Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Reducing entanglement with a Hamiltonian derived Clifford transformation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The Q-Cliff transformation, a CNOT-only circuit built from a Hamiltonian's leading QCC generators, yields a cheap variational state between MP2 and CISD and roughly halves qubit entanglement for DMRG simulations.

desk verdict Useful incremental work: the CP wavefunction and DMRG entanglement reduction are worth seeing, but the 'generally between MP2 and CISD' claim is not established because the construction can silently drop leading generators. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18404 v1 pith:DPEXYVHP submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph

James Brown , Erika Lloyd , Alexandre Fleury , Tarini S Hardikar , Kenny Heitritter This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V55 PACS 03.67.Ac31.15.-p
keywords QubitCoupledClusterCliffordtransformationentanglementreductiondensitymatrixrenormalizationgroupvariationalquantumeigensolverchemistryPauliHamiltonianCNOTcircuit
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 argues that a deterministic Clifford transformation derived from the Qubit Coupled Cluster algorithm — called Q-Cliff — can serve as a general pre-processing step for molecular ground-state simulation. After applying Q-Cliff, a simple single-layer product state, the CP wavefunction, achieves variational energies that typically sit between MP2 and CISD with only O(N^6) cost. The same transformation remaps the qubit Hamiltonian so that entanglement between qubits is reduced by roughly half, which translates into DMRG accuracy gains of up to an order of magnitude for a given bond dimension. It also produces short, CNOT-efficient ansatz circuits with good starting parameters for VQE, needing fewer energy measurements and two-qubit gates than a state-of-the-art adaptive VQE method on the tested molecules. If correct, Q-Cliff offers a cheap, systematic way to improve both classical and quantum algorithms for chemistry.

What carries the argument

The flip-index matrix is the core object: each row lists the qubits with X or Y operators for one energy-ranked QCC generator. Gaussian elimination on (G|I) over the binary field produces a Clifford tableau with T_xz = T_zx = 0, meaning the transformation is realized by CNOT gates alone. This tableau maps the leading generators to single-qubit Pauli terms, defines a Hamiltonian-derived mapping with reduced qubit entanglement, and supplies a direct recipe for compiling the corresponding CNOT circuit.

What would settle it

Apply Q-Cliff to a strongly correlated molecule in a larger active space (e.g., Cr2 or FeMo-cofactor models) and check whether Gaussian elimination on the flip-index matrix still maps the top-ranked generators to disjoint single-qubit Paulis; if rank deficiency blocks this mapping, the CP wavefunction should stop landing between MP2 and CISD and the DMRG entanglement reduction should disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a deterministic, CNOT-only Clifford transformation can be constructed directly from the Hamiltonian by ordering QCC generators according to their energy-lowering potential, forming their flip-index matrix, and performing Gaussian elimination over the binary field. The resulting Clifford tableau maps the leading generators onto single-qubit Pauli operators, so a single layer of rotation gates captures the dominant correlation energy. The paper shows that this 'CP wavefunction' is variational and generally lands between MP2 and CISD in accuracy, while the transformed Hamiltonian has substantially lower bipartite entanglement — about half the DMRG entanglement entropy

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction assumes that the Hamiltonian's highest-energy-lowering generators can be ordered so that a single CNOT circuit turns them all into single-qubit rotations on separate qubits — something shown by example but not proven for arbitrary molecules.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A classically cheap, variational state preparation method becomes available for molecular ground states, with accuracy between MP2 and CISD and without MP2's non-variational failures at dissociation.
  • DMRG calculations on the Q-Cliff-transformed Hamiltonian reach a target accuracy with much smaller bond dimension; in the N2 example the accuracy at fixed bond dimension improves by up to an order of magnitude.
  • The transformation makes qubit tapering more effective, removing qubits that carry little entanglement after the Clifford step and reducing the effective size of quantum or classical simulations.
  • Deterministically generated low-depth ansatz circuits with reasonable starting parameters can reduce the number of VQE energy evaluations and CNOT gates needed to reach chemical accuracy in weakly to moderately correlated systems.
  • The same Clifford-derived state preparation provides a practical starting point for phase estimation and early fault-tolerant quantum algorithms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because Q-Cliff is a CNOT-only transformation found by polynomial-time linear algebra, it could be applied as a generic preprocessing layer for other tensor-network and selected-CI methods, not only DMRG, whenever the entanglement-reduction benefit generalizes beyond N2.
  • Editorial extension: the observation that entanglement is pushed onto a small number of qubits suggests a concrete hybrid pipeline — solve the strongly entangled core with DMRG or a quantum circuit, then add perturbative corrections on the remaining qubits — which the paper mentions as future work but does not demonstrate.
  • Editorial extension: the dependence on Rotosolve-style energy ordering rather than gradient ordering is a testable design choice; if energy ordering is essential, then Q-Cliff's performance could become a practical diagnostic for choosing QCC generator selection rules.
  • Editorial extension: one could benchmark Q-Cliff against physically inspired fermion-to-qubit mappings on the same molecules; if the entanglement reduction is comparable, Q-Cliff offers an advantage because it does not require a special fermion-to-qubit encoding and can be applied after any standard mapping.
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 introduces and refines Q-Cliff, a deterministic Clifford transformation constructed from the flip-index matrix of energy-ordered Qubit Coupled Cluster (QCC) generators. Gaussian elimination over GF(2) maps a subset of the leading generators to single-qubit Y rotations; the resulting 'CP wavefunction' is a product of Ry rotations on individual qubits. The authors claim this provides a cheap classical variational method with accuracy generally between MP2 and CISD at O(N^6) cost, reduces DMRG entanglement, and yields competitive VQE circuits when used as a starting point for a hardware-efficient ansatz. Numerical results are reported for H4, N2, LiH, BeH2, H6, and benzene, including DMRG for N2 and VQE comparisons against CEO-ADAPT-VQE.

Significance. If substantiated, the Q-Cliff transformation would be a useful, deterministic pre-optimization step for both classical DMRG and variational quantum eigensolvers. The construction is transparent, uses standard stabilizer tableau methods, and is presented as a generally applicable Hamiltonian-driven transformation rather than a system-specific fit. The strongest evidence is the CP energy curves in Fig. 1 and the DMRG entropy reduction in Fig. 3; the VQE comparison in Table 2 is a valuable benchmark but is limited by the H6 failure. The paper would be stronger with a precise statement of when the Gaussian elimination succeeds and with additional systems/geometries to support the generality claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eq. (3)] The central classical claim ('generally has accuracy between MP2 and CISD') depends on mapping the leading QCC generators to single-qubit Ry rotations. This is guaranteed only for flip-index vectors that are linearly independent after Gaussian elimination. The example itself has 8 rows in the flip-index matrix and rank 5 among the selected generators (Eq. 3), so at least one energy-ordering generator is dropped. No argument is given that the dependent generators are energetically negligible, and no test is reported for a system where rank deficiency is significant. As stated, the CP wavefunction has a hard capacity limit of at most N−s independent rotations, which could preclude the advertised accuracy for larger correlated systems. Either prove a structural bound, provide tests on rank-deficient cases, or explicitly soften the claim.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 3] The DMRG entanglement reduction is demonstrated for a single molecule (N2, cc-pVQZ (8,8), at 2 Å). Fig. 3(a) is labeled in the caption as 'as a function of bond distance', but the text and Fig. 3(b) specify a single 2 Å geometry, and no error bars or statistical analysis are given. The claim that the transformation 'reduces entanglement ... by around half' and 'improves DMRG accuracy up to an order of magnitude' is therefore currently supported by one data point. Additional molecules and geometries are needed before accepting the generalization.
  3. [§3 and Table 2] The O(N^6) complexity statement counts only the Hamiltonian terms (O(N^4)) and the Clifford transformation (O(N^2)), but does not include the cost of selecting generators via Rotosolve energy ordering, the Gaussian elimination on the flip-index matrix, or the optimization of the CP angles. In Table 2, H6 is listed as 'N/A' because the Q-Cliff HEA fails to reach chemical accuracy, but no explanation is given for this failure or its implications for the method's generality. Without a quantitative account of the full optimization cost and a discussion of H6, the claims of 'comparable number of energy evaluations' and 'good starting state' are not fully substantiated.
  4. [§4, Eq. (5)] The folding-in procedure in Eq. (5) and the construction of the layered HEA are described qualitatively. No complexity analysis is given for the number of newly generated generators or the criterion for selecting a subset. Since the VQE results in Table 2 depend on this construction, the presentation should either specify a concrete algorithm or state clearly which choices are heuristic. This is necessary for reproducibility of the reported VQE metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The caption of Fig. 3(a) says 'as a function of bond distance', but the text states the calculation is at 2 Å; clarify the x-axis and whether multiple geometries are included.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The fermionic operator is written with '- h.c.' and should be Hermitian; check the sign convention and ensure the expression matches the Pauli terms in Table 1.
  3. [§2] The text says 'there are no generators on qubits 5, 6 or 7' after transformation, but the matrix in Eq. (3) includes columns for all qubits. Clarify how tapering is applied and how the initial state determines the ±1 eigenvalues.
  4. [Table 2] The percentages in parentheses for depth (123%, 112%) are confusing because a larger depth is worse. State explicitly that these are relative to CEO-ADAPT-VQE and whether the reported values are measured or estimated.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The novelty relative to Ref. 6 is not clearly delineated. The abstract implies the method is introduced here, but Ref. 6 already introduced Q-Cliff; the manuscript should explicitly state which results are new (CP wavefunction, DMRG application, layered VQE experiments).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Q-Cliff construction is deterministic and the accuracy/entanglement claims are independent numerical observations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. In §2, the Q-Cliff Clifford is obtained by explicit binary Gaussian elimination on the flip-index matrix of the QCC generators selected by Rotosolve; this is a deterministic construction, and the statement that the chosen generators become single-qubit Y operators is true by construction rather than a predicted outcome. The headline results are computed after the construction: the CP wavefunction energy is the variational minimum over the post-Clifford Ry angles for each molecule (Figs. 1–2), the DMRG entanglement entropies and accuracies are evaluated for the actual N2 ground state in the transformed mapping (Fig. 3), and the VQE metrics are converged SLSQP energies (Table 2). None of these quantities is fitted to an MP2/CISD/DMRG/CEO-ADAPT-VQE target, and none reduces algebraically to an input equation of the method. The paper cites the authors' prior work [6] for the original Q-Cliff algorithm and for the empirical statement that Rotosolve energy-ordering selects better generators than gradient ordering; this is a self-citation, but §2 restates the construction explicitly and the new numerical claims do not depend on the citation as their warrant. The rank-deficiency visible in Eq. 3 (selected generators spanning only five independent rows, yielding three tapering qubits) is a real capacity limitation that could affect generality, but it is a correctness/validity concern, not circularity: an honest variational calculation can still be limited in accuracy. No predicted quantity is equivalent by definition to an input, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on the tableau construction and the generator-selection heuristic. The paper provides no formal proof that the Gaussian-elimination condition yields a valid Clifford for arbitrary Hamiltonians, and the truncation choices (generator count, layer count) are user-set. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Single-qubit Ry rotation angles θ_i (CP wavefunction) = optimized per molecule (values not tabulated)
    The CP wavefunction's accuracy depends on variationally optimizing these angles; they are fit to the energy for each system (§3).
  • HEA layer count = 3 (LiH), 1 (Benzene); chosen ahead of time
    The number of entangling layers is a user-chosen hyperparameter that controls the trade-off between circuit depth and accuracy (§4).
  • QCC generator selection cutoff = e.g., 7 generators in Eq. 2
    The Clifford tableau is built from a truncated set of leading energy-lowering generators; the truncation size is a hand-picked parameter (§2).
  • DMRG bond dimension D = up to 14 in Fig. 3b; increasing in Fig. 3a
    DMRG accuracy and entropy plots depend on bond-dimension choices; the reported 'order of magnitude' improvement is at moderate D.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gaussian elimination over GF(2) and the Clifford tableau formalism (Aaronson-Gottesman) correctly describe CNOT-only circuits.
    The derivation in §2 relies on this framework without proof; it is standard.
  • domain assumption The leading QCC generators can be chosen to be mutually compatible so that the Gaussian elimination yields a valid Clifford that maps them to disjoint single-qubit Paulis.
    The paper does not prove existence or compatibility for arbitrary Hamiltonians; the example in Eq. 2-3 is illustrative.
  • domain assumption The energy ordering of generators computed by Rotosolve at Clifford points ranks generators by their actual energy-lowering potential.
    The selection of generators for the tableau depends on this ordering; no proof of global optimality is given (§2).
  • domain assumption The JW (or other standard) fermion-to-qubit mapping used as input does not fundamentally change the conclusions, despite the authors noting the initial mapping can matter.
    All numerical results use JW; the paper states the generator order can change with the mapping, but no systematic study is provided.
  • domain assumption For the DMRG comparison, the tapered JW mapping with the same number of removed qubits is a fair baseline.
    The entanglement reduction claim is measured against this baseline (§3.1); a different baseline might change the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reducing entanglement with a Hamiltonian derived Clifford transformation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPEXYVHP

@misc{pith2026260718404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reducing entanglement with a Hamiltonian derived Clifford transformation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPEXYVHP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18404}
}
abstract

Recently (Physica Scripta, 100(10):105401, 2025), an algorithm was introduced that deterministically generates a Clifford transformation from the Qubit Coupled Cluster (QCC) algorithm which we call Q-Cliff (QCC+Clifford). There, it was shown that Q-Cliff could be utilized to generate a hardware efficient version of the QCC ansatz. Here, we examine and refine these techniques and show that Q-Cliff can be utilized to generate efficient classical and quantum approximations to the ground states of chemical systems. The algorithm generates an efficient variational method that generally has accuracy between MP2 and CISD with $O(N^6)$. Furthermore, we show through DMRG calculations that the entanglement between qubits is reduced significantly and therefore the accuracy for a given bond dimension can be vastly improved (up to an order of magnitude). Finally, we refine the previously reported algorithm to generate low-depth and CNOT efficient circuits that can be optimized with a comparable number of energy evaluations to state-of-the-art VQE algorithms. All these results show that this Hamiltonian derived Clifford transformation should be a tool used for many classical and quantum algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18404 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The importance of the Q-Cliff transformation for the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The CP wavefunction for a (8,8) active space for N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The increased efficiency of the DMRG calculations for the N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The circuit and potential energy curve for a 3 layer Q-Cliff derived HEA for the LiH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits.Physical Review A, 70(5), November 2004

    Scott Aaronson and Daniel Gottesman. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits.Physical Review A, 70(5), November 2004. ISSN 1094-1622. doi: 10.1103/physreva.70.052328. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052328

    doi:10.1103/physreva.70.052328 2004

  2. [2]

    Abhinav Anand, Philipp Schleich, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Phillip W. K. Jensen, Sukin Sim, Manuel D ´ ıaz-Tinoco, Jakob S. Kottmann, Matthias Degroote, Artur F. Izmaylov, and Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik. A quantum computing view on unitary coupled cluster theory.Chemical Society Reviews, 51(5):1659–1684, 2022. ISSN 1460-4744. doi: 10.1039/d1cs00932j. URL http://dx.doi...

    doi:10.1039/d1cs00932j 2022

  3. [3]

    Gambetta, Antonio Mezzacapo, and Kristan Temme

    Sergey Bravyi, Jay M. Gambetta, Antonio Mezzacapo, and Kristan Temme. Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic hamiltonians, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08213

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Parallelization techniques for quantum simulation of fermionic systems.Quantum, 7:975, April 2023

    Jacob Bringewatt and Zohreh Davoudi. Parallelization techniques for quantum simulation of fermionic systems.Quantum, 7:975, April 2023. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2023-04-13-

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-04-13- 2023

  5. [5]

    Rasmus Bro. Parafac. tutorial and applications.Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 38(2):149–171, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    Iterative qubit coupled cluster using only clifford circuits

    James Brown, Marc P Coons, Erika Lloyd, Alexandre Fleury, Krzysztof Bieniasz, Valentin Senicourt, and Arman Zaribafiyan. Iterative qubit coupled cluster using only clifford circuits. Physica Scripta, 100(10):105401, 2025. 9

    2025

  7. [7]

    Challenges in the use of quantum computing hardware-efficient ans¨ atze in electronic structure theory.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 127(15):3437–3448, 2023

    Ruhee D’Cunha, T Daniel Crawford, Mario Motta, and Julia E Rice. Challenges in the use of quantum computing hardware-efficient ans¨ atze in electronic structure theory.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 127(15):3437–3448, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Optimal fermion- to-qubit mapping via ternary trees with applications to reduced quantum states learning

    Zhang Jiang, Amir Kalev, Wojciech Mruczkiewicz, and Hartmut Neven. Optimal fermion- to-qubit mapping via ternary trees with applications to reduced quantum states learning. Quantum, 4:276, June 2020. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2020-06-04-276. URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-06-04-276

    doi:10.22331/q-2020-06-04-276 2020

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Amara Katabarwa, Katerina Gratsea, Athena Caesura, and Peter D. Johnson. Early fault- tolerant quantum computing.PRX Quantum, 5(2), June 2024. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquantum.5.020101. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020101

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Clifford dressed time-dependent variational principle.Phys

    Antonio Francesco Mello, Alessandro Santini, Guglielmo Lami, Jacopo De Nardis, and Mario Collura. Clifford dressed time-dependent variational principle.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134:150403, Apr 2025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.150403. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett...

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Reduced constant- cost implementations of clifford operations using global interactions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13761, 2025

    Jonathan Nemirovsky, Lee Peleg, Amit Ben Kish, and Yotam Shapira. Reduced constant- cost implementations of clifford operations using global interactions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13761, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  5. [13]

    Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits.Quantum, 5:391, January 2021

    Mateusz Ostaszewski, Edward Grant, and Marcello Benedetti. Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits.Quantum, 5:391, January 2021. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-01-28-391. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-01-28-391

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Kottmann, and Antonio Ac ´ ın

    Teodor Parella-Dilm´ e, Korbinian Kottmann, Leonardo Zambrano, Luke Mortimer, Jakob S. Kottmann, and Antonio Ac ´ ın. Reducing entanglement with physically inspired fermion-to- qubit mappings.PRX Quantum, 5(3), August 2024. ISSN 2691-3399. doi: 10.1103/prxquan- tum.5.030333. U...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a pho- tonic quantum processor.Nature Communications, 5(1), July 2014. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ncomm...

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Augmenting density matrix renormalization group with clifford circuits.Physical Review Letters, 133(19), November 2024

    Xiangjian Qian, Jiale Huang, and Mingpu Qin. Augmenting density matrix renormalization group with clifford circuits.Physical Review Letters, 133(19), November 2024. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.133.190402. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.190402

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Anastasiou, Luis Paulo Santos, Nicholas J

    Mafalda Ramˆ oa, Panagiotis G. Anastasiou, Luis Paulo Santos, Nicholas J. Mayhall, Ed- win Barnes, and Sophia E. Economou. Reducing the resources required by adapt- vqe using coupled exchange operators and improved subroutines.npj Quantum Infor- mation, 11(1), May 2025. ISSN 2...

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    Ryabinkin, Scott N

    Ilya G. Ryabinkin, Scott N. Genin, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Relation between fermionic and qubit mean fields in the electronic structure problem.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 149(21), December 2018. ISSN 1089-7690. doi: 10.1063/1.5055357. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.5055357

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Ryabinkin, Tzu-Ching Yen, Scott N

    Ilya G. Ryabinkin, Tzu-Ching Yen, Scott N. Genin, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Qubit coupled- cluster method: A systematic approach to quantum chemistry on a quantum computer, 2018. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03827

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ryabinkin, Robert A

    Ilya G. Ryabinkin, Robert A. Lang, Scott N. Genin, and Artur F. Izmaylov. Itera- tive qubit coupled cluster approach with efficient screening of generators, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.11192

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Iterative qubit coupled cluster approach with efficient screening of generators.Journal of chemical theory and computation, 16(2):1055–1063, 2020

    Ilya G Ryabinkin, Robert A Lang, Scott N Genin, and Artur F Izmaylov. Iterative qubit coupled cluster approach with efficient screening of generators.Journal of chemical theory and computation, 16(2):1055–1063, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Coons, Krzysztof Bieniasz, Lee Huntington, Alejandro J

    Valentin Senicourt, James Brown, Alexandre Fleury, Ryan Day, Erika Lloyd, Marc P. Coons, Krzysztof Bieniasz, Lee Huntington, Alejandro J. Garza, Shunji Matsuura, Rudi Plesch, Takeshi Yamazaki, and Arman Zaribafiyan. Tangelo: An open-source python package for end-to-end chemist...

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Whitfield

    Kanav Setia, Sergey Bravyi, Antonio Mezzacapo, and James D. Whitfield. Su- perfast encodings for fermionic quantum simulation.Physical Review Research, 1 (3), October 2019. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033033. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033033

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Automated selection of active orbital spaces.Journal of chemical theory and computation, 12(4):1760–1771, 2016

    Christopher J Stein and Markus Reiher. Automated selection of active orbital spaces.Journal of chemical theory and computation, 12(4):1760–1771, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Libor Veis, Andrej Antal ´ ık, Jiˇ r ´ ı Brabec, Frank Neese, ¨Ors Legeza, and Jiˇ r ´ ı Pit- tner. Coupled cluster method with single and double excitations tailored by ma- trix product state wave functions.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 7(20): 4072–4078, October ...

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Weidman, Manas Sajjan, Camille Mikolas, Zachary J

    Jared D. Weidman, Manas Sajjan, Camille Mikolas, Zachary J. Stewart, Johannes Pollanen, Sabre Kais, and Angela K. Wilson. Quantum computing and chemistry.Cell Reports Physical Science, 5(9):102105, 2024. ISSN 2666-3864. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2024.102105. URLhttps...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Optimization of cnot circuits on limited-connectivity architecture

    Bujiao Wu, Xiaoyu He, Shuai Yang, Lifu Shou, Guojing Tian, Jialin Zhang, and Xiaoming Sun. Optimization of cnot circuits on limited-connectivity architecture. Phys. Rev. Res., 5:013065, Jan 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013065. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysR...

    2023 doi

  20. [975]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-04-13-975

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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