Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Machine-Learned Compact Subspace Generation for Quantum Selected Configuration Interaction within Density Matrix Embedding Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Restricted Boltzmann Machine trained on quantum-sampled determinants can propose compact, physically relevant configuration subspaces for selected configuration interaction, letting a DMET-embedded calculation reach

desk verdict The core method has real hardware evidence behind it, but the paper's central 'DMET-SQD failed' comparison is built on a baseline the authors themselves label 'Not Converged,' so the abstract overstates the case. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20585 v1 pith:BAZF4VAB submitted 2026-07-22 quant-ph cs.ETcs.LGphysics.chem-phq-bio.BM

Ashish Kumar Patra , Anurag K. S. V. , Ruchika Bhat , Sai Shankar P. , Rahul Maitra , Jaiganesh G This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ETcs.LGphysics.chem-phq-bio.BM
keywords sample-basedquantumdiagonalizationselectedconfigurationinteractiondensitymatrixembeddingtheoryrestrictedBoltzmannmachinesubspacecompactnesschemicalaccuracyprotein-ligandcomplexhybridquantum-classicalalgorithm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to fix the main bottleneck in sample-based quantum diagonalization: the recovered configuration subspace is often larger than necessary and not optimally concentrated on the determinants that matter. It introduces QSCI-RBM, a loop in which a Restricted Boltzmann Machine learns from the determinants already accumulated from quantum sampling, Gibbs-samples new symmetry-valid candidates, and the enlarged set is diagonalized classically after a spin-string proliferation step. Embedded in DMET fragments of a protein-ligand complex, the method reaches chemical accuracy while accessing only about 3.9% of the symmetry-preserving space, whereas the standard DMET-SQD baseline fails at about 19% and only reaches chemical accuracy by accessing nearly the whole space. A sympathetic reader would care because the classical diagonalization cost in embedding workflows grows with subspace size, so a learned proposal that concentrates on dominant determinants attacks the scaling wall directly without deeper quantum circuits or perturbative seeding.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is an iterative RBM-guided subspace expansion. A Restricted Boltzmann Machine—an energy-based generative model with visible and hidden binary units—is retrained each iteration on the current determinant memory (all retained determinants weighted equally, excluding the Hartree-Fock reference). Its Gibbs samples are filtered for electron-number and spin symmetry and for novelty, unioned with the memory, and diagonalized after spin-string proliferation, which forms the tensor product of the unique α- and β-spin strings to surface cross-paired determinants never explicitly sampled. The top determinants by squared CI coefficient are then appended persistently to the memory.

What would settle it

Run QSCI-RBM side by side with a version where the RBM is replaced by uniform random selection of symmetry-valid determinants at the same memory size and shot budget; if the random version matches or beats the RBM version at equal subspace fraction on C2H4 or the protein fragments, the compactness claim fails. A second check: retrain the RBM on |c|²-weighted determinants instead of equal weights and see whether the subspace needed for chemical accuracy shrinks, grows, or stays the same.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that machine-learned configuration generation, trained with equal weights on the current determinant memory rather than on the CI coefficients themselves, produces a determinant subspace whose energy per accessed determinant is far higher than configuration-recovery-based selection. The paper demonstrates this on the 11-fragment Carmofur–SARS-CoV-2 Mpro complex, where QSCI-RBM reaches chemical accuracy at roughly 3.9% of the symmetry-preserving space, and on small molecules, where chemical accuracy is reached at 2.12% (C2H4) and 0.06% (CH5NO) of the full symmetry space. A second finding is that energy accuracy is governed by the quality and compactness of the accumul

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Gibbs-sampled determinants from an RBM trained with equal weights on the current memory, after spin-string proliferation, actually span the dominant correlation space; if the learned proposals are no better than random symmetry-valid determinants, the compactness advantage disappears and the method reduces to a random sampler—and the paper itself leaves open whether the high-excitation hardware samples contribute meaningfully to the converged

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If determinant-memory quality rather than µ self-consistency governs accuracy, DMET loops can be halted after a few chemical-potential values, cutting rounds of quantum sampling.
  • Classical diagonalization cost per fragment falls roughly in proportion to subspace size, giving about a 5× reduction versus the non-converged SQD baseline and about 25× versus the converged one.
  • Chemical accuracy can be reached without MP2 or other perturbative seeding, directly from hardware samples and their proliferated partners.
  • The chemical-potential residual is not a reliable convergence proxy for truncated-subspace solvers; subspace-quality metrics must accompany it.
  • On small molecules, the approach beats the CCSD reference error for C2H4 and reaches chemical accuracy for CH5NO while accessing only 0.06% of a 6×10^9-determinant space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The key untested assumption is that the RBM's proposals beat random symmetry-valid selection; a direct ablation replacing the RBM with uniform random proposals at equal memory size would settle whether the compactness comes from learning or from the iterative memory/proliferation machinery.
  • Because the hardware samples concentrate at excitation orders 4–7, the method may be most useful in multi-reference regimes beyond doubles-restricted perturbation theory; testing on a strongly correlated system with known higher-order dominance would sharpen that claim.
  • The paper's own admission that hyperparameters were chosen empirically suggests subspace size at chemical accuracy is an upper bound, not a tuned optimum; a systematic search could push compactness further or reveal sensitivity.
  • Cross-fragment transfer of the learned distribution is unexamined; if the RBM must be retrained from scratch per fragment and µ-iteration, the classical overhead of training could offset some diagonalization savings at scale.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes QSCI-RBM, an iterative RBM-guided subspace-expansion protocol for sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD/QSCI), and integrates it into a DMET embedding loop as the impurity solver (DMET-QSCI-RBM). The RBM is trained on the current determinant memory with equal per-determinant weights; Gibbs sampling proposes new determinants, which are symmetry-filtered, proliferated over spin strings, and selected into a persistent memory by CI-coefficient thresholding. The method is first validated on C2H4 and CH5NO against FCI, then applied to the Carmofur/SARS-CoV-2 Mpro complex fragmented into 11 DMET impurities with a (16e,16o) active space on IBM Heron hardware. The central reported result is that DMET-QSCI-RBM reaches chemical accuracy relative to DMET-CASCI in two independent runs (errors 9.325e-4 and 4.257e-4 Ha) while accessing ~3.9% of the symmetry space, whereas a truncated DMET-SQD baseline at εspb = sqrt(|S|)/2 accessed ~19% without reaching chemical accuracy and an effectively untruncated DMET-SQD baseline (εspb = 1e8) converged only at ~97% of the symmetry space.

Significance. If the compactness claim holds, the result is practically significant: it addresses the classical diagonalization cost that dominates SQD-based DMET simulations and demonstrates a hardware-scale application to a protein-ligand complex. The paper has several strengths: two independent hardware re-solves at the final chemical-potential point; comparison against a DMET-CASCI reference; small-molecule validation against FCI; transparent reporting of the halted runs and the reuse of shared hardware sampling data for the first two DMET chemical-potential iterations. However, the main comparative claim against standard DMET-SQD rests on a non-converged baseline, and the paper does not establish that the RBM itself, rather than the iterative CI-threshold memory update, is responsible for the improved compactness. Both of these points are load-bearing for the abstract's claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Table 1, Fig. 8] The central comparison against standard DMET-SQD is not established. The εspb = sqrt(|S|)/2 run is explicitly labeled 'Not Converged' and was halted after five µ-iterations 'owing to prohibitive QPU time cost.' Non-monotonic E(µ) over five iterations is not evidence that the run would never converge; a truncated SCI solver can oscillate before eventually converging. The abstract's statement that standard DMET-SQD 'failed to reach chemical accuracy' therefore overstates what the data show. The comparison is also asymmetric: DMET-QSCI-RBM itself was halted after three µ-iterations. Please either continue the truncated SQD run to convergence (or run it at a less restrictive cap that still limits the subspace) or soften all claims to 'did not reach chemical accuracy within the attempted iterations.' This is not a presentation issue; it underpins the headline compactness advantage.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (4); §4.7] The paper's mechanism claim — that the RBM 'learns the underlying probability distribution of dominant determinants' — is not directly supported. Step 5 trains the RBM with equal weights wφ = 1 on the current memory, not on |cφ|², so the RBM is not learning the ground-state determinant distribution. The persistent memory is instead updated by CI-coefficient thresholding (Eq. (4)), and the paper does not provide an ablation separating the contribution of RBM-proposed determinants from that of the raw hardware samples plus spin-string proliferation. Section 4.7 explicitly leaves open whether the high-excitation hardware samples 'contribute meaningfully to the converged ground-state wavefunction.' Without an ablation (e.g., replacing the RBM proposals with random spin-adapted determinants or with the raw hardware singletons at fixed memory size), the observed compactness cannot be attribute
  3. [§4.4–4.5, Fig. 9] The DMET-QSCI-RBM result is reported at a halted chemical-potential trajectory (residual ~1.4e-4, not self-consistent), and the paper draws a strong conclusion that µ-convergence is not necessary for energy accuracy. This conclusion is based on two runs at a single non-equilibrium µ. The observation is interesting, but the paper should either demonstrate stability of the energy under continuation of the µ loop or explicitly frame the result as a proof-of-principle at a non-equilibrium embedding potential. The abstract and conclusion should state symmetrically that both DMET-SQD (εspb = sqrt(|S|)/2) and DMET-QSCI-RBM were halted before self-consistency, and that the advantage is measured at this halting point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and Supplementary A] The molecule is called 'methanolamine' in the main text and 'methoxyamine' in the Supplementary Material; the chemical formula CH5NO corresponds to methoxyamine. Please unify the nomenclature.
  2. [§4.1, §4.2, Figs. 8–9] The text says all Carmofur experiments used 'IBM Boston Heron R3', but the captions of Figs. 8 and 9 say 'IBM Heron Fez'. The Supplementary calibration table also lists Boston. Please correct the captions.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (5)] The notation S.S. is used interchangeably with |S| in several places, and the caption of Fig. 10 refers to 'S.S' without defining it. Please define the symmetry space once and use consistent notation.
  4. [Table 1] The non-converged DMET-SQD energy lies below the DMET-CASCI reference energy by 22 mHa. A one-sentence explanation (e.g., effect of the non-converged chemical potential or of the truncated subspace on the embedding energy) would prevent the apparent variational violation from confusing readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

RBM proposal loop is partially self-referential but non-load-bearing; central energies are externally benchmarked; the DMET-SQD 'failure' claim rests on a halted, non-converged baseline.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.1, Steps 5-10 and Eq. (4)]
    "every retained determinant assigned equal sampling weight wφ =1 for all |φ⟩ ∈M(t) \ {|φHF⟩}, regardless of its associated CI coefficient magnitude ... the top-K new configurations exceeding the threshold τsv are permanently appended to the memory"

    The RBM is trained on the determinant memory M(t), which is itself defined by the algorithm's own CI-coefficient threshold (Eq. 4: keep determinants with |⟨φ|Ψ⟩|² > τsv). The abstract's claim that the RBM 'learn[s] the underlying probability distribution of dominant determinants' and enables 'targeted generation of high-probability configurations' therefore reduces, by construction, to resampling the same top-|c|² set used to build the memory. The RBM's 'predictions' are not independent of the selection criterion. This is a partial self-referential loop. However, the reported energies are not obtained from the RBM: they come from exact diagonalization of the projected Hamiltonian, and are checked against external FCI (Sec. 3) and DMET-CASCI (Table 1) references, so the central energy claim

full rationale

The central derivation of the final energies is not circular: DMET-QSCI-RBM obtains fragment energies by classically diagonalizing the projected Hamiltonian over the accumulated determinant space, and the results are benchmarked against FCI (C2H4, CH5NO) and DMET-CASCI (Carmofur-Mpro, Table 1). No reference energy is used to fit any parameter, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the authors is invoked to force the outcome. The RBM is used only as a proposal generator; the energy is variational and externally checked. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the RBM training loop: the memory that defines 'dominant determinants' is itself produced by the algorithm's CI thresholding, so the RBM's 'learned high-probability generation' is partly a restatement of that selection criterion. The paper even admits this in Sec. 2.1: the RBM 'does not attempt to learn the exact ground-state probability distribution |cφ|2' and assigns equal weights. This weakens the 'learned distribution' narrative but does not invalidate the energy comparison. In addition, several limitations are explicitly flagged and should be weighed as correctness risk, not circularity: the DMET-SQD baseline with εspb=√|S|/2 was halted after five µ-iterations 'owing to the prohibitive QPU time cost' and is labeled 'Not Converged' (Sec. 4.3); the DMET-QSCI-RBM µ-search was also deliberately halted after three values (Sec. 4.4); and Sec. 4.7 states that whether high-excitation hardware samples 'contribute meaningfully to the converged ground-state wavefunction is not separately established here.' These are empirical/interpretive limitations, not derivation-circularity. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 61, 67, 89) are contextual and not load-bearing: the εspb bound is derived independently in Supp. C. Overall, the paper's main energy claims are self-contained and externally validated, so the circularity score is low.

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

The central claim rests on five hand-set parameter groups (RBM hyperparameters, CI threshold, SQD baseline cap, μ-stopping, active-space size) and six domain assumptions about DMET, spin-string proliferation, RBM generalization, halted-μ validity, hardware sample representativeness, and the reference model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • RBM hyperparameters (learning rate, #hidden, Gibbs chain, SVD threshold) = not reported
    Sec. 3.4: selected empirically without systematic optimization; directly affect subspace compactness and convergence.
  • CI coefficient threshold τsv / top-K = not reported
    Eq. (4): controls which determinants are permanently added to memory; values not given in text.
  • εspb thresholds for DMET-SQD baselines = sqrt(|S|)/2 and 1e8
    Sec. 2.3.2/4.3: the truncated baseline is deliberately capped by a worst-case subspace bound, not an energy criterion; this choice drives the headline failure of SQD.
  • Number of μ-iterations and repeated runs = 3 μ-values (0, 1e-4, 9.7e-4), 2 hardware runs
    Sec. 4.4: QSCI-RBM results are reported at a halted chemical-potential search; no full self-consistency.
  • Active space size (16e,16o) and 8 bath orbitals = 8 HOMO + 8 LUMO
    Sec. 4.1: chosen for hardware tractability; restricts the reference DMET-CASCI, so 'chemical accuracy' is relative to this model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DMET low-level HF bath and truncation to top 8 fractionality orbitals captures the essential fragment-environment entanglement.
    Sec. 4.1/Fig. 7: ~239-266 environment orbitals per fragment are frozen at HF level.
  • domain assumption Spin-string proliferation over pooled α/β strings (Eq. 5) produces physically relevant determinants.
    Sec. 2.1 Step 8: cross-paired determinants are assumed to carry CI weight; the paper itself notes their contribution is not established.
  • ad hoc to paper RBM trained with contrastive divergence and equal memory weights generalizes to the dominant unseen determinants.
    Sec. 2.1 Step 5: no convergence or generalization guarantee; hyperparameters unoptimized.
  • ad hoc to paper A halted μ-search with residual ~1.4e-4 yields energies comparable to self-consistent DMET.
    Sec. 4.4: chemical accuracy is claimed at a non-converged chemical potential.
  • domain assumption LUCJ samples plus dynamical decoupling/post-selection are representative of the dominant subspace.
    Sec. 2.1/4.2: no twirling for DMET runs; run-to-run L1 distances up to 57% in excitation-order histograms.
  • domain assumption The (16e,16o) active space and conjugate-cap fragmentation give a chemically meaningful DMET-CASCI reference.
    Sec. 4.1: manual fragmentation and frozen core/virtual orbitals are used without systematic validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine-Learned Compact Subspace Generation for Quantum Selected Configuration Interaction within Density Matrix Embedding Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAZF4VAB

@misc{pith2026260720585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine-Learned Compact Subspace Generation for Quantum Selected Configuration Interaction within Density Matrix Embedding Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAZF4VAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20585}
}
abstract

Sample-based Quantum Diagonalization (SQD), an extension of Quantum Selected Configuration Interaction (QSCI), has emerged as a promising hybrid quantum-classical paradigm for computing molecular ground state energies. By leveraging quantum sampling instead of variational optimization, QSCI avoids barren plateaus and enables direct reconstruction of correlated electronic wavefunctions. However, existing configuration recovery techniques primarily enforce symmetry constraints without guaranteeing optimal selection of the most physically relevant configurations, often leading to unnecessarily large subspaces and increased classical diagonalization costs. In this work, we introduce a machine-learned compact subspace generation protocol based on Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs), termed QSCI-RBM, and integrate it within the Density Matrix Embedding Theory (DMET) framework. The RBM is trained on quantum-sampled configurations to learn the underlying probability distribution of dominant determinants, enabling the targeted generation of high-probability configurations. We apply this framework to the simulation of a protein-ligand complex involving the inhibitor Carmofur bound to the SARS-CoV-2 main protease ($M^{\text{pro}}$). Our results demonstrate that DMET-QSCI-RBM achieves energies within the chemical accuracy threshold by accessing only approximately 4% of the configuration subspace. In contrast, standard DMET-SQD simulations failed to reach chemical accuracy while accessing up to 20% of the subspace, even as the chemical potential itself nearly converged. These findings highlight that RBM-assisted configuration generation produces significantly more compact subspaces while preserving physical accuracy, thereby reducing classical computational overhead and enabling the scalable quantum embedding simulation of complex biological systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the QSCI-RBM iterative workflow: hardware-sampled bitstrings from the LUCJ ansatz are post-selected and diagonalized to seed a persistent determinant memory. Each iteration trains an RBM on the current wavefunction, Gibbs-samples novel symmetry-valid determinants, re-diagonalizes the combined set, and updates the memory with the top determinants by |ci | 2 until convergence after n iterations. 5/31 [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The DMET-QSCI-RBM workflow: the outer DMET self-consistency loop (top) with QSCI-RBM as the per-fragment high-level solver (bottom). 7/31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. QSCI-RBM convergence for C2H4 (STO-3G, CAS = 9,018,009, 100K shots, IBM Heron Fez). Left: Absolute energy error with respect to FCI as a function of self-consistency iteration (log scale). The dashed red line marks chemical accuracy (1.6 mHa) and the dotted grey line marks the CCSD reference error (1.22 mHa); the green diamond indicates the first iteration at which chemical accuracy is achieved (iteration 28, 1.11 m… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: QSCI-RBM convergence for CH5NO (STO-3G, |S| ≈ 6.01×109 , IBM Heron Fez). Left: Absolute energy error with respect to FCI as a function of self-consistency iteration (log scale). The shaded green band marks chemical accuracy (1.59 mHa) and the dashed red line marks the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: System setup for the Carmofur-Mpro protein-ligand complex. (a) Ribbon representation of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease with Carmofur bound at the active site (dashed circle); red spheres indicate explicit water molecules. (b) The QM region constructed via the conjugate-c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Active space selection for the DMET fragments of the Carmofur-Mpro complex (6-31G basis94). Each bar shows the total impurity size in spin orbitals for fragments F1-F11, with the active space (8 HOMO + 8 LUMO, purple and blue respectively) highlighted within each impur…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the environment 1-RDM eigenvalue fractionality spectrum for each of the 11 Carmofur fragments, where δ = min(ε,2−ε) measures the deviation of each environment natural-orbital occupation from the nearest integer, with δ → 1 indicating strong fragment-bath entangle…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DMET-SQD self-consistency trajectories for the Carmofur/SARS-CoV-2 Mpro complex under two εspbthresholds (εspb), IBM Heron Fez. Left: Absolute energy error with respect to DMET-CASCI as a function of Niters (log scale), with the shaded region marking chemical accuracy …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: DMET-QSCI-RBM energy and chemical potential trajectory for the Carmofur/SARS-CoV-2 Mpro complex (IBM Heron Fez). The chemical potential search was halted after three values (µ = 0.0, 1×10−4 , and 9.7×10−4 ) rather than carried to self-consistency. Left: Absolute energy…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fragment-resolved symmetry-space (S) accessed by each method for the Carmofur/SARS-CoV-2 Mpro complex (11 fragments, F1-F11). DMET-SQD with εspb = √ S.S/2 (red, dashed, not converged within chemcial accuracy threshold), DMET-SQD with εspb = 108 (purple, converged), ap…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Machine learning for sample-based quantum diagonalization: generative configuration recovery and the classical-simulability frontier

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A critical review plus small exact-FCI experiments concludes that sample-based quantum diagonalization has not beaten classical selected CI and maps where, if anywhere, a quantum or generative advantage could survive.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    & Yoshida, E

    Gao, H., Imamura, S., Kasagi, A. & Yoshida, E. Distributed implementation of full configuration interaction for one trillion determinants.J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 1185–1192, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01190 (2024)

    doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01190 2024

  2. [3]

    D., Ma, D., Olsen, J., Gagliardi, L

    V ogiatzis, K. D., Ma, D., Olsen, J., Gagliardi, L. & de Jong, W. A. Pushing configuration-interaction to the limit: Towards massively parallel mcscf calculations.The J. Chem. Phys.147, 184111, DOI: 10.1063/1.4989858 (2017)

    doi:10.1063/1.4989858 2017

  3. [4]

    Commun.16, 11016, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-65967-7 (2025)

    Shayit, A.et al.Numerically exact configuration interaction at quadrillion-determinant scale.Nat. Commun.16, 11016, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-65967-7 (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65967-7 2025

  4. [5]

    Bartlett, R. J. & Musiał, M. Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry.Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 291–352, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.79.291 (2007)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.79.291 2007

  5. [6]

    Evangelista, F. A. Adaptive multiconfigurational wave functions.The J. Chem. Phys.140, 124114, DOI: 10.1063/1. 4869192 (2014). 18/31

    doi:10.1063/1 2014

  6. [7]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem.arXiv:quant-ph/9511026DOI: 10.48550/arXiv

    Kitaev, A. Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem.arXiv:quant-ph/9511026DOI: 10.48550/arXiv. quant-ph/9511026 (1995). 8.Preskill, J. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond.Quantum2, 79, DOI: 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 (2018)

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9511026 1995

  7. [9]

    Commun.5, 4213, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5213 (2014)

    Peruzzo, A.et al.A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nat. Commun.5, 4213, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5213 (2014)

    doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 2014

  8. [10]

    Anurag, K. S. V .et al.Resource estimation for vqe on small molecules: Impact of fermion mappings and hamiltonian reductions.J. Comput. Chem.47, e70379, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.70379 (2026)

    doi:10.1002/jcc.70379 2026

Show all 92 references
  1. [11]

    E.et al.Ground-state energy estimation on current quantum hardware through the variational quantum eigensolver: A practical study.J

    Belaloui, N. E.et al.Ground-state energy estimation on current quantum hardware through the variational quantum eigensolver: A practical study.J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 6777–6792, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01657 (2025)

    2025 doi

  2. [12]

    Kirsopp, J. J. M.et al.Quantum computational quantification of protein–ligand interactions.Int. J. Quantum Chem.122, e26975, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.26975 (2022)

    2022 doi

  3. [13]

    Phys.4, 245, DOI: 10.1038/s42005-021-00751-9 (2021)

    Kawashima, Y .et al.Optimizing electronic structure simulations on a trapped-ion quantum computer using problem decomposition.Commun. Phys.4, 245, DOI: 10.1038/s42005-021-00751-9 (2021)

    2021 doi

  4. [14]

    R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V

    McClean, J. R., Boixo, S., Smelyanskiy, V . N., Babbush, R. & Neven, H. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nat. Commun.9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  5. [15]

    Commun.12, 6961, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6 (2021)

    Wang, S.et al.Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum algorithms.Nat. Commun.12, 6961, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27045-6 (2021)

    2021 doi

  6. [16]

    Adv.11, eadu9991, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adu9991 (2025)

    Robledo-Moreno, J.et al.Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer.Sci. Adv.11, eadu9991, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adu9991 (2025)

    2025 doi

  7. [17]

    Kanno, K.et al.Quantum-selected configuration interaction: Classical diagonalization of hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers.Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023268, DOI: 10.1103/dmn4-snfx (2026)

    2026 doi

  8. [18]

    Davidson, E. R. The iterative calculation of a few of the lowest eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of large real-symmetric matrices.J. Comput. Phys.17, 87–94, DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(75)90065-0 (1975)

    1975 doi

  9. [19]

    2511.00224

    Shirakawa, T.et al.Closed-loop calculations of electronic structure on a quantum processor and a classical supercomputer at full scale (2025). 2511.00224

    2025

  10. [20]

    O., Kamoshita, M., Mizukami, W., Sudo, S

    Nakagawa, Y . O., Kamoshita, M., Mizukami, W., Sudo, S. & Ohnishi, Y .-y. Adapt-qsci: Adaptive construction of an input state for quantum-selected configuration interaction.J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 10817–10825, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00846 (2024)

    2024 doi

  11. [21]

    & Yamamoto, N

    Sugisaki, K., Kanno, S., Itoko, T., Sakuma, R. & Yamamoto, N. Hamiltonian simulation-based quantum-selected configuration interaction for large-scale electronic structure calculations with a quantum computer.Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.27, 20869–20884, DOI: 10.1039/D5CP02202A (2025)

    2025 doi

  12. [22]

    & Nakagawa, Y

    Mikkelsen, M. & Nakagawa, Y . O. Quantum-selected configuration interaction with time-evolved state.Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043043, DOI: 10.1103/75pv-hbrx (2025)

    2025 doi

  13. [23]

    & Motta, M

    Barison, S., Robledo Moreno, J. & Motta, M. Quantum-centric computation of molecular excited states with extended sample-based quantum diagonalization.Quantum Sci. Technol.10, 025034, DOI: 10.1088/2058-9565/adb781 (2025)

    doi

  14. [24]

    Liepuoniute, I.et al.Quantum-centric computational study of methylene singlet and triplet states.J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 5062–5070, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00075 (2025)

    2025 doi

  15. [25]

    & Merz, K

    Kaliakin, D., Shajan, A., Liang, F. & Merz, K. M. J. Implicit solvent sample-based quantum diagonalization.The J. Phys. Chem. B129, 5788–5796, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.5c01030 (2025)

    2025 doi

  16. [26]

    Phys.8, 396, DOI: 10.1038/s42005-025-02305-9 (2025)

    Kaliakin, D.et al.Accurate quantum-centric simulations of intermolecular interactions.Commun. Phys.8, 396, DOI: 10.1038/s42005-025-02305-9 (2025)

    2025 doi

  17. [27]

    Alexeev, Y .et al.Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions.Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst.160, 666–710, DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2024.04.060 (2024)

    2024 doi

  18. [28]

    & Maußner, M

    Elgammal, K. & Maußner, M. Additive binding energies in asphalt on a quantum processor via quantum-selected configuration interaction (qsci) (2026). 2605.27640. 29.Yu, J.et al.Quantum-centric algorithm for sample-based krylov diagonalization (2025). 2501.09702

    2026 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Commun.16, 5014, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-59716-z (2025)

    Yoshioka, N.et al.Krylov diagonalization of large many-body hamiltonians on a quantum processor.Nat. Commun.16, 5014, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-59716-z (2025). 19/31

    2025 doi

  20. [31]

    2508.02578 (2025)

    Piccinelli, S.et al.Quantum chemistry with provable convergence via randomized sample-based quantum diagonalization. 2508.02578 (2025)

    2025

  21. [32]

    Quantum krylov algorithm using unitary decomposition for exact eigenstates of fermionic systems using quantum computers (2025)

    Asthana, A. Quantum krylov algorithm using unitary decomposition for exact eigenstates of fermionic systems using quantum computers (2025). 2512.11788

    2025

  22. [33]

    J.et al.Unbiasing fermionic quantum monte carlo with a quantum computer.Nature603, 416–420, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-04351-z (2022)

    Huggins, W. J.et al.Unbiasing fermionic quantum monte carlo with a quantum computer.Nature603, 416–420, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-04351-z (2022)

    2022 doi

  23. [34]

    2502.21081

    Yoshida, Y .et al.Auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo method with quantum selected configuration interaction (2025). 2502.21081

    2025 arXiv

  24. [35]

    J., Motta, M

    Danilov, D., Robledo-Moreno, J., Sung, K. J., Motta, M. & Shee, J. Enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of sample-based quantum diagonalization with phaseless auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo (2025). 2503.05967

    2025 arXiv

  25. [36]

    2601.16169

    Walkup, R.et al.Scaling sample-based quantum diagonalization on gpu-accelerated systems using openmp offload (2026). 2601.16169

    2026

  26. [37]

    & Horii, H

    Doi, J., Shirakawa, T., Kawashima, Y ., Yunoki, S. & Horii, H. Gpu-accelerated selected basis diagonalization with thrust for sqd-based algorithms (2026). 2601.16637

    2026

  27. [38]

    2605.23697

    Vaquero-Sabater, N.et al.Noise and configuration recovery impact on quantum selected configuration interaction (2026). 2605.23697

    2026 arXiv

  28. [39]

    2603.03496

    Kirby, W.et al.Observation of improved accuracy over classical sparse ground-state solvers using a quantum computer (2026). 2603.03496

    2026 arXiv

  29. [40]

    Reinholdt, P.et al.Critical limitations in quantum-selected configuration interaction methods.J. Chem. Theory Comput. 21, 6811–6822, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00375 (2025)

    2025 doi

  30. [41]

    M., Zhang, H., Motta, M

    Raisuddin, O. M., Zhang, H., Motta, M. & Faulstich, F. M. From promise to practice: Benchmarking quantum chemistry on quantum hardware (2025). 2512.01012

    2025

  31. [42]

    & Coveney, P

    Weaving, T., Mingare, A., Ralli, A. & Coveney, P. V . Towards compact wavefunctions from quantum-selected configuration interaction (2025). 2509.02525

    2025 arXiv

  32. [43]

    2503.06292 (2025)

    Pellow-Jarman, A.et al.Hivqe: Handover iterative variational quantum eigensolver for efficient quantum chemistry calculations. 2503.06292 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  33. [44]

    Yoo, P.et al.Extending the handover-iterative vqe to challenging strongly correlated systems: n2 and fe-s cluster (2026)

    2026

  34. [45]

    & Moon, K

    Ghasemi, F., Kang, Y ., Kawashima, Y . & Moon, K. Hybrid quantum algorithms for computational chemistry: Application to the pyridine-li ion complex (2026). 2601.10002

    2026

  35. [46]

    2508.08229

    Smith, T.et al.Quantum-centric simulation of hydrogen abstraction by sample-based quantum diagonalization and entanglement forging (2025). 2508.08229

    2025 arXiv

  36. [47]

    & Petruccione, F

    McFarthing, S., Pellow-Jarman, A. & Petruccione, F. Noise-resilient quantum chemistry with half the qubits (2026). 2602.01165

    2026

  37. [48]

    & Mizukami, W

    Yoshida, Y ., Murokoshi, T., Kuroda, N. & Mizukami, W. Doubling the size of quantum selected configuration interaction based on seniority-zero space and its application to qc-qsci-afqmc (2026). 2602.07912

    2026

  38. [49]

    & Troyer, M

    Carleo, G. & Troyer, M. Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks.Science355, 602–606, DOI: 10.1126/science.aag2302 (2017). https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aag2302

    2017 doi

  39. [50]

    S., Yamaji, Y

    Nomura, Y ., Darmawan, A. S., Yamaji, Y . & Imada, M. Restricted boltzmann machine learning for solving strongly correlated quantum systems.Phys. Rev. B96, 205152, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.205152 (2017)

    2017 doi

  40. [51]

    & Rocca, D

    Herzog, B., Casier, B., Leb `egue, S. & Rocca, D. Solving the schr ¨odinger equation in the configuration space with generative machine learning.J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 2484–2490, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01216 (2023)

    2023 doi

  41. [52]

    Coe, J. P. Machine learning configuration interaction.J. Chem. Theory Comput.14, 5739–5749, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc. 8b00849 (2018)

    2018 doi

  42. [53]

    2512.06858

    Patra, C.et al.Physics informed generative machine learning for accelerated quantum-centric supercomputing (2025). 2512.06858

    2025

  43. [54]

    & Plesset, M

    Møller, C. & Plesset, M. S. Note on an approximation treatment for many-electron systems.Phys. Rev.46, 618–622, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.46.618 (1934). 20/31

    1934 doi

  44. [55]

    & Chan, G

    Knizia, G. & Chan, G. K.-L. Density matrix embedding: A simple alternative to dynamical mean-field theory.Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 186404, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.186404 (2012)

    2012 doi

  45. [56]

    & Rozenberg, M

    Georges, A., Kotliar, G., Krauth, W. & Rozenberg, M. J. Dynamical mean-field theory of strongly correlated fermion systems and the limit of infinite dimensions.Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 13–125, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.68.13 (1996)

    1996 doi

  46. [57]

    A., Sun, Q

    Wouters, S., Jim´enez-Hoyos, C. A., Sun, Q. & Chan, G. K.-L. A practical guide to density matrix embedding theory in quantum chemistry.J. Chem. Theory Comput.12, 2706–2719, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00316 (2016)

    2016 doi

  47. [58]

    M., Kirsch, A., Letournel, E

    Canc`es, E., Faulstich, F. M., Kirsch, A., Letournel, E. & Levitt, A. Analysis of density matrix embedding theory around the non-interacting limit.Commun. on Pure Appl. Math.78, 1359–1410, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.22244 (2025). 59.Negre, A.et al.New perspectives on den...

    2025 arXiv

  48. [60]

    2411.09861 (2024)

    Shajan, A.et al.Towards quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory. 2411.09861 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [61]

    K.et al.Quantum simulation of ligand-like molecules through sample-based quantum diagonalization in density matrix embedding framework (2026)

    Patra, A. K.et al.Quantum simulation of ligand-like molecules through sample-based quantum diagonalization in density matrix embedding framework (2026). 2511.22158

    2026 arXiv

  50. [62]

    2512.14936

    Wang, Q.et al.Sample-based quantum diagonalization as parallel fragment solver for the localized active space self-consistent field method (2025). 2512.14936

    2025

  51. [63]

    & Liu, Y

    Bierman, J. & Liu, Y . Towards utility-scale electronic structure with sample-based quantum bootstrap embedding.Digit. Discov.–, DOI: 10.1039/D5DD00416K (2026). 64.Shajan, A.et al.Molecular quantum computations on a protein (2026). 2512.17130

    2026

  52. [65]

    & Booth, G

    Nusspickel, M. & Booth, G. H. Systematic improvability in quantum embedding for real materials.Phys. Rev. X12, 011046, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011046 (2022). 66.Iijima, N.et al.Towards accurate quantum chemical calculations on noisy quantum computers (2023). 2311.09634

    2022 arXiv

  53. [67]

    Anurag, K. S. V .et al.Bridging the nisq and fault-tolerant regimes: Generative-ml-assisted quantum selected ci for molecular simulations (2026). 2606.30551

    2026 arXiv

  54. [68]

    Bauman, N. P. & Kowalski, K. Coupled cluster downfolding methods: The effect of double commutator terms on the accuracy of ground-state energies.The J. Chem. Phys.156, 094106, DOI: 10.1063/5.0076260 (2022)

    2022 doi

  55. [69]

    P.et al.Coupled cluster downfolding theory in simulations of chemical systems on quantum hardware.arXiv DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01199 (2025)

    Bauman, N. P.et al.Coupled cluster downfolding theory in simulations of chemical systems on quantum hardware.arXiv DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01199 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  56. [70]

    & Bauman, N

    Kowalski, K. & Bauman, N. P. Resource-adaptive quantum flow algorithms for quantum simulations of many-body systems: sub-flow embedding procedures.arXivDOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11992 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  57. [71]

    R., Pandharkar, R

    Hermes, M. R., Pandharkar, R. & Gagliardi, L. Variational localized active space self-consistent field method.J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 4923–4937, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00222 (2020)

    2020 doi

  58. [72]

    Otten, M.et al.Localized quantum chemistry on quantum computers.J. Chem. Theory Comput.18, 7205–7217, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00388 (2022)

    2022 doi

  59. [73]

    Reports14, 2422, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-52926-3 (2024)

    Lim, H.et al.Fragment molecular orbital-based variational quantum eigensolver for quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing.Sci. Reports14, 2422, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-52926-3 (2024)

    2024 doi

  60. [74]

    Sci.14, 3190–3205, DOI: 10.1039/ D2SC06875C (2023)

    Ma, H.et al.Multiscale quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry.Chem. Sci.14, 3190–3205, DOI: 10.1039/ D2SC06875C (2023)

    2023

  61. [75]

    Xu, E., Shimomoto, Y ., Ten-no, S. L. & Tsuchimochi, T. Many-body-expansion based on variational quantum eigensolver and deflation for dynamical correlation.The J. Phys. Chem. A128, 2507–2521, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.4c00351 (2024)

    2024 doi

  62. [76]

    Building intuition for dynamical mean-field theory: A simple model and the cavity method.arXivDOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.16654 (2025)

    Blumenthal, E. Building intuition for dynamical mean-field theory: A simple model and the cavity method.arXivDOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.16654 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  63. [77]

    Ye, H.-Z., Tran, H. K. & Van V oorhis, T. Bootstrap embedding for large molecular systems.J. Chem. Theory Comput.16, 5035–5046, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00438 (2020)

    2020 doi

  64. [78]

    Liu, Y .et al.Bootstrap embedding on a quantum computer.J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 2230–2247, DOI: 10.1021/acs. jctc.3c00012 (2023)

    2023 doi

  65. [79]

    In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 538–544 (2024), DOI: 10.1109/ QCE60285.2024.00069 (2024)

    Hardikar, T.et al.Quanta-bind: A quantum computing pipeline for modeling strongly correlated metal-protein interactions. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), 538–544 (2024), DOI: 10.1109/ QCE60285.2024.00069 (2024). 21/31

    2024

  66. [80]

    Cho, M.et al.Quemb: A toolbox for bootstrap embedding calculations of molecular and periodic systems.J. Phys. Chem. A129, 6538–6551, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.5c02983 (2025)

    2025 doi

  67. [81]

    Fujii, K.et al.Deep variational quantum eigensolver: A divide-and-conquer method for solving a larger problem with smaller size quantum computers.PRX Quantum3, 010346, DOI: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.010346 (2022)

    2022 doi

  68. [82]

    2206.12424 (2022)

    Senicourt, V .et al.Tangelo: An open-source python package for end-to-end chemistry workflows on quantum computers. 2206.12424 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  69. [83]

    qiskit-community (2025)

    The ffsim developers.ffsim: Faster simulations of fermionic quantum circuits, v0.0.56. qiskit-community (2025). Accessed: 2025-11-11. 84.Javadi-Abhari, A.et al.Quantum computing with qiskit. 2405.08810 (2024)

    2025 arXiv

  70. [85]

    Qiskit ibm runtime v0.36.1

    IBM Quantum. Qiskit ibm runtime v0.36.1. https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-ibm-runtime (2025). Accessed: 2026-05-01. 86.Sun, Q.et al.The python-based simulations of chemistry framework (pyscf). 1701.08223 (2017)

    2025 arXiv

  71. [87]

    InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, 8024–8035 (2019)

    Paszke, A.et al.PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, 8024–8035 (2019)

    2019

  72. [88]

    Methods17, 261–272, DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 (2020)

    Virtanen, P.et al.SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python.Nat. Methods17, 261–272, DOI: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 (2020)

    2020 doi

  73. [89]

    Anurag, K. S. V .et al.Towards chemically accurate and scalable quantum simulations on iqm quantum hardware: A quantum-hpc hybrid approach (2026). 2604.01983

    2026 arXiv

  74. [90]

    Rahman, A., Egger, D. J. & Arenz, C. Learning how to dynamically decouple by optimizing rotational gates.Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 054074, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.054074 (2024)

    2024 doi

  75. [91]

    Wallman, J. J. & Emerson, J. Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling.Phys. Rev. A 94, 052325, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052325 (2016)

    2016 doi

  76. [92]

    Zhang, D. W. & Zhang, J. Z. H. Molecular fractionation with conjugate caps for full quantum mechanical calculation of protein–molecule interaction energy.The J. Chem. Phys.119, 3599–3605, DOI: 10.1063/1.1591727 (2003)

    2003 doi

  77. [93]

    E., Broderick, D

    Bowling, P. E., Broderick, D. R. & Herbert, J. M. Convergent protocols for computing protein–ligand interaction energies using fragment-based quantum chemistry.J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 951–966, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01429 (2025)

    2025 doi

  78. [94]

    J., Ditchfield, R

    Hehre, W. J., Ditchfield, R. & Pople, J. A. Self—consistent molecular orbital methods. xii. further extensions of gaussian—type basis sets for use in molecular orbital studies of organic molecules.The J. Chem. Phys.56, 2257–2261, DOI: 10.1063/1.1677527 (1972)

    1972 doi

  79. [95]

    & Wigner, E

    Jordan, P. & Wigner, E. ¨Uber das paulische ¨aquivalenzverbot.Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik47, 631–651, DOI: 10.1007/ BF01331938 (1928)

    1928

  80. [96]

    & Ostlund, N

    Szabo, A. & Ostlund, N. S.Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory. Dover Books on Chemistry (Dover Publications, 1996). See Section 2.4.1, pp. 89–95

    1996

  81. [97]

    Merz, J.et al.Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum-classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes (2026)

    Kenneth M. Merz, J.et al.Crossing the 12,000-atom barrier with heterogeneous quantum-classical supercomputing: quantum chemistry of protein-ligand complexes (2026). 2605.01138

    2026 arXiv

  82. [98]

    N¨aherungsmethode zur l ¨osung des quantenmechanischen mehrk ¨orperproblems.Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik61, 126–148, DOI: 10.1007/BF01340294 (1930)

    Fock, V . N¨aherungsmethode zur l ¨osung des quantenmechanischen mehrk ¨orperproblems.Zeitschrift f ¨ur Physik61, 126–148, DOI: 10.1007/BF01340294 (1930). 99.Helgaker, T., Jørgensen, P. & Olsen, J.Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000), 1st edn

    1930 doi

  83. [100]

    MacDonald, J. K. L. Successive approximations by the rayleigh–ritz variation method.Phys. Rev.43, 830–833, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.43.830 (1933)

    1933 doi

  84. [101]

    Papakonstantinou, J. M. & Tapia, R. A. Origin and evolution of the secant method in one dimension.The Am. Math. Mon. 120, 500–518, DOI: 10.4169/amer.math.monthly.120.06.500 (2013). 22/31 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL A Execution Dates and Hardware Calibration Data The DMET-SQD experi...

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.