69]

    Pittner, H

    J. Pittner, H. Lischka, and M. Barbatti, Optimization of mixed quantum-classical dynamics: Time-derivative coupling terms and selected couplings, Chemical Physics 356, 147 (2009)

    2009

  62. [70]

    Kossoski and P.-F

    F. Kossoski and P.-F. Loos, State-specific configura- tion interaction for excited states, Journal of Chem- ical Theory and Computation 19, 2258 (2023), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00057

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Marie and H

    A. Marie and H. G. A. Burton, Excited states, symmetry breaking, and unphysical solutions in state-specific casscf theory, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 127, 4538 (2023), doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.3c00603

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    Yalouz and V

    S. Yalouz and V. Robert, Orthogonally constrained or- bital optimization: Assessing changes of optimal or- bitals for orthogonal multireference states, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 19, 1388 (2023), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01144

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Saade and H

    S. Saade and H. G. A. Burton, Excited state-specific casscf theory for the torsion of ethylene, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 20, 5105 (2024), doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00212

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    Granucci, M

    G. Granucci, M. Persico, and A. Toniolo, Direct semiclas- sical simulation of photochemical processes with semiem- pirical wave functions, The Journal of Chemical Physics 114, 10608 (2001)

    2001

  67. [75]

    Tapavicza, I

    E. Tapavicza, I. Tavernelli, and U. Rothlisberger, Tra- jectory surface hopping within linear response time- dependent density-functional theory, Physical Review Letters 98, 023001 (2007), pRL

    2007

  68. [76]

    Mitri´ c, U

    R. Mitri´ c, U. Werner, and V. Bonaˇ ci´ c-Kouteck´ y, Nona- diabatic dynamics and simulation of time resolved pho- toelectron spectra within time-dependent density func- tional theory: Ultrafast photoswitching in benzyli- deneaniline, The Journal of Chemical Physics 129, 10.1...

    2008 doi

  69. [77]

    Du and Z

    L. Du and Z. Lan, An on-the-fly surface-hopping program jade for nonadiabatic molecular dynamics of polyatomic systems: Implementation and applications, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 11, 1360 (2015), doi: 10.1021/ct501106d

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    Plasser, M

    F. Plasser, M. Ruckenbauer, S. Mai, M. Oppel, P. Mar- quetand, and L. Gonz´ alez, Efficient and flexible compu- tation of many-electron wave function overlaps, Journal of chemical theory and computation 12, 1207 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  72. [80]

    Gily´ en, Y

    A. Gily´ en, Y. Su, G. H. Low, and N. Wiebe, Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics, in Pro- ceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2019 (Association for Computing Machine...

    2019

  73. [81]

    Bierman, Y

    J. Bierman, Y. Li, and J. Lu, Quantum orbital minimiza- tion method for excited states calculation on a quantum computer, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 18, 4674 (2022). Appendix A: Details of Unitary Case This section gives another proof of Thouless theorem using ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.