Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

A Multi-Scale Quantum Framework for Evaluating Metal-Organic Frameworks in Carbon Capture

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper reports a hierarchical cluster workflow for computing CO2 binding energies in metal-organic frameworks, using the EWF embedded wavefunction method as a systematically improvable accuracy control.

desk verdict A useful workflow demonstration for MOF screening with EWF embedding, but the systematic-improvability claim rests on an untested cluster truncation and a very thin convergence scan. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04527 v3 pith:4FEGKXUY submitted 2025-05-07 quant-ph

Tom W. A. Montgomery , Adrian Varela-Alvarez , Sam Genway , Philip Llewellyn , Phalgun Lolur This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords metal-organicframeworkscarboncaptureCO2adsorptionquantumembeddingembeddedwavefunctionhierarchicalclustermodelheatofcoupled
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 reports a hierarchical cluster workflow for computing CO2 binding energies in metal-organic frameworks. The workflow combines a large DFT-treated cluster, a medium cluster for geometry relaxation, and a small cluster treated by the EWF embedded wavefunction method, whose bath-size threshold eta serves as a single accuracy dial. Against experimental heats of adsorption for five MOF-74 variants, the method reaches a mean absolute error of 1.999 kcal/mol at eta=1e-5, close to the best DFT functional tested (M06L, 1.536 kcal/mol), while declining monotonically as eta is tightened. The paper argues that this systematic improvability, absent for fixed DFT functionals, makes the approach a candidate for high-throughput MOF screening and a natural integration point for quantum hardware solvers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hierarchical cluster decomposition: a large cluster (12.5 Å radius) captures the bulk environment, a medium five-metal cluster is used for constrained geometry relaxation, and a small three-metal cluster is the target of high-level embedded calculations. The energy is assembled with the ONIOM subtractive identity E_high_large ~ E_high_small + (E_low_large - E_low_small), and the small-cluster correlation energy is obtained by the EWF embedding method, which partitions the system into atomic fragments and enlarges the traditional density-matrix embedding bath with bath natural orbitals whose completeness is controlled by the threshold eta. The work uses a multi-level solver split: CCSD for fragments within two bonds of the metal binding site and MP2 for the rest, with both correlated solvers embedded at different eta values. The monotone drop in mean absolute error as eta decreases is the empirical engine of the argument.

What would settle it

Compute the same five binding energies with a substantially larger small-cluster radius (or a periodic coupled-cluster reference) at etaCCSD = 1e-5: if the mean absolute error against Q_st does not fall below 1.999 kcal/mol, or if the error for Ni2(dobdc) grows while the others shrink, the systematic-improvability claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a finite-cluster model can reproduce experimental MOF-CO2 binding affinities to within roughly 2 kcal/mol by layering three tiers of calculation and using a quantum embedding to capture correlation at the binding site. The high-level energy of the large cluster is approximated by an ONIOM subtractive scheme, and the small-cluster correlation energy is assembled from fragment-cluster wavefunctions with CCSD localized on atoms near the CO2 and MP2 elsewhere. The controlling parameter is eta, the threshold for expanding the fragment bath: at etaCCSD = 1e-2 the mean absolute deviation from experimental Q_st is 2.782 kcal/mol, and at etaCCSD = 1e-5 it drops to 1.999 kcal/mol. The paper presents this as evidence that EWF provides a simple, systematic route to improved accuracy, performing at par with the best DFT method it compared against.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental heats of adsorption at 25 °C and 1 bar are treated as direct references for zero-temperature, infinite-dilution binding energies computed on finite clusters, assuming the differences from entropic, loading, and framework-flexibility effects cancel across the five metals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed basis set, lowering eta gives a demonstrated route to lower error, so screening campaigns can tune cost versus accuracy per MOF family.
  • The EWF workflow is a candidate replacement for DFT in high-throughput MOF screening where systematic error control matters.
  • Because the method is cluster-based, it extends to MOF families beyond MOF-74 with modest changes to the linker capping rules.
  • The wavefunction-amplitude projection makes the workflow directly compatible with hybrid quantum-classical solvers that store amplitudes classically, such as sample-based quantum diagonalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to apply the same workflow to Mg2(dobdc), for which experimental Q_st is available, to see whether the ~2 kcal/mol mean error persists outside the five-metal set.
  • If the eta-error trend holds across a broader chemical space, eta could be used as a calibration knob when generating training data for machine-learning interatomic potentials, with error bars attached to each label.
  • The Ni2(dobdc) outlier suggests a metal-specific electronic or magnetic contribution that the current spin treatment or cluster truncation misses; checking antiferromagnetic couplings or larger clusters for Ni would isolate this.
  • The zero-temperature/infinite-dilution mismatch implies the reported errors may be repartitioned: part of the 1.999 kcal/mol could cancel between electronic binding energy and thermal/loading contributions, so comparison to zero-coverage isosteric heats extrapolated to 0 K would be a stricter benchmark.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hierarchical cluster workflow for computing CO2 binding energies in MOF-74-type frameworks, combining a large-cluster ONIOM treatment with wavefunction-based embedding (EWF) for the small cluster. The method is applied to five experimentally characterized MOF-74 variants (Co, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn), and the resulting zero-temperature, infinite-dilution binding energies are compared with experimental heats of adsorption. The authors report that the EWF workflow improves systematically as the CCSD bath threshold η decreases, and that it performs comparably to the best DFT functional considered (M06L). A final section discusses the potential integration of quantum-hardware solvers into the embedding workflow.

Significance. If the accuracy and systematic-improvability claims are upheld, this is a useful contribution to electronic-structure workflows for MOF screening. The method has no free parameter fitted to the experimental Q_st values, so the comparison is a genuine benchmark rather than a fit. The explicit description of the semi-automated cluster construction and the use of established codes (Psi4, pySCF, Vayesta) are strengths. However, the validation is narrow: five MOFs from one family, no uncertainty quantification, and no convergence scan over the cluster-truncation parameters that control the ONIOM model. The central claim of systematic improvability and parity with M06L therefore remains plausible but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Tables II–III] The systematic-improvement claim is supported only by varying the EWF bath threshold η; the other model parameters are fixed at untested values. Specifically, the large-cluster radius (12.5 Å), the three-metal small cluster, the formate/hydroxylate capping scheme, and the medium-cluster relaxation protocol are choices for which no convergence scan is reported. Because Eq. (2) applies the high-level correction only to the small cluster, errors from these truncations do not vanish as η→0. The reported η convergence changes the mean absolute error by 0.78 kcal/mol (2.782 to 1.999), while the EWF-versus-M06L gap is only 0.46 kcal/mol (1.999 vs 1.536, Tables II and III). If cluster-radius or capping-model changes shift binding energies by 0.5–1 kcal/mol, the apparent parity with M06L and the interpretation of the η trend are within truncation noise. A sensitivity study of at least the cluster radius and small-cluster size is needed.
  2. [Table II, bottom row] The reported validation metric is not clearly defined. The bottom row appears to be computed as the mean of | |ΔE| − Q_st | rather than the stated |ΔE − Q_st|, since the ΔE values are negative. Moreover, for the UHF column, neither definition reproduces the reported value of 4.549 kcal/mol from the ΔE values in Table II and the Q_st values in Table I. Because this row is the central quantitative evidence for the method's accuracy, the metric definition must be corrected and all values recomputed consistently.
  3. [Section V] The paper acknowledges 'inherent methodological differences' between zero-temperature, infinite-dilution binding energies and the experimental heats of adsorption at 25 °C and 1 bar, yet it still uses Q_st as the target for the headline mean absolute errors. Entropic contributions, adsorbate–adsorbate interactions, and framework flexibility may not cancel uniformly across the five metals. No error bars or uncertainty estimates are provided for either the computed or experimental quantities, leaving the quantitative agreement without a stated uncertainty budget.
  4. [Section V, Tables II and III] The claim that EWF 'performs comparatively' to M06L rests on a mean absolute error difference of 0.46 kcal/mol over only five MOFs, and the text states that this difference is largely driven by the Ni2(dobdc) result. With n = 5 and no per-system uncertainty analysis, the statistical support for parity with M06L is weak. Either a larger test set or a per-system analysis with uncertainty quantification is required to support the headline comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III and Figure 1] There are several typos and unclear phrases: 'absorbed CO2' should be 'adsorbed CO2'; 'respectfully' should be 'respectively'; 'soley' should be 'solely'; and the Figure 1 caption says 'see section (b)' without completing the reference.
  2. [Section V and Figure 3] Typographical errors in this section include 'BYLP' and 'MO6L' in the Figure 3 caption, 'ML06' in the text, 'hierachical' in the caption, and 'the the low level' in the caption text. The functional names should be corrected to BLYP and M06L.
  3. [Tables II and III] The notation 'Qs' is used without a subscript in the table captions, while the text uses 'Q_st'; the meaning should be defined consistently. Also, the bottom-row formula lacks spaces around the minus sign and should be typeset as '|ΔE − Q_s|'.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (2)] The ONIOM subtractive scheme is cited as reference [18], which is the paper on structural errors in MOF databases; an appropriate citation for the ONIOM method (or the original ONIOM papers) should be added.
  5. [Section VII] The quantum-computing section is largely programmatic and reports that the current QPU-based replacement of CCSD solvers is not yet competitive; this should be framed explicitly as an outlook, and any quantitative results from QPU runs should either be reported or omitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the EWF benchmark is self-contained, with experimental Q_st used only as an external validation target.

full rationale

The paper's central validation compares binding energies computed from Eqs. (1)-(3) with experimentally measured heats of adsorption in Table I. No parameter is fitted to Q_st; the bath-size threshold eta is a convergence parameter of the EWF method, and the reported improvements from UHF to EWF eta=1e-2 to eta=1e-5 are monotone changes of that threshold, not regression against the benchmark. The hierarchical cluster parameters (12.5 A radius, three-metal small cluster, capping models) are fixed modelling choices, not adjusted to minimise |Delta E - Q_s|; therefore the comparison is an external test rather than a construction. Citations to the EWF literature [13,21] supply the method's formal basis, but the numerical accuracy claim is assessed against experimental data outside the method's own assumptions, so the citation is supporting rather than load-bearing. The acknowledged temperature/loading mismatch between zero-temperature Delta E and finite-temperature Q_st is a correctness limitation, not a circularity: it does not make the calculation equivalent to its input by definition. No step in the derivation chain is self-definitional, and there are no fitted inputs relabelled as predictions. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on standard embedding and ONIOM error-cancellation assumptions, on hand-chosen workflow parameters (cluster radius, bath thresholds, fragment cutoffs, medium-cluster size), and on the mapping of zero-temperature cluster binding energies to finite-temperature experimental heats of adsorption. No parameter was fitted to the experimental reference and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Large cluster radius = 12.5 Å
    Chosen by hand in Section III to define the finite cluster supplying the low-level environment energy in Eq. (2); the binding energy depends on this truncation.
  • CCSD bath threshold eta_CCSD = 1e-2 and 1e-5
    Controls the completeness of the embedded bath for CCSD fragments; the two values are the basis for the systematic-improvability claim in Tables II and III and Eq. (3).
  • MP2 bath threshold eta_MP2 = 1e-7
    Used for the cheaper MP2 solver across all fragments; appears in Eq. (3) as the large-bath MP2 energy.
  • CCSD fragment bond cutoff = 2 bonds from the binding site
    Restricts the expensive CCSD calculation to atoms within two bonds of the adsorbed CO2 binding metal in Section IV, modifying Eq. (3).
  • Medium cluster size and mobile atom set = 5 metal centers; central three metals and non-capping hydrogens move
    Defines the geometry relaxation stage in Section III; the optimized geometry is propagated to the large and small clusters, so it directly affects all reported energies.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ONIOM subtractive approximation Eq. (2), E_small^HL + (E_large^LL - E_small^LL), gives accurate large-cluster high-level energies.
    Standard ONIOM error-cancellation assumption invoked in Section III; if low-level errors in large and small clusters do not match, the final binding energies are biased.
  • domain assumption Finite clusters with formate/hydroxyl-capped linkers reproduce the periodic MOF-74 binding environment around the open metal site.
    Section III truncates the crystal at 12.5 Å and caps crossing linkers; capping electrostatics, missing framework flexibility, and long-range polarization are uncontrolled approximations.
  • domain assumption Experimental Q_st values from ref [5] are comparable to zero-temperature, infinite-dilution single-molecule binding energies.
    Section V acknowledges temperature, loading, and framework-flexibility differences but still uses Q_st as the benchmark for the headline mean absolute errors.
  • domain assumption The spin ground states (ferromagnetic for Co/Fe/Ni/Cu, diamagnetic for Zn/Mg) are correctly identified by M06L/def2-SVP small-cluster energy comparisons.
    Section III selects spins by DFT energy differences; an incorrect spin assignment would change all binding energies for that metal.
  • domain assumption The multi-level MP2 correction in Eq. (3), E_CCSD(eta_CCSD) + [E_MP2(eta) - E_MP2(eta_CCSD)], approximates the full CCSD correlation energy.
    This is the method's central correlation-energy approximation in Section IV; its accuracy for these open-shell metal sites is not independently benchmarked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multi-Scale Quantum Framework for Evaluating Metal-Organic Frameworks in Carbon Capture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4FEGKXUY

@misc{pith2026250504527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multi-Scale Quantum Framework for Evaluating Metal-Organic Frameworks in Carbon Capture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4FEGKXUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04527}
}
abstract

Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs) are promising materials to help mitigate the effects of global warming by selectively absorbing $\text{CO}_{2}$ for direct capture. Accurate quantum chemistry simulations are a useful tool to help select and design optimal MOF structures, replacing costly or impractical experiments or providing chemically inspired features for data-driven approaches such as machine learning. However, applying simulations over large datasets requires efficient simulation methods such as Density Functional Theory (DFT) which, despite often being accurate, introduces uncontrolled approximations and a lack of systematic improvability. In this work we outline a hierarchical cluster model that includes a recently developed quantum embedding that provides a more systematic approach to efficiently tune accuracy. We apply this workflow to calculate the binding affinity for a small set of MOF structures and $\text{CO}_{2}$ using experimentally measured heat of adsorption as a reference. Since quantum embeddings have also been proposed as a framework to accelerate the utility of quantum hardware, we discuss some of the benefits and challenges of integrating quantum solvers into the workflow outlined in this work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Overview of our multi-cluster approach shown for Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plot of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plot of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The other carboxylate and alkoxide groups of the linker are removed and the ring is capped with a hydrogen linker atom

    For every linker whose phenyl ring is included in the cluster, only the carboxylate and alkoxide group directly coordinated to one of the included metals are preserved. The other carboxylate and alkoxide groups of the linker are removed and the ring is capped with a hydrogen linker atom

    work page

  2. [2]

    Each of those anionic moieties includes a hydrogen atom linker, capping the ligand in the position where the corresponding C-C or O-C bond was cleaved

    For organic linkers whose phenyl ring is not part of the cluster, the carboxylate and alkoxide groups attached to the considered metal centres are preserved and modelled by formate and hydroxyl anions, respectively. Each of those anionic moieties includes a hydrogen atom linker, capping the ligand in the position where the corresponding C-C or O-C bond wa...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We also included some selected Cl- ligands (green balls in Figure 1(b)) to complete the coordination sphere of the metals at the edge of the cluster. To preserve the constraints of the bulk material only a subset of atoms was allowed to move during the geometry optimization, including the three central metals that are kept as part of the small cluster and...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Global climate change and greenhouse effect

    Mikhaylov, A.; Moiseev, N.; Aleshin, K.; Burkhardt, T. Global climate change and greenhouse effect. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 2020, 7, 2897–2913,

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Energy & Environmental Science 2018, 11, 1062–1176,

    Bui, M.; al Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy & Environmental Science 2018, 11, 1062–1176,

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review

    Osman, A.; Hefny, M.; Maksoud, M.; Elgarahy, A.; Rooney, D. Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review. environmental Chemistry Letters 2020, 19, 797–849,

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Annamalai, J.; Murugan, P.; Ganapathy, D.; Nallaswamy, D.; Atchudan, R.; Arya, S.; Khosla, A.; Barathi, S.; Sundramoor- thy, A. K. Synthesis of various dimensional metal organic frameworks (MOFs) and their hybrid composites for emerging applications – A review. Chemosphere 2022, 298, 134184

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    MOF-74 type variants for CO2 capture

    Choe, J.; Kim, H.; Hong, C. MOF-74 type variants for CO2 capture. Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2021, 5, 5172–5185,

    work page 2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Combining Machine Learning and Computational Chemistry for Predictive Insights Into Chemical Systems

    Keith, J.; Vassilev-Galindo, V.; Cheng, B.; Chmiela, S.; Gastegger, M.; M¨ uller, K.-R.; Tkatchenko, A. Combining Machine Learning and Computational Chemistry for Predictive Insights Into Chemical Systems. Chemical Reviews 2021, 121, 9816–9872,

    2021

  2. [10]

    Gomes, G.; Aldeghi, M.; Hickman, R.; Krenn, M.; Lavigne, C.; Lindner-D’Addario, M.; Nigam, A.; Ser, C.; Yao, Z.; Aspuru-Guzik, A

    Pollice, R.; P. Gomes, G.; Aldeghi, M.; Hickman, R.; Krenn, M.; Lavigne, C.; Lindner-D’Addario, M.; Nigam, A.; Ser, C.; Yao, Z.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Data-Driven Strategies for Accelerated Materials Design. Accounts of Chemical Research 2021, 54, 849–860,

    2021

  3. [11]

    MOF-74-type frameworks: tunable pore environment and functionality through metal and ligand modification

    Kim, H.; Hong, C. MOF-74-type frameworks: tunable pore environment and functionality through metal and ligand modification. CrystEngComm 2021, 23, 1377–1387,

    2021

  4. [12]

    Essentials of Computational Chemistry: Theories and Models ; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 2004

    Cramer, C. Essentials of Computational Chemistry: Theories and Models ; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    Introduction to Computational Chemistry ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2017

    Jensen, F. Introduction to Computational Chemistry ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Y.; Haule, K.; Oudovenko, V

    Kotliar, G.; Savrasov, S. Y.; Haule, K.; Oudovenko, V. S.; Parcollet, O.; Marianetti, C. A. Electronic structure calculations with dynamical mean-field theory. Reviews of Modern Physics. 2006, 78, 865–951

    2006

  7. [15]

    Knizia, G.; Chan, G. K.-L. Density Matrix Embedding: A Simple Alternative to Dynamical Mean-Field Theory. Physical Review Letters 2012, 109, 186404

    2012

  8. [16]

    Systematic Improvability in Quantum Embedding for Real Materials

    Nusspickel, G. Systematic Improvability in Quantum Embedding for Real Materials. Physical Review X 2022, 12, 011046,. 11

    2022

  9. [17]

    Alexeev, Y. et al. Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems 2024, 160, 666–710

    2024

  10. [18]

    Queen, W. L. et al. Comprehensive study of carbon dioxide adsorption in the metal–organic frameworks M2(dobdc) (M = Mg, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn). Chemical Science 2014, 5, 4569–4581

    2014

  11. [19]

    Carbon capture and conversion using metal–organic frameworks and MOF- based materials

    Ding, M.; Flaig, R.; Jiang, H.-L.; Yaghi, O. Carbon capture and conversion using metal–organic frameworks and MOF- based materials. Chemical Society Reviews 2019, 48, 2783–2828,

    2019

  12. [20]

    Advances, Updates, and Analytics for the Computation-Ready, Experimental Metal–Organic Framework Database: CoRE MOF 2019

    Chung, Y.; Haldoupis, E.; Bucior, B.; Haranczyk, M.; Lee, S.; Zhang, H.; Vogiatzis, K.; Milisavljevic, M.; Ling, S.; Camp, J.; Slater, B.; Siepmann, J.; Sholl, D.; Snurr, R. Advances, Updates, and Analytics for the Computation-Ready, Experimental Metal–Organic Framework Databa...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Alarming structural error rates in MOF databases used in data driven workflows identified via a novel metal oxidation state-based method

    White, A.; Gibaldi, M.; Burner, J.; Mayo, R.; Woo, T. Alarming structural error rates in MOF databases used in data driven workflows identified via a novel metal oxidation state-based method. 2024; https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/ article-details/6706b96312ff75c3a1fb0365

    2024

  14. [22]

    Smith, D. G. A. et al. PSI4 1.4: Open-source software for high-throughput quantum chemistry. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 152, 184108

    2020

  15. [23]

    https://github.com/BoothGroup/Vayesta

    Nusspickel, M.; Backhouse, O.; Ibrahim, B.; Santana-Bonilla, A.; Scott, C.; Booth, G. https://github.com/BoothGroup/Vayesta. https://github.com/BoothGroup/Vayesta

  16. [24]

    Effective Reconstruction of Expectation Values from Ab Initio Quantum Embedding

    Nusspickel, M.; Ibrahim, B.; Booth, G. Effective Reconstruction of Expectation Values from Ab Initio Quantum Embedding. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2023, 19, 2769 2791,

    2023

  17. [25]

    Density Matrix Embedding: A Strong-Coupling Quantum Embedding Theory

    Knizia, G.; Chan, G.-L. Density Matrix Embedding: A Strong-Coupling Quantum Embedding Theory. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2013, 9, 1428–1432,

    2013

  18. [26]

    Sun, Q. et al. Recent developments in the PySCF program package. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 153, 024109

    2020

  19. [27]

    J.; Lishman, J.; Gacon, J.; Martiel, S.; Nation, P.; Bishop, L

    Javadi-Abhari, A.; Treinish, M.; Krsulich, K.; Wood, C. J.; Lishman, J.; Gacon, J.; Martiel, S.; Nation, P.; Bishop, L. S.; Cross, A. W.; Johnson, B. R.; Gambetta, J. M. Quantum computing with Qiskit. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2405. 08810

    2024

  20. [28]

    Robledo-Moreno, J. et al. Chemistry Beyond Exact Solutions on a Quantum-Centric Supercomputer. 2024; https:// arxiv.org/abs/2405.05068

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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