Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Coupled cluster method tailored by quantum selected configuration interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a hybrid scheme that reconstructs the strongly correlated part of a molecular wave function from quantum measurements and embeds it in coupled cluster, keeping bond-breaking energies accurate where CCSD(T) starts to fail.

desk verdict A credible and useful hybrid method paper: QSCI+TCC is a new combination with convincing numerics, but the robustness claim about poor trial states is stronger than the evidence supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16911 v1 pith:CSKQPXVG submitted 2025-06-20 physics.chem-ph quant-ph

Luca Erhart , Yuichiro Yoshida , Wataru Mizukami This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phquant-ph
keywords quantum-selectedconfigurationinteractiontailoredcoupledclusterstrongcorrelationhybridquantum-classicalalgorithmquantumstatetomographybonddissociationN2shotefficiency
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 proposes a hybrid quantum-classical electronic-structure method, QSCI-TCC, that uses quantum-selected configuration interaction (QSCI) to read out the strongly correlated part of a wave function from sampled measurements, then feeds those amplitudes into a tailored coupled-cluster calculation that recovers the remaining dynamical correlation. The aim is to keep the accuracy of multireference methods in bond-breaking regions while using far fewer quantum measurements than earlier tomography-based approaches. On classically simulated benchmarks for simultaneous O–H dissociation in water and triple-bond dissociation in N$_2$, the authors find that QSCI-TCC and its perturbative-triples variant stay accurate where CCSD or CCSD(T) start to fail, and that the corrected variant reaches chemical precision ($\le 1$ kcal/mol) for N$_2$ at $r=2.2$ Å with $1.0\times10^5$ shots. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that sampling-based subspace selection plus coupled cluster is a shot-efficient route to balanced strong and dynamical correlation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the QSCI subspace-selection step combined with the tailored coupled cluster amplitude mapping. QSCI samples computational-basis bitstrings from a prepared (possibly imperfect) quantum state, forms the Cartesian product of $\alpha$- and $\beta$-spin determinants (with an optional union with spin-swapped partners) to restore spin symmetry, and diagonalizes the Hamiltonian restricted to that subspace; the coefficients that come out are then mapped to the active part of the cluster operator. The tailored coupled-cluster calculation then treats these amplitudes as constants and solves the cluster amplitude equations for the rest, with a perturbative triples correction available that zeroes active amplitudes to avoid double counting static correlation. The corrected energy $E^{\rm QSCI\text{-}TCC(c)} = E^{\rm active}_{\rm QC} + (E^{\rm QSCI\text{-}TCC} - E^{\rm active}_{\rm QSCI\text{-}TCC})$ compensates for truncation in the singles-and-doubles mapping.

What would settle it

Take a strongly correlated system with a known exact active-space wave function, then prepare a trial state that deliberately suppresses a determinant known to carry large weight, for example by freezing that excitation in the ansatz or by rotating the active orbitals; if QSCI-TCC still reproduces the reference energy to chemical precision, the subspace-selection premise survives, and if the error jumps by more than a kcal/mol, it fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that a QSCI-reconstructed active-space wave function can be used as the fixed part of a tailored coupled cluster ansatz, and that this produces accurate total energies in multireference regimes. The distinctive property exploited is that QSCI's expansion coefficients are not contaminated by additive shot noise: sampling only decides which determinants enter the subspace, while the effective Hamiltonian is built and diagonalized exactly. The resulting CI singles and doubles are converted to fixed active-space cluster amplitudes via $\hat{T}^{\rm active}_1 = \hat{C}_1$ and $\hat{T}^{\rm active}_2 = \hat{C}_2 - \frac{1}{2}\hat{C}_1^2$, after which a conventional coupled-cluster calculation optimizes all remaining amplitudes. For the two benchmark molecules, this embedding keeps the energy error nearly flat across the dissociation curve in the region where CCSD(T) departs from the reference, and the shot-count study shows $10^5$ measurements are enough to reach chemical precision for the N$_2$ (6e,6o) active space at $r=2.2$ Å.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that sampling bitstrings from the prepared trial state, even an imperfect one, yields a subspace containing the determinants with significant weight in the exact active-space wave function, so that the fixed QSCI amplitudes are reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For systems where the active space captures static correlation but a single-reference coupled-cluster tail is still valid, QSCI-TCC should give accurate total energies in bond-breaking regions where CCSD and CCSD(T) drift from the reference.
  • The shot budget for chemically accurate QSCI-TCC(c) on the N$_2$ (6e,6o) active space is about $10^5$ shots, one order of magnitude below the matchgate-shadows implementation at $r=2.2$ Å.
  • Because QSCI does not require an exact trial state, the method can tolerate imperfect VQE preparations as long as the sampled subspace contains the important determinants.
  • The (c) correction makes the final energy insensitive to shot-count discretization once the dominant determinants are sampled, giving a stable and reproducible energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to apply the same QSCI-TCC pipeline to active spaces beyond the reach of classical FCI, where the QSCI subspace cannot be checked against exact diagonalization; the method's usefulness then hinges on whether sampling still selects the physically relevant determinants at that scale.
  • The shot-count analysis treats only finite-sampling noise; real device noise would produce corrupted bitstrings that may violate particle-number or spin symmetries and shrink the effective subspace after classical filtering, so combining QSCI-TCC with error mitigation is a natural next test.
  • The (c) correction assumes the quantum-determined active-space energy is reliable; if the active-space method drifts, the correction transfers that drift into the final answer, and one could map this sensitivity by running the method with intentionally biased trial states.
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 manuscript introduces QSCI-TCC, a hybrid quantum-classical method that uses quantum-selected configuration interaction (QSCI) to reconstruct an active-space wave function from computational-basis samples of a quantum-prepared trial state, maps it to fixed tailored coupled-cluster (TCC) active-space amplitudes, and then performs a classical CC calculation for the remaining amplitudes. The method is tested in classical simulations on simultaneous O-H bond dissociation in H2O and triple-bond dissociation in N2. The authors report that QSCI-TCC and QSCI-TCC(T) remain accurate where CCSD or CCSD(T) begin to break down, and that the (c)-corrected variant reaches chemical precision with 1.0e5 shots in the N2 (6e,6o) active space at r=2.2 A, an order of magnitude fewer than an earlier matchgate-shadows implementation. The paper also discusses the shot-count dependence of the method and acknowledges limitations of QSCI for strongly correlated systems with exponentially many important determinants.

Significance. If the central claims hold, QSCI-TCC is a valuable shot-efficient hybrid scheme for combining static and dynamical correlation. The paper gives credit where due: it avoids reduced-density-matrix estimation by mapping sampled determinants directly to CC amplitudes, and it provides numerical evidence on two multireference bond-breaking problems, including a shot-count analysis with repeated independent runs. The comparison with prior tomography-based TCC studies is useful. However, the general robustness claim about the trial state is not established, the shot-count sufficiency conclusion rests on very few unique determinant sets, and the comparison with matchgate shadows is confounded by different basis sets. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline claims but are addressable with additional analysis or a more careful statement of scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A 2, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The statement that QSCI is robust 'regardless of the quality of the trial state' is stronger than the evidence. In QSCI, the computational basis states are sampled from the prepared trial state, so a determinant with small or zero probability in the trial state has exponentially small (or zero) chance to enter the subspace, irrespective of its coefficient in the exact active-space wave function. Since Sec. II C fixes T_active from this QSCI wave function, any such omission propagates directly into QSCI-TCC and QSCI-TCC(T). The N2 example with a three-layer GateFabricansatz only demonstrates robustness when the trial state retains support on the relevant determinants; it does not test the failure mode of missing support. Please either provide a proof or a systematic numerical test (for example, an ansatz with truncated or zero overlap on a determinant known to be important, or a controlled removal of key determinants from the sampled set) that characterizes the required support condition, or soften the robustness claim accordingly. The limitation acknowledged in the Conclusions about the exponential growth of important determinants is related and should be connected to this point.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 4] The conclusion that 10^5 shots are sufficient for chemical precision is not fully supported at r=2.2 A. The paper reports that only two distinct determinant sets (with the union option) and one set (without the union) occur in the 10^5-shot runs, and that each histogram peak then corresponds to a single unique subset. With only one or two unique subsets, the histogram cannot demonstrate that all likely subsets satisfy the <=1 kcal/mol threshold. Please report the energy of each unique subset relative to the converged QSCI-TCC(c) value and the threshold, and provide a confidence estimate (for example, the fraction of repeated runs whose energy is within 1 kcal/mol) rather than relying on the shape of a sparse histogram.
  3. [Sec. IV B (comparison with Ref. [14])] The shot-count comparison with matchgate shadows is not apples-to-apples: the QSCI-TCC(c) tests are performed at the cc-pVTZ level, while the matchgate-shadows estimates are quoted at the cc-pVDZ level. The comparison also involves different bond distances for the computational-basis-tomography benchmark (r=2.8 A vs r=2.2 A). Please repeat the shot-count analysis with the same basis set and bond distance as the comparison methods, or clearly state the limitations of the cross-basis comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 2 and 3] The energy curves do not include uncertainty estimates from the stochastic QSCI sampling; please state whether the 10^7-shot runs are effectively deterministic or provide error bars or repeated-run statistics.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The notation E_active_QSCI is used before it is explicitly defined; please define it clearly (presumably the QSCI active-space energy) before or at first use.
  3. [Acknowledgements] The heading 'ACKOWLEDGEMENTS' contains a typo and should read 'ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS'.
  4. [Sec. IV B] The phrase 'the 10^5-shot measurements are sufficient in each condition' would benefit from an explicit criterion for sufficiency tied to the 1 kcal/mol error threshold, especially because the energy distributions are discrete and CC is non-variational.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: QSCI-TCC energies come from an explicit subspace diagonalization plus standard CC amplitude equations, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. QSCI (Eqs. 6–8) constructs an effective Hamiltonian in the subspace of sampled determinants and diagonalizes it exactly; the resulting CI coefficients are mapped to fixed active-space TCC amplitudes via Eqs. (4)–(5), and the remaining amplitudes are optimized by conventional CC amplitude equations. The final QSCI-TCC energy is therefore an output of a deterministic quantum-classical workflow, not a fitted or back-substituted target. The (c) correction in Eq. (12) is taken from the authors' earlier work [13] and is written out explicitly; it recombines the QSCI active-space energy with the TCC energy and is not fitted to the benchmark points. The QSCI subspace-sampling limitation—determinants absent from the sampled support cannot enter the effective Hamiltonian—is a genuine robustness and correctness concern, but it is a model-error issue, not a case of the claimed prediction being equivalent to the input by construction. Self-citations to [13] and [33] provide the method components (TCC tailoring and QSCI), but neither is an unverified load-bearing assertion: both are concrete algorithms whose equations are reproduced in this paper or are externally published results. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz choice, or fitted parameter is smuggled in via self-citation, and the benchmark comparisons against SHCI/FCI are independent of the method's own parameters.

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

The central claim depends on the QSCI-reconstructed wave function capturing the static correlation, which is assumed even when the trial state is poor, and on the validity of the TCC embedding and the (c) correction.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QSCI effective Hamiltonian diagonalization yields a variational upper bound to the active-space energy and a wave function that captures static correlation.
    Used in Sec II.B and IV; if the sampled subspace is incomplete, the recovered wave function is not exact.
  • standard math The tailored CC amplitude mapping T1=C1 and T2=C2 - 0.5 C1^2 is a valid embedding of the CI wave function.
    Standard TCC formalism from Refs [26,27]; used in Sec II.A.
  • domain assumption The (c) correction formula removes active-space error without double counting.
    Taken from Ref [13] by the same group; assumes E_active_QSCI is a good proxy for the true active-space energy.
  • domain assumption The reference SHCI data for N2 is accurate to the claimed precision.
    Used as reference in Fig 3(b); from Ref [50].
  • ad hoc to paper VQE trial states sample the dominant determinants with sufficient probability.
    The paper claims QSCI is robust to poor trial states, but this is not proven; it is an assumption about the sampling distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupled cluster method tailored by quantum selected configuration interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSKQPXVG

@misc{pith2026250616911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupled cluster method tailored by quantum selected configuration interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSKQPXVG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16911}
}
abstract

We present the quantum-selected configuration interaction-tailored coupled-cluster (QSCI-TCC) method, a hybrid quantum-classical scheme that tailors coupled-cluster (CC) theory with a quantum-selected configuration interaction (QSCI) wave function. QSCI provides a scalable, shot-efficient approach to reconstructing the many-electron state prepared on quantum hardware on a classical computer. The resulting active-space CI coefficients, which are free from additive shot noise, are mapped to fixed cluster amplitudes within the tailored coupled-cluster framework, after which a conventional CC calculation optimizes the remaining amplitudes. This workflow embeds static (strong) correlation from the quantum device and subsequently recovers dynamical (weak) correlation, yielding a balanced description of both. The method is classically simulated and applied to the simultaneous O-H bond dissociation in H$_2$O and the triple-bond dissociation in N$_2$. QSCI-TCC and its perturbative-triples variant, QSCI-TCC(T), provide accurate results even where CCSD or CCSD(T) begin to break down. Shot-count tests for the N$_2$ (6e, 6o) active space demonstrate that, with the (c) correction, chemically sufficient precision ($\leq 1$ kcal/mol) is achieved with only $1.0 \times 10^5$ shots in the strongly correlated regime ($r=2.2$ \r{A}) -- an order of magnitude fewer than required by an earlier matchgate-shadows implementation [J. Chem. Theory Comput., 20, 5068 (2024)]. By pairing resource-efficient quantum sampling with the CC theory, QSCI-TCC provides a promising pathway to quantum-chemical calculations of classically intractable systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic depiction of QSCI-TCC. (a) A quantum algorithm prepares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Energy curve and (b) energy difference compared to FCI for simultaneous O–H bond dissociation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Energy curve and (b) energy difference compared to SHCI for N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Influence of the number of measurement shots on QSCI-TCC(c) for N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Basic formulation of QSCI The QSCI method [33] samples the quantum state pre- pared on a quantum computer. The resulting configura- tions{|Φ i⟩}span a subspace of the Fock space, and an effective Hamiltonian ˆH eff ij =⟨Φ i| ˆH|Φ j⟩(6) is constructed and efficiently diagonalized on a classical computer, ˆH eff |ΨQSCI⟩=E QSCI |ΨQSCI⟩,(7) whereE QSCI is the...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Cartesian product of bitstrings Finite shot noise can lead to spin-symmetry breaking in the sampled space. To mitigate this, each sampled determinant can be separated into itsα- andβ-spin parts, |Φi⟩=|Φ α i ⟩ |Φβ i ⟩,(9) and the Cartesian product can be formed | ˜Φk⟩ = |Φα i ⟩ |Φβ j ⟩, ∀ i, j≤R ,(10) thereby enlarging the subspace spanned by{|˜Φi⟩}instead...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Overview The proposed QSCI-TCC scheme performs a TCC cal- culation using a QSCI wave function (Fig. 1). First, a quantum algorithm such as VQE or QPE prepares the strongly correlated active-space wave function|Ψ active QC ⟩ (Fig. 1 (a)). Repeated measurements yield bitstrings from which QSCI reconstructs|Ψ active QSCI ⟩on a classical computer (Fig. 1 (b))...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Two main sources contribute to this error: (i) the neglect of triples or higher excitations and (ii) an incomplete set of determinants in QSCI

    The (c) correction Because TCC at the singles-and-doubles level includes only up to second-order excitations, mapping CI coeffi- cients to CC amplitudes introduces an error in the QSCI- TCC energyE QSCI-TCC. Two main sources contribute to this error: (i) the neglect of triples or higher excitations and (ii) an incomplete set of determinants in QSCI. To co...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Start- ing from the HF baseline, static correlation within the (8e, 6o) active space is introduced and captured

    Simultaneous dissociation of the OH bonds in H2O Figure 2 (a) shows the potential energy curves for the simultaneous stretching of the two O–H bonds. Start- ing from the HF baseline, static correlation within the (8e, 6o) active space is introduced and captured. Both active-space QSCI and VQE lower the energy relative to HF, and the resulting gap widens a...

    work page

  6. [6]

    3 (a) presents the potential energy curves for the dissociation of the triple bond in N 2

    Triple-bond dissociation in N2 Fig. 3 (a) presents the potential energy curves for the dissociation of the triple bond in N 2. Similar to H 2O, static correlation recovered within the (6e, 6o) active space is essential for a qualitatively correct description of the dissociation region. Our VQE calculation, which em- ploys a three-layerGateFabricansatz, fa...

    work page

  7. [7]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Simulation of many-body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2586 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Quantum algorithm provid- ing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 5162 (1999)

    1999

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head- Gordon, Simulated quantum computation of molecular energies, Science309, 1704 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Reiher, N

    M. Reiher, N. Wiebe, K. M. Svore, D. Wecker, and M. Troyer, Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, 7555 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, M. Motta, J. R. McClean, and R. Babbush, Qubitization of Arbitrary Basis Quantum Chemistry Leveraging Sparsity and Low Rank Factoriza- tion, Quantum3, 208 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    von Burg, G

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

    2021

  5. [13]

    J. Lee, D. W. Berry, C. Gidney, W. J. Huggins, J. R. Mc- Clean, N. Wiebe, and R. Babbush, Even more efficient quantum computations of chemistry through tensor hy- percontraction, PRX Quantum2, 030305 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Rocca, C

    D. Rocca, C. L. Cortes, J. F. Gonthier, P. J. Olli- trault, R. M. Parrish, G.-L. Anselmetti, M. Degroote, N. Moll, R. Santagati, and M. Streif, Reducing the Run- time of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Simulations in Chem- istry through Symmetry-Compressed Double Factoriza- tion, J. Ch...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Hao Low, R

    G. Hao Low, R. King, D. W. Berry, Q. Han, A. E. DePrince, III, A. White, R. Babbush, R. D. Somma, and N. C. Rubin, Fast quantum simulation of electronic structure by spectrum amplification, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.15882 (2025), arXiv:2502.15882 [quant-ph]

    2025

  8. [16]

    W. J. Huggins, B. A. O’Gorman, N. C. Rubin, D. R. Reichman, R. Babbush, and J. Lee, Unbiasing fermionic quantum monte carlo with a quantum computer, Nature 603, 416 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Yoshida, L

    Y. Yoshida, L. Erhart, T. Murokoshi, R. Nakagawa, C. Mori, T. Miyanaga, T. Mori, and W. Mizukami, Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method with quan- tum selected configuration interaction, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.21081 (2025), arXiv:2502.21081 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Danilov, J

    D. Danilov, J. Robledo-Moreno, K. J. Sung, M. Motta, and J. Shee, Enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of sample-based quantum diagonalization with phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.05967 (2025), arXiv:2503.05967 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Erhart, Y

    L. Erhart, Y. Yoshida, V. Khinevich, and W. Mizukami, Coupled cluster method tailored with quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023230 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Scheurer, G.-L

    M. Scheurer, G.-L. R. Anselmetti, O. Oumarou, C. Gogolin, and N. C. Rubin, Tailored and Externally Corrected Coupled Cluster with Quantum Inputs, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 5068 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    R. J. Bartlett and M. Musia l, Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 291 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    R. J. Bartlett, Perspective on coupled-cluster theory. the evolution toward simplicity in quantum chemistry, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.26, 8013 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Riplinger and F

    C. Riplinger and F. Neese, An efficient and near linear scaling pair natural orbital based local coupled cluster method, J. Chem. Phys.138, 034106 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Riplinger, B

    C. Riplinger, B. Sandhoefer, A. Hansen, and F. Neese, Natural triple excitations in local coupled cluster calcu- lations with pair natural orbitals, J. Chem. Phys.139, 134101 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Riplinger, P

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

    2016

  18. [26]

    Saitow, U

    M. Saitow, U. Becker, C. Riplinger, E. F. Valeev, and F. Neese, A new near-linear scaling, efficient and ac- curate, open-shell domain-based local pair natural or- bital coupled cluster singles and doubles theory, J. Chem. Phys.146, 164105 (2017). 8

    2017

  19. [27]

    Y. Guo, C. Riplinger, U. Becker, D. G. Liakos, Y. Mi- nenkov, L. Cavallo, and F. Neese, Communication: An improved linear scaling perturbative triples correction for the domain based local pair-natural orbital based singles and doubles coupled cluster method [DLPNO-CCSD(T)], J...

    2018

  20. [28]

    D. G. Liakos, Y. Guo, and F. Neese, Comprehen- sive Benchmark Results for the Domain Based Local Pair Natural Orbital Coupled Cluster Method (DLPNO- CCSD(T)) for Closed- and Open-Shell Systems, J. Phys. Chem. A124, 90 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Y. Guo, C. Riplinger, D. G. Liakos, U. Becker, M. Saitow, and F. Neese, Linear scaling perturbative triples cor- rection approximations for open-shell domain-based lo- cal pair natural orbital coupled cluster singles and dou- bles theory [DLPNO-CCSD(T/T)], J. Chem. Phys.152, 0...

    2020

  22. [30]

    D. M. Wilkins, A. Grisafi, Y. Yang, K. U. Lao, R. A. DiS- tasio, and M. Ceriotti, Accurate molecular polarizabili- ties with coupled cluster theory and machine learning, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA116, 3401 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    J. S. Smith, B. T. Nebgen, R. Zubatyuk, N. Lubbers, C. Devereux, K. Barros, S. Tretiak, O. Isayev, and A. E. Roitberg, Approaching coupled cluster accuracy with a general-purpose neural network potential through trans- fer learning, Nat. Commun.10, 2903 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kinoshita, O

    T. Kinoshita, O. Hino, and R. J. Bartlett, Coupled- cluster method tailored by configuration interaction, J. Chem. Phys.123, 074106 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    O. Hino, T. Kinoshita, G. K.-L. Chan, and R. J. Bartlett, Tailored coupled cluster singles and doubles method ap- plied to calculations on molecular structure and harmonic vibrational frequencies of ozone, J. Chem. Phys.124, 114311 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    F. M. Faulstich, M. M´ at´ e, A. Laestadius, M. A. Csirik, L. Veis, A. Antalik, J. Brabec, R. Schneider, J. Pittner, S. Kvaal, and ¨O. Legeza, Numerical and Theoretical As- pects of the DMRG-TCC Method Exemplified by the Nitrogen Dimer, J. Chem. Theory Comput.15, 2206 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Viˇ sˇ n´ ak, J

    J. Viˇ sˇ n´ ak, J. Brandejs, M. M´ at´ e, L. Visscher,¨O. Legeza, and J. Pittner, DMRG-Tailored Coupled Cluster Method in the 4c-Relativistic Domain: General Implementation and Application to the NUHFI and NUF3 Molecules, J. Chem. Theory Comput.20, 8862 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Vitale, A

    E. Vitale, A. Alavi, and D. Kats, FCIQMC-Tailored Dis- tinguishable Cluster Approach, J. Chem. Theory Com- put.16, 5621 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Vitale, G

    E. Vitale, G. Li Manni, A. Alavi, and D. Kats, FCIQMC- Tailored Distinguishable Cluster Approach: Open-Shell Systems, J. Chem. Theory Comput.18, 3427 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Nishio, Y

    S. Nishio, Y. Oba, and Y. Kurashige, Statistical errors in reduced density matrices sampled from quantum circuit simulation and the impact on multireference perturba- tion theory, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.25, 30525 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mi- tarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum- Selected Configuration Interaction: classical diagonal- ization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quan- tum computers, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2302.11320 (2023), arXiv:2302.11320...

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Peruzzo, J

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

    2014

  33. [41]

    Robledo-Moreno, M

    J. Robledo-Moreno, M. Motta, H. Haas, A. Javadi- Abhari, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, S. Martiel, K. Sharma, S. Sharma, T. Shirakawa, I. Sitdikov, R.-Y. Sun, K. J. Sung, M. Takita, M. C. Tran, S. Yunoki, and A. Mezzacapo, Chemistry Beyond Exact Solutions on a Quantum-Centric Superco...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hafid, H

    A. Hafid, H. Iwakiri, K. Tsubouchi, N. Yoshioka, and M. Kohda, Hardness of classically sampling quantum chemistry circuits, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2504.12893 (2025), arXiv:2504.12893 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kohda, R

    M. Kohda, R. Imai, K. Kanno, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum expectation-value esti- mation by computational basis sampling, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033173 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nat. Phys.16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, Match- gate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation, Com- mun. Math. Phys.404, 629 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Heyraud, H

    V. Heyraud, H. Chomet, and J. Tilly, Unified framework for matchgate classical shadows, npj Quantum Inf.11, 65 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Nakatsuji, Exponentially generated wave functions, J

    H. Nakatsuji, Exponentially generated wave functions, J. Chem. Phys.83, 5743 (1985)

    1985

  40. [48]

    Nakatsuji, Mixed-exponentially generated wave func- tion method for ground, excited, ionized, and electron attached states of a molecule, J

    H. Nakatsuji, Mixed-exponentially generated wave func- tion method for ground, excited, ionized, and electron attached states of a molecule, J. Chem. Phys.95, 4296 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    T. D. Crawford and H. F. Schaefer III, An introduction to coupled cluster theory for computational chemists, inRe- views in Computational Chemistry(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000) pp. 33–136

    2000

  42. [50]

    D. I. Lyakh, V. F. Lotrich, and R. J. Bartlett, The ‘tai- lored’ CCSD(T) description of the automerization of cy- clobutadiene, Chem. Phys. Lett.501, 166 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

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

    2020

  44. [52]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfut- yarova, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, Pyscf: the python-based simulations of chemistry framework, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Chemqulacs,https://wmizukami.github.io/ chemqulacs(2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space

    W. Kutzelnigg, Quantum chemistry in Fock space. I. The universal wave and energy operators, J. Chem. Phys. 77, 3081 (1982); W. Kutzelnigg and S. Koch, Quan- tum chemistry in Fock space. II. Effective Hamiltonians in Fock space,ibid.79, 4315 (1983); W. Kutzelnigg, 9 Quantum che...

    1982

  47. [55]

    G.-L. R. Anselmetti, D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin, and R. M. Parrish, Local, expressive, quantum-number-preserving vqe ans¨ atze for fermionic systems, New J. Phys.23, 113010 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Twenty Years of Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo in Quantum Chemistry: An Overview and As- sessment on Main Group Chemistry and Bond-Breaking

    J. Lee, H. Q. Pham, and D. R. Reichman, Data repository for “Twenty Years of Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo in Quantum Chemistry: An Overview and As- sessment on Main Group Chemistry and Bond-Breaking” (2022),https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6816236

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Lenihan, O

    C. Lenihan, O. J. Backhouse, T. W. A. Montgomery, P. Lolur, M. J. Bhaseen, and G. H. Booth, Excita- tion Amplitude Sampling for Low Variance Electronic Structure on Quantum Computers, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.15438 (2025), arXiv:2506.15438 [quant-ph]

    2025

  50. [58]

    Sugisaki, S

    K. Sugisaki, S. Kanno, T. Itoko, R. Sakuma, and N. Yamamoto, Hamiltonian simulation-based quantum- selected configuration interaction for large-scale electronic structure calculations with a quantum computer, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.07218 (2024), arXiv:2412.07218 [quant-ph]

    2024

  51. [59]

    Mikkelsen and Y

    M. Mikkelsen and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum-selected configuration interaction with time-evolved state, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.13839 (2024), arXiv:2412.13839 [quant-ph]

    2024

  52. [60]

    J. Yu, J. Robledo Moreno, J. T. Iosue, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, B. Fuller, P. Groszkowski, T. S. Hum- ble, P. Jurcevic, W. Kirby, T. A. Maier, M. Motta, B. Pokharel, A. Seif, A. Shehata, K. J. Sung, M. C. Tran, V. Tripathi, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Sharma, Quantum- Centric Algorit...

    2025

  53. [61]

    Reinholdt, K

    P. Reinholdt, K. M. Ziems, E. Rosendahl Kjellgren, S. Coriani, S. P. A. Sauer, and J. Kongsted, Critical Limitations in Quantum-Selected Configuration Interac- tion Methods, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.07231 (2025), arXiv:2501.07231 [physics.chem-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.