Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 86 references

MetaWave: A Platform for Unified Implementation of Nonrelativistic and Relativistic Wavefunctions

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MetaWave claims that once any second-quantized Hamiltonian is decomposed into the same topological diagrams, one set of C++ templates can assemble nonrelativistic and relativistic wavefunctions alike.

desk verdict A solid software architecture paper whose 'same templates' claim is true at the workflow level but not at the Hamiltonian kernel level; worth reviewing, but ask for code or a sharper claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18185 v2 pith:I7UTMDS5 submitted 2025-01-30 physics.chem-ph

Ning Zhang , Qingpeng Wang , Wenjian Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords relativisticquantumchemistryselectedconfigurationinteractionC++templatemetaprogrammingtype-traitandtaggingsystemunitarygroupapproachKramerspairsspin-orbitcouplingsecond-quantizedHamiltonian
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

MetaWave is a C++ template platform whose central claim is that nonrelativistic and relativistic many-electron wavefunction methods do not need separate implementations. The paper argues that every second-quantized Hamiltonian, spin-free or spin-dependent, can be broken into the same topological diagrams, so the coupling coefficients between configuration state functions or determinants can be evaluated by one shared routine. With the Hamiltonian's nature, the wavefunction's structure, and the parallelization strategy decoupled through C++ type traits and tags, the same templates then build wavefunctions regardless of whether the orbitals are real scalar orbitals or complex spinors. If this holds, relativistic extensions of correlation methods can be implemented with far less new code, which matters for high-precision spectroscopy where relativity, correlation, and quantum electrodynamics must be treated together.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the diagrammatic decomposition of second-quantized Hamiltonians: the generic Hamiltonian is split into $H^0_1$, $H^1_1$, $H^0_2$, $H^1_2$, and $H^2_2$ (zero, single, and double excitation levels), and each term is drawn as a one- or two-body diagram of the types s2, cx, and dx, following the unitary group approach. These diagrams are used to evaluate the basic coupling coefficients (BCCs)—the matrix elements of elementary excitation operators between CSFs or determinants—in exactly the same way for spin-free and spin-dependent cases, with reduced occupation tables (ROTs) built from orbital configurations (oCFGs) ensuring reuse of coefficients across configuration pairs. Around this core, the paper places a C++ type-trait and tagging system: tags label Hamiltonian types and permutation symmetries, type traits expose their properties at compile time, and templates propagate the chosen scalar type (real versus complex) and parallel base class, allowing the same wavefunction layer to run with different Hamiltonians, bases, and symmetry groups.

What would settle it

Take a spin-dependent calculation whose spinors violate the Kramers-pairing assumption, for example spinors from a system with an external magnetic field that breaks time-reversal symmetry, and run it through the same MetaWave spin-dependent templates: either the coupling-coefficient evaluation fails or it silently needs a different code path, which would disprove the claimed full unification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is an architecture-level unification: the three aspects that normally force code rewrites in quantum chemistry—the type of Hamiltonian (spin-free versus spin-dependent), the structure of the many-particle basis (CSFs versus determinants, scalar orbitals versus spinors), and the parallelization pattern (OpenMP, MPI)—can be treated as independent template parameters. The load-bearing step is the decomposition of the generic Hamiltonian $H = \sum_{ij} h_{ij} E_{ij} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ijkl} (ij|kl) e_{ij,kl}$ into zero-, single-, and double-excitation components whose terms correspond to diagrams, so that the same diagram types supply the basic coupling coefficients for both spin-free and spin-dependent wavefunctions, with Kramers-paired spinors doubling each vertex's terms in the spin-dependent case. On top of that, the C++ type-trait and tagging system lets the compiler generate the right storage, symmetry handling, and code paths for each combination, and an OpenMP-to-MPI functor translates most shared-memory parallel algorithms into distributed-memory ones. The result is demonstrated with three variants of the same selected-configuration-interaction method—sf-X2C-iCIPT2, SOiCI, and 4C-iCIPT2—which share the infrastructure and differ only in the Hamiltonian, basis, and integral symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The unification depends on molecular spinors being symmetrizable into Kramers pairs consistent with double point group and time reversal symmetry; if a spinor basis cannot be organized into such pairs, the unified spin-dependent diagrams and the shared templates would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new spin-dependent or nonrelativistic Hamiltonian can be added by supplying its integrals and tags, while the wavefunction assembly, selection, and perturbation code remains shared.
  • MPI versions of newly implemented methods are obtained largely by inheriting the OpenMP algorithm template, since the scheduler dispatches chunks to idle worker nodes and only data merging is specialized.
  • The same diagrammatic Hamiltonian also connects Slater-Condon rules, the unitary group approach, and matrix-product operator evaluations, so DMRG and selected CI can share the coupling-coefficient machinery.
  • The type-trait system prunes irrelevant code paths at compile time, so generic code does not pay the cost of, for instance, double excitations in a Hubbard model that does not have them.
  • Benchmarks on the bromine atom show the spin-orbit variant costs about 1.5 to 2 times the spin-free one, and the four-component variant 10 to 15 times more, with PT2 wall times scaling linearly with the variational space size.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the BCC layer is genuinely Hamiltonian-independent, the same templates should extend to the QED, multicomponent, electron-phonon, and matter-light Hamiltonians the paper mentions as future directions; that extension would be a strong test of the architecture rather than an already-demonstrated result.
  • The claimed unification predicts that implementing a brand-new wavefunction ansatz, such as a relativistic DMRG with spin-adapted matrix product states, should require only the ansatz's own logic and reuse all Hamiltonian, integral, and BCC layers; the number of new lines needed would be a concrete metric.
  • A practical side effect not quantified in the paper is maintainability: if the shared-template claim holds, fixes to the coupling-coefficient or parallelization layers propagate automatically to every method built on MetaWave, reducing divergence between nonrelativistic and relativistic code paths.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MetaWave, a C++ template-based software platform for unified implementation of nonrelativistic (spin-free) and relativistic (spin-dependent) wavefunction methods. It decouples three aspects—Hamiltonian nature, wavefunction structure, and parallelization—through type-trait and tag systems. The theoretical core reviews a unified second-quantized Hamiltonian decomposition, a common diagrammatic evaluation of basic coupling coefficients for spin-free and spin-dependent CSFs/DETs, and the iCIPT2 selection plus constraint-based ENPT2 workflow. The software architecture is described in three layers (infrastructure, Hamiltonian, wavefunction) with code listings for linear algebra interfaces, OpenMP/MPI parallel templates, configuration spaces, integral storage, and HME-evaluation helpers. A showcase on the Br atom compares sf-X2C-iCIPT2, SOiCI, and 4C-iCIPT2 spin-orbit splittings against experimental NIST values and reports PT2 wall times and MPI scaling.

Significance. If the central claim holds, MetaWave would provide a genuinely useful modular framework that reduces code duplication when extending correlated wavefunction methods from nonrelativistic to relativistic Hamiltonians. The paper's conceptual decomposition (Sec. 2) is coherent and builds on a substantial body of prior work, and the spin-orbit splittings in Table 2 are anchored to experiment, giving an external validity check. The concrete MPI scaling result (94% efficiency for 16 nodes in Sec. 3.1.2) and the linear PT2 fits in Table 4 are reproducible quantitative claims. The listed infrastructure-layer abstractions (BLAS wrapper, OpenMP algorithm base, MPI scheduler) are plausible and supported by code excerpts. However, the strongest advertised benefit—that the same C++ templates assemble both nonrelativistic and relativistic wavefunctions down to the Hamiltonian matrix-element kernel—is not substantiated in the manuscript, which is a significant gap for a platform paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.4, Listing 14] The abstract and Sec. 2.1 promise "unified evaluation of the basic coupling coefficients" and "assembled with the same templates" for nonrelativistic and relativistic wavefunctions. At the Hamiltonian-layer core, however, Listing 14 shows two overloads of _generate_table_sngl and _fetch_ints_sngl distinguished by the tag types tag::Hamiltonian::ElectronNonRela and tag::Hamiltonian::ElectronRela. That is tag dispatch, i.e., compile-time selection between two distinct function bodies, not one template body instantiated for both Hamiltonians. The same section explicitly states "Due to the complexity ... we do not delve into details here," so the reader cannot verify the unified-templates claim at the HME level. This is load-bearing: the central selling point of the paper is either narrower than stated (shared wavefunction-layer workflow, per-Hamiltonian HME kernels) or is unverified by the provided evidence. The authors should either qualify the abstract and Sec. 2.1 to say that the shared templates operate at the selection/PT2/diagonalization level while HME kernels are specialized per Hamiltonian, or provide a concrete single template body that demonstrably generates both spin-free and spin-dependent BCCs/HMEs.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.1, Listing 8] The TUGA table maker is presented as a unified BCC-evaluation template, but the listing is only a skeleton. It instantiates _propagate_segment2 and _propagate_segment1 with template parameter TableTy and an integer region index, yet no instantiation of TableTy is shown for either the spin-free CSF case or the spin-dependent spinor/Kramers-pair case. The type traits that supposedly specialize the segment values are not listed. Consequently, the paper does not establish that the BCC evaluation is implemented by a single code body rather than by separate specializations behind a common interface. A concrete example, even for a single segment type, would let the reader judge whether the unification is real at the kernel level.
  3. [Sec. 4, Table 3] The PT2 wall-time comparison between sf-X2C-iCIPT2, SOiCI, and 4C-iCIPT2 mixes two variables: the Hamiltonian/wavefunction type and the size of the orbital/spinor space (e.g., (17e,68o) vs (17e,136o) for the DZ basis). The paper correctly notes relative costs in brackets, but the headline statement "the PT2 step of 4C-iCIPT2 is typically 10-15 times that of SOiCI" is driven largely by the doubled spatial-orbital count in the 4C case, not by a direct architectural inefficiency. Please separate the intrinsic cost of the relativistic Hamiltonian (more integrals, complex scalars, larger spaces) from any platform-induced overhead; as written, the showcase does not cleanly demonstrate the efficiency of MetaWave's unified implementation.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Listing 14] The second overload of _fetch_ints_sngl declares the template parameter as TableInfoTransferTy but uses TableTy in the function parameter list; this appears to be a typographical error and should read TableTy consistently.
  2. [Sec. 2.4] Several typos: "involes" should be "involves", and "varitional space" should be "variational space" (the latter also appears near the discussion of pruning).
  3. [Sec. 3.1.2] Phrase "enhancing code cleaning" should likely be "enhancing code clarity" or "enhancing code cleanliness", and "devided" should be "divided" in the discussion of the MPI scheduler.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.1] The word "metafuncions" is a typo for "metafunctions", and the term "external terms" (has_oneext_term, has_twoext_term) is not defined in the text; please explain what one-external and two-external terms mean in the Hamiltonian decomposition.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 3.4] The abstract claims "full molecular symmetry (including single or double point group)", but the implemented symmetry support listed in Sec. 3.4 is "Binary point group symmetry" and "Binary double point group symmetry", and Sec. 3.2 explicitly says "(abelian) spatial symmetry". Please qualify the claim to abelian/binary point groups, or explain how non-abelian single/double point groups are handled.
  6. [Sec. 3.2.3] The statement that point group symmetries are not used for storage reduction, because all integrals fit in memory for fewer than 1000 correlated orbitals, is a practical decision; it should be flagged as a scalability limitation for larger active spaces where integral storage may become memory-bound.
  7. [Sec. 3.1.2 and Sec. 4] The paper does not provide a public repository or code availability statement for MetaWave. Given that the paper's claims are about software architecture, an explicit code-availability link or a clear statement of why the code is not yet released would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: MetaWave's unification claim is conditional, externally benchmarked for spin-orbit splittings, and self-citations are prior work rather than folded inputs.

full rationale

MetaWave is a platform-architecture paper rather than a derivation of a numeric prediction from fitted inputs, and I find no circular step. The core assertion that nonrelativistic and relativistic Hamiltonians can be handled by the same wavefunction templates is explicitly conditional: Sec. 2.1 states "the molecular spinors are assumed here to be symmetrized according to both double point group and time reversal symmetries," so the unification has a stated scope. The Hamiltonian split in Eqs. (4)-(9) is an algebraic reorganization of Eq. (1) using only permutation symmetry; it is cited to the authors' prior work (Refs. 16 and 7) but is not defined in terms of the energies later computed. The showcase spin-orbit splittings in Table 2 are compared with the external NIST value of 3685 cm^-1, providing an anchor outside the paper's own fitted values. The paper does rely on many self-citations (Refs. 6, 7, 16, 17, and 36) for the diagrammatic BCC evaluation and the iCIPT2 algorithm; however, those are previously published implementations and derivations, and the present text does not reduce its conclusion to those citations alone. The most relevant evidence gap is in Sec. 3.2.4: "Due to the complexity and intricacy of the algorithms involved in these steps, we do not delve into details here," and Listing 14 shows tag-dispatch overloads (_generate_table_sngl and _fetch_ints_sngl for ElectronNonRela versus ElectronRela) rather than a demonstrably single template body. That makes the "same templates" claim ambiguous, but ambiguity about code reuse is a verifiability concern, not an equation-level circularity. No parameter is fitted to the claimed output, no result is defined into existence, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' own work is invoked to force the architecture. Hence the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the imported equivalence between spin-free and spin-dependent Hamiltonian diagrams (prior work) and on two explicit domain assumptions: Kramers-pair symmetrization of spinors and subtask independence for MPI translation. The only hand-chosen numerical parameters affect the showcased benchmarks rather than the architecture itself. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • tau_p (convergence threshold) = 0.95 (universal)
    Hand-chosen parameter in Eq. (22) for the space-similarity convergence criterion; affects termination of the selection loop but not the central architectural claim.
  • Cmin (selection threshold) = 5e-5 to 5e-6 (varied per run)
    Hand-chosen thresholds used in the showcase iCIPT2 calculations to control the variational space size; reported as a range in Tables 2 and 3, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All second-quantized Hamiltonians (nonrelativistic, relativistic, QED) have the same generic form H = sum hij Eij + 1/2 sum (ij|kl) eij,kl (Eq. 1).
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 as the foundation of the unified treatment, with prior work (Refs 2-6) cited rather than proven.
  • domain assumption Molecular spinors can be symmetrized into Kramers pairs according to double point group and time reversal symmetry.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1; this grouping underpins the unified spin-dependent BCC evaluation and the shared templates.
  • domain assumption The diagrammatic decomposition of the Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) allows unified evaluation of coupling coefficients between spin-free or spin-dependent CSFs/DETs.
    Relies on Refs 7 and 58; the paper does not re-derive this equivalence, it imports it.
  • domain assumption sCI subtasks are independent and require no communication (aside from dynamic scheduling) during execution.
    Sec. 3.3 uses this to justify the automatic OpenMP-to-MPI functor; if subtasks were coupled, the translation scheme would need substantial modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MetaWave: A Platform for Unified Implementation of Nonrelativistic and Relativistic Wavefunctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7UTMDS5

@misc{pith2026250118185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MetaWave: A Platform for Unified Implementation of Nonrelativistic and Relativistic Wavefunctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7UTMDS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18185}
}
read the original abstract

\texttt{MetaWave} is a C++ template-based architecture designed for unified implementation of nonrelativistic and relativistic wavefunction-based quantum chemical methods. It is highly modular, extendable, and efficient. This is achieved by decoupling the three distinct aspects of quantum chemical methods (i.e., nature of Hamiltonian, structure of wavefunction, and strategy of parallelization ), thereby allowing for separate treatment of them through their internal type-trait and tagging systems furnished by C++ metaprogramming. Once the second-quantized Hamiltonians, whether nonrelativistic (spin-free) or relativistic (spin-dependent), are decomposed into topologically equivalent diagrams for a unified evaluation of the basic coupling coefficients between (randomly selected) spin-free or spin-dependent configuration state functions or Slater determinants incorporating full molecular symmetry (including single or double point group and spin or time reversal symmetry), the many-electron wavefunctions, whether built up with scalar or spinor orbitals, can be assembled with the same templates. As for parallelization, \texttt{MetaWave} supports both OpenMP and MPI, with the majority of the latter being translated automatically from its OpenMP counterparts.The whole structure of \texttt{MetaWave} is reviewed here, with some showcases for illustrating its performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of sCIPT2 2.1 Unified Handling of Hamiltonians All Hamiltonians in ab initio quantum chemistry, whether spin-free or spin-dependent, take the following generic, second-quantized form H = ∑ i,j hijEij + 1 2 ∑ i,j,k,l (ij|kl)eij,kl = H † (1) Eij = a † i aj = E † ji (2) eij,kl = a † i a † k alaj = ekl,ij = e † ji,lk = e † lk,ji (3) Here, {i, j, k, l} refer to molecular orbitals/spinors obtained by a mean-field… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of H0 1 (a) and H0 2 (b-d). The naming of the dia￾grams follows Ref. 58 i j j i i i j j i i i j j j i j (a) s1 (b) s2 (c) s3 (d) s4 (e) s5 (f) s6 k j i k k j i k i k k j i k k j i k k j i k k j (g) s7 (h) s8 (i) s9 (j) s10 (k) s11 (l) s12 k k i j k k i j k k i j k k i j k k i j k k i j (m) b6 (n) c6 (o) b4 (p) c4 (q) a2 (r) d2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of H1 1 (a-b) and H1 2 (c-r). The naming of the dia￾grams follows Ref. 58 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagrammatic representation of H2 2 . The naming of the diagrams follows Ref. 58 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graphical representations of (a) product of segment values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Screening of doubly excited configurations based on upper bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Workflow of pipelined, residue-based constraint-based ENPT2 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Wall times of the PT2 step of sf-X2C-CAS(28e,126o)-iCIPT2/cc-pVTZ-DK cal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Three-layer architecture of MetaWave. The infrastructure layer abstracts linear algebra operations and parallelization, enabling the Hamiltonian and wavefunction lay￾ers to treat scalar types and parallel strategies as template parameters. The Hamiltonian layer encapsu…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Wall times (left) and speedups (right) for the PT2 step [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: sf-X2C-CAS(28e,76o)-SiCI/cc-pVDZ-DK results for Cr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Perspective: Simultaneous treatment of relativity, correlation, and QED

    Liu, W. Perspective: Simultaneous treatment of relativity, correlation, and QED. WIRES Comput. Mol. Sci. 2023, 13, e1652

    2023

  2. [2]

    Going beyond ``no-pair relativistic quantum chemistry''

    Liu, W.; Lindgren, I. Going beyond ``no-pair relativistic quantum chemistry''. J. Chem. Phys. 2013, 139, 014108

    2013

  3. [3]

    Advances in relativistic molecular quantum mechanics

    Liu, W. Advances in relativistic molecular quantum mechanics. Phys. Rep. 2014, 537, 59--89

    2014

  4. [4]

    Essentials of relativistic quantum chemistry

    Liu, W. Essentials of relativistic quantum chemistry. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 180901

    2020

  5. [5]

    Comment on ``Theoretical examination of QED Hamiltonian in relativistic molecular orbital theory'' [J

    Liu, W. Comment on ``Theoretical examination of QED Hamiltonian in relativistic molecular orbital theory'' [J. Chem. Phys. 159, 054105 (2023)]. J. Chem. Phys. 2024, 160, 187101

    2023

  6. [6]

    Unified construction of relativistic Hamiltonians

    Liu, W. Unified construction of relativistic Hamiltonians. J. Chem. Phys. 2024, 160, 084111

    2024

  7. [7]

    Unified Implementation of Relativistic Wave Function Methods: 4C-iCIPT2 as a Showcase

    Zhang, N.; Liu, W. Unified Implementation of Relativistic Wave Function Methods: 4C-iCIPT2 as a Showcase. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 9003--9017

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states

    Schollw \"o ck, U. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states. Ann. Phys. 2011, 326, 96--192

    work page 2011

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    K.-L.; Sharma, S

    Chan, G. K.-L.; Sharma, S. The density matrix renormalization group in quantum chemistry. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2011, 62, 465--481

    2011

  2. [10]

    Chan, G. K.-L. Low entanglement wavefunctions. WIREs: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2012, 2, 907--920

    2012

  3. [11]

    Olivares-Amaya, R.; Hu, W.; Nakatani, N.; Sharma, S.; Yang, J.; Chan, G. K.-L. The ab-initio density matrix renormalization group in practice. J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 142, 034102

    2015

  4. [12]

    Wouters, S.; Neck, D. V. The density matrix renormalization group for ab initio quantum chemistry. Eur. Phys. J. D 2014, 68, 272

    2014

  5. [13]

    Tensor product methods and entanglement optimization for ab initio quantum chemistry

    Szalay, S.; Pfeffer, M.; Murg, V.; Barcza, G.; Verstraete, F.; Schneider, R.; Legeza, \"O . Tensor product methods and entanglement optimization for ab initio quantum chemistry. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2015, 115, 1342--1391

    2015

  6. [14]

    The density matrix renormalization group in chemistry and molecular physics: Recent developments and new challenges

    Baiardi, A.; Reiher, M. The density matrix renormalization group in chemistry and molecular physics: Recent developments and new challenges. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 040903

    2020

  7. [15]

    Liu, W.; Hoffmann, M. R. iCI: Iterative CI toward full CI. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 1169--1178, (E) 2016, 12, 3000

    2016

  8. [16]

    Zhang, N.; Liu, W.; Hoffmann, M. R. Iterative Configuration Interaction with Selection. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 2296--2316

    2020

  9. [17]

    Zhang, N.; Liu, W.; Hoffmann, M. R. Further Development of iCIPT2 for Strongly Correlated Electrons. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 949--964

    2021

  10. [18]

    iCISCF: An Iterative Configuration Interaction-Based Multiconfigurational Self-Consistent Field Theory for Large Active Spaces

    Guo, Y.; Zhang, N.; Lei, Y.; Liu, W. iCISCF: An Iterative Configuration Interaction-Based Multiconfigurational Self-Consistent Field Theory for Large Active Spaces. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 7545--7561

    2021

  11. [19]

    A.; Tubman, N

    Holmes, A. A.; Tubman, N. M.; Umrigar, C. J. Heat-bath configuration interaction: an efficient selected configuration interaction algorithm inspired by heat-bath sampling. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 3674--3680

    2016

  12. [20]

    Hybrid stochastic-deterministic calculation of the second-order perturbative contribution of multireference perturbation theory

    Garniron, Y.; Scemama, A.; Loos, P.-F.; Caffarel, M. Hybrid stochastic-deterministic calculation of the second-order perturbative contribution of multireference perturbation theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 147, 034101

    2017

  13. [21]

    A.; Umrigar, C

    Holmes, A. A.; Umrigar, C. J.; Sharma, S. Excited states using semistochastic heat-bath configuration interaction. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 147, 164111

    2017

  14. [22]

    A.; Jeanmairet, G.; Alavi, A.; Umrigar, C

    Sharma, S.; Holmes, A. A.; Jeanmairet, G.; Alavi, A.; Umrigar, C. J. Semistochastic Heat-Bath Configuration Interaction Method: Selected Configuration Interaction with Semistochastic Perturbation Theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 1595--1604

    2017

  15. [23]

    A.; Sharma, S.; Umrigar, C

    Li, J.; Otten, M.; Holmes, A. A.; Sharma, S.; Umrigar, C. J. Fast semistochastic heat-bath configuration interaction. J. Chem. Phys. 2018, 149, 214110

    2018

  16. [24]

    Smith, J. E. T.; Mussard, B.; Holmes, A. A.; Sharma, S. Cheap and near exact CASSCF with large active spaces. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 5468--5478

    2017

  17. [25]

    Yao, Y.; Umrigar, C. J. Orbital Optimization in Selected Configuration Interaction Methods. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 4183--4194

    2021

  18. [26]

    Zhang, T.; Evangelista, F. A. A deterministic projector configuration interaction approach for the ground state of quantum many-body systems. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12, 4326--4337

    2016

  19. [27]

    B.; Evangelista, F

    Schriber, J. B.; Evangelista, F. A. Communication: An adaptive configuration interaction approach for strongly correlated electrons with tunable accuracy. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 161106

    2016

  20. [28]

    B.; Evangelista, F

    Schriber, J. B.; Evangelista, F. A. Adaptive configuration interaction for computing challenging electronic excited states with tunable accuracy. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 5354--5366

    2017

  21. [29]

    B.; Hannon, K

    Schriber, J. B.; Hannon, K. P.; Li, C.; Evangelista, F. A. A Combined Selected Configuration Interaction and Many-Body Treatment of Static and Dynamical Correlation in Oligoacenes. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 6295--6305

    2018

  22. [30]

    M.; Lee, J.; Takeshita, T

    Tubman, N. M.; Lee, J.; Takeshita, T. Y.; Head-Gordon, M.; Whaley, K. B. A deterministic alternative to the full configuration interaction quantum Monte Carlo method. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145, 044112

    2016

  23. [31]

    M.; Whaley, K

    Lehtola, S.; Tubman, N. M.; Whaley, K. B.; Head-Gordon, M. Cluster decomposition of full configuration interaction wave functions: A tool for chemical interpretation of systems with strong correlation. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 147, 154105

    2017

  24. [32]

    M.; Levine, D

    Tubman, N. M.; Levine, D. S.; Hait, D.; Head-Gordon, M.; Whaley, K. B. An efficient deterministic perturbation theory for selected configuration interaction methods. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.02049

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S.; Hait, D.; Tubman, N

    Levine, D. S.; Hait, D.; Tubman, N. M.; Lehtola, S.; Whaley, K. B.; Head-Gordon, M. CASSCF with Extremely Large Active Spaces Using the Adaptive Sampling Configuration Interaction Method. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 2340--2354

    2020

  26. [34]

    G.; Neese, F

    Chilkuri, V. G.; Neese, F. Comparison of many-particle representations for selected-CI I: A tree based approach. J. Comput. Chem. 2021, 42, 982--1005

    2021

  27. [35]

    G.; Neese, F

    Chilkuri, V. G.; Neese, F. Comparison of Many-Particle Representations for Selected Configuration Interaction: II. Numerical Benchmark Calculations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 2868--2885

    2021

  28. [36]

    SOiCI and iCISO : combining iterative configuration interaction with spin orbit coupling in two ways

    Zhang, N.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, W. SOiCI and iCISO : combining iterative configuration interaction with spin orbit coupling in two ways. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2022, 34, 224007

    2022

  29. [37]

    SOiCISCF: Combining SOiCI and iCISCF for Variational Treatment of Spin–Orbit Coupling

    Guo, Y.; Zhang, N.; Liu, W. SOiCISCF: Combining SOiCI and iCISCF for Variational Treatment of Spin–Orbit Coupling. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2023, 19, 6668--6685

    2023

  30. [38]

    One-Step Treatment of Spin--Orbit Coupling and Electron Correlation in Large Active Spaces

    Mussard, B.; Sharma, S. One-Step Treatment of Spin--Orbit Coupling and Electron Correlation in Large Active Spaces. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 14, 154--165

    2017

  31. [39]

    Relativistic Semistochastic Heat-Bath Configuration Interaction

    Wang, X.; Sharma, S. Relativistic Semistochastic Heat-Bath Configuration Interaction. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2023, 19, 848--855

    2023

  32. [40]

    Sharma, S.; Chan, G. K.-L. Spin-adapted density matrix renormalization group algorithms for quantum chemistry. J. Chem. Phys. 2012, 136, 124121

    2012

  33. [41]

    Spin-adapted matrix product states and operators

    Keller, S.; Reiher, M. Spin-adapted matrix product states and operators. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 144, 134101

    2016

  34. [42]

    Efficient relativistic density-matrix renormalization group implementation in a matrix-product formulation

    Battaglia, S.; Keller, S.; Knecht, S. Efficient relativistic density-matrix renormalization group implementation in a matrix-product formulation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 2353--2369

    2018

  35. [43]

    S.; Ganahl, M.; Legeza, O

    Menczer, A.; van Damme, M.; Rask, A.; Huntington, L.; Hammond, J.; Xantheas, S. S.; Ganahl, M.; Legeza, O. Parallel implementation of the Density Matrix Renormalization Group method achieving a quarter petaFLOPS performance on a single DGX-H100 GPU node. J. Chem. Theory Comput...

    2024

  36. [44]

    H.; Tecmer, P.; Ga y \'n ska, M.; Leszczyk, A.; Boguslawski, K

    Kriebel, M. H.; Tecmer, P.; Ga y \'n ska, M.; Leszczyk, A.; Boguslawski, K. Accelerating Pythonic Coupled-Cluster Implementations: A Comparison Between CPUs and GPUs. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 1130--1142

    2024

  37. [45]

    D.; Kim, T

    Chan, M.; Verstraelen, T.; Tehrani, A.; Richer, M.; Yang, X. D.; Kim, T. D.; Vöhringer-Martinez, E.; Heidar-Zadeh, F.; Ayers, P. W. The tale of HORTON: Lessons learned in a decade of scientific software development. J. Chem. Phys. 2024, 160, 162501

    2024

  38. [46]

    D.; Richer, M.; S \'a nchez-D \' az, G.; Miranda-Quintana, R

    Kim, T. D.; Richer, M.; S \'a nchez-D \' az, G.; Miranda-Quintana, R. A.; Verstraelen, T.; Heidar-Zadeh, F.; Ayers, P. W. Fanpy: A python library for prototyping multideterminant methods in ab initio quantum chemistry. J. Comput. Chem. 2023, 44, 697--709

    2023

  39. [47]

    D.; Miranda-Quintana, R

    Kim, T. D.; Miranda-Quintana, R. A.; Richer, M.; Ayers, P. W. Flexible ansatz for N-body configuration interaction. Comput. Theor. Chem. 2021, 1202, 113187

    2021

  40. [48]

    A.; Kim, T

    Miranda-Quintana, R. A.; Kim, T. D.; Lokhande, R. A.; Richer, M.; Sánchez-Díaz, G.; Gaikwad, P. B.; Ayers, P. W. Flexible Ansatz for N-Body Perturbation Theory. J. Phys. Chem. A 2024, 128, 3458--3467

    2024

  41. [49]

    Epstein, P. S. The stark effect from the point of view of Schroedinger's quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 1926, 28, 695

    1926

  42. [50]

    Nesbet, R. K. Configuration interaction in orbital theories. Proc. Roy. Soc. London. Ser. A 1955, 230, 312--321

    1955

  43. [51]

    A.; Li, C.; Verma, P.; Hannon, K

    Evangelista, F. A.; Li, C.; Verma, P.; Hannon, K. P.; Schriber, J. B.; Zhang, T.; Cai, C.; Wang, S.; He, N.; Stair, N. H.; et al. Forte: A Suite of Advanced Multireference Quantum Chemistry Methods. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10197

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    T.; Wormit, M.; Kussmann, J.; Lange, A

    Shao, Y.; Gan, Z.; Epifanovsky, E.; Gilbert, A. T.; Wormit, M.; Kussmann, J.; Lange, A. W.; Behn, A.; Deng, J.; Feng, X.; et al. Advances in molecular quantum chemistry contained in the Q-Chem 4 program package. Mol. Phys. 2015, 113, 184--215

    2015

  45. [53]

    Software update: The ORCA program system—Version 5.0

    Neese, F. Software update: The ORCA program system—Version 5.0. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2022, 12, e1606

    2022

  46. [54]

    Quantum Package 2.0: An Open-Source Determinant-Driven Suite of Programs

    Garniron, Y.; Applencourt, T.; Gasperich, K.; Benali, A.; Ferté, A.; Paquier, J.; Pradines, B.; Assaraf, R.; Reinhardt, P.; Toulouse, J.; et al. Quantum Package 2.0: An Open-Source Determinant-Driven Suite of Programs. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2019, 15, 3591--3609

    2019

  47. [55]

    Sharma, S. Dice. https://github.com/sanshar/Dice, last accessed on 03/19/25

  48. [56]

    BDF: A relativistic electronic structure program package

    Zhang, Y.; Suo, B.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, N.; Li, Z.; Lei, Y.; Zou, W.; Gao, J.; Peng, D.; Pu, Z.; et al. BDF: A relativistic electronic structure program package. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 064113

    2020

  49. [57]

    On the construction of Kramers paired double group symmetry functions

    Peng, D.; Ma, J.; Liu, W. On the construction of Kramers paired double group symmetry functions. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2009, 109, 2149--2167

    2009

  50. [58]

    Paldus, J.; Boyle, M. J. Unitary group approach to the many-electron correlation problem via graphical methods of spin algebras. Phys. Script. 1980, 21, 295--311

    1980

  51. [59]

    Graph theoretical concepts for the unitary group approach to the many-electron correlation problem

    Shavitt, I. Graph theoretical concepts for the unitary group approach to the many-electron correlation problem. Int. J. Quantum Chem. (Symp.) 1977, 11, 131--149

    1977

  52. [60]

    K.-L.; Keselman, A.; Nakatani, N.; Li, Z.; White, S

    Chan, G. K.-L.; Keselman, A.; Nakatani, N.; Li, Z.; White, S. R. Matrix product operators, matrix product states, and ab initio density matrix renormalization group algorithms. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145, 014102

    2016

  53. [61]

    Brorsen, K. R. Quantifying Multireference Character in Multicomponent Systems with Heat-Bath Configuration Interaction. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2020, 16, 2379--2388

    2020

  54. [62]

    Alaal, N.; Brorsen, K. R. Multicomponent heat-bath configuration interaction with the perturbative correction for the calculation of protonic excited states . J. Chem. Phys. 2021, 155, 234107

    2021

  55. [63]

    S.; Ronca, E.; Kj nstad, E

    Haugland, T. S.; Ronca, E.; Kj nstad, E. F.; Rubio, A.; Koch, H. Coupled Cluster Theory for Molecular Polaritons: Changing Ground and Excited States. Phys. Rev. X 2020, 10, 041043

    2020

  56. [64]

    J.; Veis, L

    Matou s ek, M.; Vu, N.; Govind, N.; Foley IV, J. J.; Veis, L. Polaritonic chemistry using the density matrix renormalization group method. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 9424--9434

    2024

  57. [65]

    R.; Barlini, A.; Ronca, E.; Koch, H

    Castagnola, M.; Riso, R. R.; Barlini, A.; Ronca, E.; Koch, H. Polaritonic response theory for exact and approximate wave functions. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2024, 14, e1684

    2024

  58. [66]

    J.; Peyerimhoff, S

    Buenker, R. J.; Peyerimhoff, S. D. Individualized configuration selection in CI calculations with subsequent energy extrapolation. Theor. Chem. Acta 1974, 35, 33--58

    1974

  59. [67]

    P.; Rancurel, P

    Huron, B.; Malrieu, J. P.; Rancurel, P. Iterative perturbation calculations of ground and excited state energies from multiconfigurational zeroth-order wave functions. J. Chem. Phys. 1973, 58, 5745--5759

    1973

  60. [68]

    Using perturbatively selected configuration interaction in quantum Monte Carlo calculations

    Giner, E.; Scemama, A.; Caffarel, M. Using perturbatively selected configuration interaction in quantum Monte Carlo calculations. Can. J. Chem. 2013, 91, 879--885

    2013

  61. [69]

    Multireference perturbation CI I

    Angeli, C.; Cimiraglia, R.; Persico, M.; Toniolo, A. Multireference perturbation CI I. Extrapolation procedures with CAS or selected zero-order spaces. Theor. Chem. Acc. 1997, 98, 57--63

    1997

  62. [70]

    Huang, C.; Liu, W.; Xiao, Y.; Hoffmann, M. R. iVI: An iterative vector interaction method for large eigenvalue problems. J. Comput. Chem. 2017, 38, 2481--2499, (E) 2018, 39, 338

    2017

  63. [71]

    iVI-TD-DFT: An iterative vector interaction method for exterior/interior roots of TD-DFT

    Huang, C.; Liu, W. iVI-TD-DFT: An iterative vector interaction method for exterior/interior roots of TD-DFT. J. Comput. Chem. 2019, 40, 1023--1037, (E) 2018, 39, 338

    2019

  64. [72]

    https://github.com/USCiLab/cereal, last accessed on 03/19/25

    USCiLab cereal. https://github.com/USCiLab/cereal, last accessed on 03/19/25

  65. [73]

    On the spin separation of algebraic two-component relativistic Hamiltonians

    Li, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, W. On the spin separation of algebraic two-component relativistic Hamiltonians. J. Chem. Phys. 2012, 137, 154114

    2012

  66. [74]

    On the spin separation of algebraic two-component relativistic Hamiltonians: Molecular properties

    Li, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, W. On the spin separation of algebraic two-component relativistic Hamiltonians: Molecular properties. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 141, 054111

    2014

  67. [75]

    Quasirelativistic theory equivalent to fully relativistic theory

    Kutzelnigg, W.; Liu, W. Quasirelativistic theory equivalent to fully relativistic theory. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 123, 241102

    2005

  68. [76]

    Exact two-component Hamiltonians revisited

    Liu, W.; Peng, D. Exact two-component Hamiltonians revisited. J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 131, 031104

    2009

  69. [77]

    B.; Peterson, K

    Balabanov, N. B.; Peterson, K. A. Systematically convergent basis sets for transition metals. I. All-electron correlation consistent basis sets for the 3d elements Sc–Zn. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 123, 064107

    2005

  70. [78]

    S.; Kędziera, D.; Tecmer, P

    Boguslawski, K.; Leszczyk, A.; Nowak, A.; Brzęk, F.; Żuchowski, P. S.; Kędziera, D.; Tecmer, P. Pythonic Black-box Electronic Structure Tool (PyBEST). An open-source Python platform for electronic structure calculations at the interface between chemistry and physics. Comput. P...

    2021

  71. [79]

    PyBEST: Improved functionality and enhanced performance

    Boguslawski, K.; Brzęk, F.; Chakraborty, R.; Cieślak, K.; Jahani, S.; Leszczyk, A.; Nowak, A.; Sujkowski, E.; Świerczyński, J.; Ahmadkhani, S.; et al. PyBEST: Improved functionality and enhanced performance. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2024, 297, 109049

    2024

  72. [80]

    Saue, T.; Bast, R.; Gomes, A. S. P.; Jensen, H. J. A.; Visscher, L.; Aucar, I. A.; Di Remigio, R.; Dyall, K. G.; Eliav, E.; Fasshauer, E.; et al. The DIRAC code for relativistic molecular calculations . J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 204104

    2020

  73. [81]

    J.; Anderson, T

    Eriksen, J. J.; Anderson, T. A.; Deustua, J. E.; Ghanem, K.; Hait, D.; Hoffmann, M. R.; Lee, S.; Levine, D. S.; Magoulas, I.; Shen, J.; et al. The Ground State Electronic Energy of Benzene. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2020, 11, 8922--8929

    2020

  74. [82]

    The Static--Dynamic--Static Family of Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons: Methodology and Benchmarking

    Song, Y.; Guo, Y.; Lei, Y.; Zhang, N.; Liu, W. The Static--Dynamic--Static Family of Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons: Methodology and Benchmarking. Top. Current Chem. 2021, 379, 1--56

    2021

  75. [83]

    QUEST\#4X: An Extension of QUEST\#4 for Benchmarking Multireference Wave Function Methods

    Song, Y.; Zhang, N.; Lei, Y.; Guo, Y.; Liu, W. QUEST\#4X: An Extension of QUEST\#4 for Benchmarking Multireference Wave Function Methods. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2025, 21, 1119--1135

    2025

  76. [84]

    K.; Woon, D

    Wilson, A. K.; Woon, D. E.; Peterson, K. A.; Dunning, J., Thom H. Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. IX. The atoms gallium through krypton. J. Chem. Phys. 1999, 110, 7667--7676

    1999

  77. [85]

    A.; Harrison, R

    de Jong, W. A.; Harrison, R. J.; Dixon, D. A. Parallel Douglas–Kroll energy and gradients in NWChem: Estimating scalar relativistic effects using Douglas–Kroll contracted basis sets. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 114, 48--53

    2001

  78. [86]

    OUل d n ACCzPS_| 0 Pw0``1` | s *44A , 8Xxx88 8 x XJ l/#?

    Kramida, A.; Ralchenko, Y.; Reader, J.; Team, N. A. S. D. NIST Atomic Spectra Database, version 5.12. http://physics.nist.gov/asd, last accessed on 03/19/25 mcitethebibliography lwjCodeReview.tex0000664000000000000000000033434414771204614013072 0ustar rootroot [journal=jctcce,...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.