Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Truncated Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz: efficient quantum circuit design for quantum chemistry and material science

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Truncating the smallest non-Coulomb two-electron terms in a variational Hamiltonian ansatz cuts CNOT counts by factors of 2 to 5 on LiH, H2, H4, and CH2, while keeping energies within a few millihartree of full configuration interaction.

desk verdict A useful circuit-truncation heuristic with reproducible numerics, but the magnitude-to-importance assumption is empirical, not proven, and the convergence comparison is confounded by the fixed optimizer budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19772 v1 pith:LYIROTQZ submitted 2025-05-26 quant-ph physics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph

Clemens Possel , Walter Hahn , Reza Shirazi , Marina Walt , Peter Pinski , Frank K. Wilhelm , Dmitry Bagrets This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords variationalquantumeigensolvertruncatedHamiltonianansatznon-Coulombtwo-bodytermschemistryNISQdevicesCNOTcountactivespaceJordan-Wignermapping
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 introduces a circuit-design rule for the variational quantum eigensolver: in the Hamiltonian variational ansatz, throw away the non-Coulomb two-electron terms with the smallest integrals. Those terms are the ones that turn into long CNOT ladders and dominate circuit size, and the paper argues that for typical molecules their contribution is largely redundant once larger terms and variational parameters are present. The resulting truncated ansatz (tVHA) uses the full Hamiltonian for energy measurement but builds its circuit from a truncated operator list selected by a threshold $p$, the fraction of total non-Coulomb integral magnitude retained. In simulations of LiH, H2, H4, and CH2, $p\approx 0.5$ cuts CNOT counts by factors of roughly 2 to 5 compared with full VHA while keeping energies close to FCI, and the smaller parameter count makes VQE convergence easier than with UCCSD or HEA. If this holds, the method gives a cheap, physics-based way to fit quantum chemistry circuits onto near-term hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the truncated non-Coulomb two-body Hamiltonian $H_\gamma^{\mathrm{cut}}$, built by rewriting the two-electron integrals in antisymmetrized form $\tilde{g}_{ijkl}$, sorting the resulting terms by $|\tilde{g}|$, and keeping the first $s_{\mathrm{cut}}$ terms such that $p=\sum_{s=1}^{s_{\mathrm{cut}}}|g_s^\gamma|/\sum_s |g_s^\gamma|$. Each retained term is a fermionic double-excitation that becomes a parametrized Pauli-string rotation, implemented after Jordan-Wigner mapping as a ladder of CNOT gates surrounding a single-qubit $Z$ rotation; one-body terms become single-qubit rotations and Coulomb two-body terms become ZZ-type gates. The circuit is a first-order Trotterized sequence $\prod_n \exp(i\alpha_n H_\alpha)\exp(i\beta_n H_\beta)\exp(i\gamma_n H_\gamma^{\mathrm{cut}})$ acting on the Hartree-Fock state, with parameters initialized along the adiabatic ramp. Keeping only $H_\gamma^{\mathrm{cut}}$ in the circuit is what removes the expensive nonlocal gates while preserving the dominant physics.

What would settle it

Run tVHA at $p=0.5$ on a molecule whose non-Coulomb two-electron integrals have no magnitude gap, so the omitted tail contains many terms comparable to the kept ones, and compare against FCI while increasing the number of Trotter steps. If the omitted terms remove a substantial share of correlation energy that neither more Trotter steps nor re-optimization of retained parameters recovers, the redundancy assumption is falsified; a complementary test is to build the circuit from the omitted terms alone and check whether it approaches FCI after optimization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the non-Coulomb two-electron terms of a molecular Hamiltonian can be ordered by the size of their antisymmetrized integrals, and the long tail of small terms is redundant for the variational ground-state problem. Building the ansatz circuit from only the terms above a truncation threshold $p$, defined by the fraction of total integral magnitude retained, reduces the number of parameters and the number of CNOT ladders without a proportionate loss of accuracy. In the LiH benchmark, tVHA with $p\approx 0.5$ and two Trotter steps lands about 3 mHa above FCI with roughly 2000 CNOT gates, a factor of 2.5 reduction compared with full VHA; the hydrogen chain drops from over 1100 to under 500 CNOTs at $p\approx 0.5$; and H2 plus the CH2 active space reach chemical accuracy with one Trotter step. The truncated Hamiltonian is used only to build the state; the full Hamiltonian is still measured, so the truncation changes which states the ansatz can reach rather than the observable being evaluated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smallest non-Coulomb two-electron terms, judged by integral magnitude, are redundant for the ground-state energy and can be dropped because the retained variational parameters compensate for them; this fails if many small terms collectively contribute.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $p\approx 0.5$, LiH requires about 2000 CNOT gates with two Trotter steps instead of more than 5000 for full VHA, while staying about 3 mHa above FCI.
  • For the hydrogen chain, the CNOT count falls from over 1100 to under 500 at $p\approx 0.5$, and tVHA captures strong correlation that the hardware-efficient ansatz misses.
  • H2 and the CH2 active space reach chemical accuracy with a single Trotter step using at most half of the non-Coulomb two-body terms.
  • The low parameter count lets the classical optimizer converge within the allotted 1000 function evaluations, whereas UCCSD and HEA get stuck in local minima on the same benchmarks.
  • Accuracy can be improved systematically by adding Trotter steps, which increases the circuit only linearly, giving a direct knob for trading circuit size against accuracy on a given device.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not develop a per-symmetry or per-Trotter-layer truncation, but the H2 and CH2 symmetry artifacts suggest that truncating in a symmetry-adapted way could preserve Pauli-term cancellations and cut circuits further.
  • A natural test the paper leaves open is to apply the same magnitude cutoff after fermion-to-Pauli mapping; for mappers other than Jordan-Wigner, small fermionic integrals need not map to small Pauli terms, so the savings could differ.
  • The measurement truncation threshold mentioned but not implemented could be made adaptive: a circuit-level p and a separate measurement-level p would let users trade sampling cost against energy precision without touching gate count.
  • Because tVHA ranks operators by integral magnitude at almost no classical cost, it could seed iterative adaptive ansatze with a physically motivated operator pool instead of starting from an unranked excitation list.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces tVHA, a variant of the Hamiltonian Variational Ansatz in which the molecular Hamiltonian is split into one-body (Hα), Coulomb two-body (Hβ), and non-Coulomb two-body (Hγ) parts, with independent variational parameters per Trotter step. The circuit is built from a truncated Hγ containing only the largest non-Coulomb terms, chosen so that the retained fraction of the total |g| sum equals p. The authors benchmark statevector VQE runs for LiH, H2, H4, and CH2 (active space), comparing energy error with respect to FCI/CASCI, CNOT counts, and parameter counts against UCCSD, UCCSDT, and HEA. The central claims are that tVHA sharply reduces the number of variational parameters, can reduce CNOT counts by factors of roughly 2.2–2.5 at p≈0.5 with moderate accuracy loss, converges more easily than UCCSD/HEA, and is compatible with active-space constructions.

Significance. The paper has the merit of being concrete and reproducible: the statevector simulations, the CNOT and parameter counts, and the released tVHA code give a clear benchmark of what the ansatz does on specific molecules. If the truncation heuristic is reliable beyond the four tested systems, tVHA is a useful NISQ-era ansatz. However, the key transferable rule (p≈0.5 and magnitude-based ordering) is calibrated and validated on the same systems, and the ansatz does not have a per-term variational parameter that could demonstrably compensate for discarded terms. The significance therefore depends on empirical generality that is asserted rather than established.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.5 and 4.1, Eq. (12)] The statement that omitted non-Coulomb terms are 'redundant' is load-bearing, but it is not derived and is in tension with the ansatz structure. In Eq. (12) each Trotter step has one shared parameter γ_n multiplying the entire truncated Hγ; after internal Trotterization each retained non-Coulomb term's rotation angle is proportional to its own integral times the common γ_n. Removing a term therefore changes the fixed generator and does not create a free parameter that can be readjusted to compensate for the missing term. The wording in Sec. 4.2 ('adjust the parameters of the other terms in the variational approach') is not supported by Eq. (12). Please either introduce per-term variational flexibility, prove a compensation mechanism, or replace 'redundant' with a weaker empirical claim.
  2. [3.5 and Figs. 3, 6, 9, 13] The proposed rule-of-thumb p≈0.5 is obtained from the same four molecules on which the method is then demonstrated, so the generalization claim is circular in a practical sense. Moreover, the p=0 to p≈0.2 portions of all four energy curves show that many individually small terms collectively add significant correlation energy; 'small magnitude' is therefore not equivalent to 'negligible' within this ansatz. A held-out molecule or a formal error bound is required before the truncation heuristic can be presented as a general design principle.
  3. [Appendix B] The 'easier convergence' comparison is confounded by the fixed SBPLX budget of 1000 function evaluations. The text acknowledges that this budget is insufficient for more than about 15 parameters, which directly affects the UCCSD and HEA comparisons in Figs. 3, 6, 9, and 13. A fair test requires either increasing the budget until convergence, reporting energy-vs-evaluations curves, or restricting the convergence claim to the parameter-count reduction (which is supported by the data).
  4. [4.1] The attribution of the remaining energy error at p=1 and 5 Trotter steps to optimizer limitations is plausible but unsupported; it could also be an expressibility or initialization deficiency. Please provide evidence, for example by continuing the optimization or using a second optimizer, or state plainly that the cause is undetermined. This matters because the same optimizer limitation is used to explain why tVHA at p=0.5 and two Trotter steps stays 3 mHa above FCI.
minor comments (4)
  1. [1 and 3.2] There are typos: 'expection value' in Sec. 1 and 'conjuction' in Sec. 3.2 should be 'expectation' and 'conjunction'.
  2. [4.2, side note] The phrase 'Møller-Plesset gates on devices based on Rydberg atoms' appears to be a typo for 'Mølmer–Sørensen gates'; as written it conflates an electronic-structure method with an entangling gate.
  3. [Figs. 7 and 10] The captions contain missing closing parentheses in the references to the figures ('see figure 7.' and 'see figure 10.'); these should be corrected.
  4. [3.1] The symbol T is used both for the total adiabatic time and for the time-ordering operator, which is a source of confusion; consider renaming one of them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tVHA ansatz, circuit counts, and accuracy curves are independently computed; the p≈0.5 rule-of-thumb is an in-sample heuristic explicitly flagged as molecule-dependent, not a construction-level reduction.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain from the adiabatic motivation (Eqs. 3-10) through the Hamiltonian decomposition (Eq. 11) to the tVHA ansatz (Eq. 12). The variational parameters αn, βn, γn are free parameters of the ansatz, and the compressed circuit is not obtained by defining the target energy in terms of those parameters. The reported CNOT-count reductions (e.g., the LiH factor 2.5 at p=0.5 with two Trotter steps) are computed from the explicit circuits for the retained terms (Figs. 4, 7, 10, 14), not from an equation that makes the reduction equivalent to its input by construction. The truncation threshold p (Eq. 13) is a user-selected fraction of the cumulative magnitude of non-Coulomb two-body terms; the claim that terms beyond p≈0.5 are 'redundant' is an empirical interpretation of the flat energy curves in Sec. 4, not a definitional equivalence. The paper itself states that the optimal threshold depends on the molecule and hardware, and lists automatic threshold prediction as future work (Secs. 3.5 and 5), so it does not present p≈0.5 as a derived first-principles prediction. The acknowledged SBPLX evaluation budget is a limitation of the convergence comparison, not a circular step. The self-citations (Active Space Finder [33], the tVHA code [46], and the CH2 orbital references [52,53]) are used as inputs or tools for specific calculations; they are not load-bearing for the central ansatz or truncation claim. Therefore no part of the paper's derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The core experimental inputs are the molecular integrals and the HF state, both obtained from standard software (PySCF). No new physical entities are introduced. The truncation threshold p is a user-selected hyperparameter, and its recommended value is fitted to the test systems. All other assumptions are standard quantum chemistry and quantum simulation background.

free parameters (2)
  • truncation threshold p = ≈0.5 (recommended)
    Chosen as a rule-of-thumb after observing energy plateaus in the same test systems (LiH, H2, H4, CH2) in Sec. 4. The value balances circuit size and accuracy but is not derived from theory.
  • number of Trotter steps N = 1, 2, 5 used
    The paper tests N=1,2,5 and notes 2 is often enough; this is a hand-picked discretization rather than a fitted constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic evolution from Hartree-Fock to the full molecular Hamiltonian provides a variational path whose discretized form can represent the ground state.
    Section 2.1 and 3.1 motivate VHA via the adiabatic theorem; no gap condition for the specific molecules is verified, and the variational parameters are free to deviate from the path.
  • domain assumption The non-Coulomb two-body terms have the smallest magnitudes in molecular Hamiltonians.
    Section 3.5 assumes this to justify truncating H_gamma; the paper shows it holds for its four test systems but provides no general proof.
  • standard math Born-Oppenheimer approximation and Hartree-Fock mean-field treat the inactive electrons.
    Section 2.2 takes the second-quantized electronic Hamiltonian and the HF determinant as starting point, which are standard in quantum chemistry.
  • standard math Jordan-Wigner mapping and first-order Suzuki-Trotter decomposition are used for circuit construction.
    Section 2.1 and 3.4 rely on Jordan-Wigner and first-order Trotter; the paper notes Trotter errors are expected to be partially suppressed by variational optimization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Truncated Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz: efficient quantum circuit design for quantum chemistry and material science." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYIROTQZ

@misc{pith2026250519772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Truncated Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz: efficient quantum circuit design for quantum chemistry and material science},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYIROTQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19772}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize quantum chemistry and material science by offering solutions to complex problems unattainable with classical computers. However, the development of efficient quantum algorithms that are efficient under noisy conditions remains a major challenge. This paper introduces the truncated Variational Hamiltonian Ansatz (tVHA), a novel circuit design for conducting quantum calculations on Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) devices. tVHA provides a promising approach for a broad range of applications by utilizing principles from the adiabatic theorem in solid state physics. Our proposed ansatz significantly reduces the parameter count and can decrease circuit size substantially, with a trade-off in accuracy. Thus, tVHA facilitates easier convergence within the variational quantum eigensolver framework compared to state-of-the-art ans\"atze such as Unitary Coupled Cluster (UCC) and Hardware-Efficient Ansatz (HEA). While this paper concentrates on the practical applications of tVHA in quantum chemistry, demonstrating its suitability for both weakly and strongly correlated systems and its compatibility with active space calculations, its underlying principles suggest a wider applicability extending to the broader field of material science computations on quantum computing platforms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions

    Yuri Alexeev et al. “Quantum-centric supercomputing for materials science: A perspective on challenges and future directions”. In: Future Generation Computer Systems 160 (2024), pp. 666–710. issn: 0167- 739X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2024.04.060. 35

    doi:10.1016/j.future.2024.04.060 2024

  2. [2]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms

    Kishor Bharti et al. “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 (1 Feb. 2022), p. 015004. doi: 10 . 1103 / RevModPhys.94.015004

    2022

  3. [3]

    The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices

    Jules Tilly et al. “The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices”. In: Physics Reports 986 (2022). The Vari- ational Quantum Eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices, pp. 1–128. issn: 0370-1573. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . physrep.2022.08.003

    2022

  4. [4]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    M. Cerezo et al. “Variational quantum algorithms”. In: Nature Reviews Physics 3.9 (Sept. 2021), pp. 625–644. issn: 2522-5820. doi: 10.1038/ s42254-021-00348-9

    2021

  5. [5]

    Ostlund and Attila Szabo

    Neil S. Ostlund and Attila Szabo. Modern quantum chemistry: intro- duction to advanced electronic structure theory . 2nd ed. Dover Publi- cations, 1996. isbn: 9780486691862

    1996

  6. [6]

    Molecular Electronic- Structure Theory

    Trygve Helgaker, Poul Jørgensen, and Jeppe Olsen. Molecular Electronic- Structure Theory. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000. isbn: 9780471967552. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119019572.fmatter

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119019572.fmatter 2000

  7. [7]

    The Shape of Full Configuration Interaction to Come

    Janus J. Eriksen. “The Shape of Full Configuration Interaction to Come”. In: The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 12.1 (Jan. 2021), pp. 418–432. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c03225

    doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c03225 2021

  8. [8]

    The density matrix renormaliza- tion group in chemistry and molecular physics: Recent developments and new challenges

    Alberto Baiardi and Markus Reiher. “The density matrix renormaliza- tion group in chemistry and molecular physics: Recent developments and new challenges”. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 152.4 (Jan. 2020), p. 040903. issn: 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.5129672

    doi:10.1063/1.5129672 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Best-Practice DFT Protocols for Basic Molecu- lar Computational Chemistry

    Markus Bursch et al. “Best-Practice DFT Protocols for Basic Molecu- lar Computational Chemistry”. In: Angewandte Chemie International Edition 61.42 (2022), e202205735. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ anie.202205735

    2022

  2. [10]

    Explicitly correlated local coupled- cluster methods using pair natural orbitals

    Qianli Ma and Hans-Joachim Werner. “Explicitly correlated local coupled- cluster methods using pair natural orbitals”. In: WIREs Computational Molecular Science 8.6 (2018), e1371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ wcms.1371. 36

    2018

  3. [11]

    An efficient and near linear scaling pair natural orbital based local coupled cluster method

    Christoph Riplinger and Frank Neese. “An efficient and near linear scaling pair natural orbital based local coupled cluster method”. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 138.3 (Jan. 2013), p. 034106. issn: 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.4773581

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Natural triple excitations in local coupled cluster calculations with pair natural orbitals

    Christoph Riplinger et al. “Natural triple excitations in local coupled cluster calculations with pair natural orbitals”. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 139.13 (Oct. 2013), p. 134101. issn: 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.4821834

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Roos et al

    Bj¨ orn O. Roos et al. Multiconfigurational Quantum Chemistry . eng. Wiley-Blackwell, Aug. 2016. isbn: 9780470633465. doi: 10 . 1002 / 9781119126171

    2016

  6. [14]

    Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry and Quantum Materials Science

    Bela Bauer et al. “Quantum Algorithms for Quantum Chemistry and Quantum Materials Science”. In:Chemical Reviews 120.22 (Nov. 2020), pp. 12685–12717. issn: 0009-2665. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00829

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Increasing the Representation Accuracy of Quan- tum Simulations of Chemistry without Extra Quantum Resources

    Tyler Takeshita et al. “Increasing the Representation Accuracy of Quan- tum Simulations of Chemistry without Extra Quantum Resources”. In: Phys. Rev. X 10 (1 Jan. 2020), p. 011004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX. 10.011004

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information . Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo et al. “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor”. In: Nature Communications 5.1 (July 2014), p. 4213. issn: 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5213

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    Quantum algorithms for electronic structure calculations: Particle-hole Hamiltonian and optimized wave- function expansions

    Panagiotis Kl. Barkoutsos et al. “Quantum algorithms for electronic structure calculations: Particle-hole Hamiltonian and optimized wave- function expansions”. In: Phys. Rev. A 98 (2 Aug. 2018), p. 022322. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022322

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigen- solver for small molecules and quantum magnets

    Abhinav Kandala et al. “Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigen- solver for small molecules and quantum magnets”. In: Nature 549.7671 (Sept. 2017), pp. 242–246.issn: 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/nature23879

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    On the practical usefulness of the Hardware Efficient Ansatz

    Lorenzo Leone et al. “On the practical usefulness of the Hardware Efficient Ansatz”. In: Quantum 8 (July 2024), p. 1395. issn: 2521- 327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2024-07-03-1395 . 37

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Adiabatic quantum computa- tion

    Tameem Albash and Daniel A. Lidar. “Adiabatic quantum computa- tion”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (1 Jan. 2018), p. 015002. doi: 10.1103/ RevModPhys.90.015002

    2018

  14. [22]

    Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution

    Edward Farhi et al. Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution

  15. [23]

    A study of heuristic guesses for adiabatic quantum computa- tion

    Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz, Salvador E. Venegas-Andraca, and Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik. “A study of heuristic guesses for adiabatic quantum computa- tion”. In: Quantum Information Processing 10.1 (Feb. 2011), pp. 33–

    2011

  16. [24]

    Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driv- ing for trapped-ion displacement in phase space

    Shuoming An et al. “Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driv- ing for trapped-ion displacement in phase space”. In: Nature Commu- nications 7.1 (Sept. 2016), p. 12999. issn: 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ ncomms12999

    2016

  17. [25]

    Monte Carlo Simu- lation of Quantum Spin Systems. I

    Masuo Suzuki, Seiji Miyashita, and Akira Kuroda. “Monte Carlo Simu- lation of Quantum Spin Systems. I”. In:Progress of Theoretical Physics 58.5 (Nov. 1977), pp. 1377–1387. issn: 0033-068X. doi: 10.1143/PTP. 58.1377

    1977 doi

  18. [26]

    PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework

    Qiming Sun et al. “PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework”. In: WIREs Computational Molecular Science 8.1 (2018), e1340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1340

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    How to select active space for multiconfigurational quantum chemistry?

    Valera Veryazov, Per ˚Ake Malmqvist, and Bj¨ orn O. Roos. “How to select active space for multiconfigurational quantum chemistry?” In: International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 111.13 (2011), pp. 3329–

    2011

  20. [28]

    UHF natural orbitals for defin- ing and starting MC-SCF calculations

    Peter Pulay and Tracy P. Hamilton. “UHF natural orbitals for defin- ing and starting MC-SCF calculations”. In: The Journal of Chemi- cal Physics 88.8 (Apr. 1988), pp. 4926–4933. issn: 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.454704

    1988 doi

  21. [30]

    Automated Construction of Molecular Active Spaces from Atomic Valence Orbitals

    Elvira R. Sayfutyarova et al. “Automated Construction of Molecular Active Spaces from Atomic Valence Orbitals”. In: Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 13.9 (Sept. 2017), pp. 4063–4078. issn: 1549-

    2017

  22. [31]

    Active Space Selection Based on Natural Orbital Occupation Numbers from n-Electron Valence Per- turbation Theory

    Abhishek Khedkar and Michael Roemelt. “Active Space Selection Based on Natural Orbital Occupation Numbers from n-Electron Valence Per- turbation Theory”. In: Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 15.6 (June 2019), pp. 3522–3536. issn: 1549-9618. doi: 10.1021/acs. jctc.8b01293

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Selection of active spaces for multiconfigu- rational wavefunctions

    Sebastian Keller et al. “Selection of active spaces for multiconfigu- rational wavefunctions”. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 142.24 (June 2015), p. 244104. issn: 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.4922352

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    Active Space Finder

    Peter Pinski, Alexander Zech, and Florian Eich. Active Space Finder . https://github.com/HQSquantumsimulations/ActiveSpaceFinder. 2024

    2024

  25. [34]

    Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms

    Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, and Matthias Troyer. “Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms”. In: Phys. Rev. A 92 (4 Oct. 2015), p. 042303. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042303

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    Finding the ground state of the Hubbard model by variational methods on a quantum computer with gate er- rors

    Jan-Michael Reiner et al. “Finding the ground state of the Hubbard model by variational methods on a quantum computer with gate er- rors”. In: Quantum Science and Technology 4.3 (May 2019), p. 035005. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ab1e85

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    Exploring Entanglement and Optimization within the Hamiltonian Variational Ansatz

    Roeland Wiersema et al. “Exploring Entanglement and Optimization within the Hamiltonian Variational Ansatz”. In: PRX Quantum 1 (2 Dec. 2020), p. 020319. doi: 10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020319

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    A Comparison of the Bravyi–Kitaev and Jordan– Wigner Transformations for the Quantum Simulation of Quantum Chem- istry

    Andrew Tranter et al. “A Comparison of the Bravyi–Kitaev and Jordan– Wigner Transformations for the Quantum Simulation of Quantum Chem- istry”. In: Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 14.11 (Nov. 2018), pp. 5617–5630. issn: 1549-9618. doi: 10 . 1021 / acs . jctc . 8b00450

    2018

  29. [38]

    Decomposition of high-rank factorized unitary coupled-cluster operators using ancilla and multiqubit controlled low-rank counterparts

    Luogen Xu, Joseph T. Lee, and J. K. Freericks. “Decomposition of high-rank factorized unitary coupled-cluster operators using ancilla and multiqubit controlled low-rank counterparts”. In: Phys. Rev. A 105 (1 Jan. 2022), p. 012406. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.012406. 39

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer

    Harper R. Grimsley et al. “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer”. In: Nature Commu- nications 10.1 (July 2019), p. 3007. issn: 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ s41467-019-10988-2

    2019

  31. [40]

    Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An Adaptive Algorithm for Constructing Hardware-Efficient Ans¨ atze on a Quantum Proces- sor

    Ho Lun Tang et al. “Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An Adaptive Algorithm for Constructing Hardware-Efficient Ans¨ atze on a Quantum Proces- sor”. In: PRX Quantum 2 (2 Apr. 2021), p. 020310. doi: 10.1103/ PRXQuantum.2.020310

    2021

  32. [41]

    Quantifying the effect of gate errors on variational quantum eigensolvers for quantum chemistry

    Kieran Dalton et al. “Quantifying the effect of gate errors on variational quantum eigensolvers for quantum chemistry”. In: npj Quantum Infor- mation 10.1 (Jan. 2024), p. 18. issn: 2056-6387. doi: 10.1038/s41534- 024-00808-x

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values

    Youngseok Kim et al. “Scalable error mitigation for noisy quantum circuits produces competitive expectation values”. In: Nature Physics 19.5 (May 2023), pp. 752–759. issn: 1745-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41567- 022-01914-3

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    Ali Javadi-Abhari et al. Quantum computing with Qiskit . 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    Steven G. Johnson. The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package. https: //github.com/stevengj/nlopt. 2007

    2007

  36. [45]

    Functional stability analysis of numerical al- gorithms

    Thomas Harvey Rowan. “Functional stability analysis of numerical al- gorithms”. PhD thesis. Austin, TX: Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, 1990

    1990

  37. [46]

    Clemens Possel. tVHA. https://gitlab.cc- asp.fraunhofer.de/ qc/tvha/-/releases/v0.2. 2025

    2025

  38. [47]

    Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange

    Axel D. Becke. “Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange”. In: The Journal of Chemical Physics 98.7 (Apr. 1993), pp. 5648–5652. issn: 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.464913

    1993 doi

  39. [48]

    Development of the Colle-Salvetti correlation-energy formula into a functional of the electron density

    Chengteh Lee, Weitao Yang, and Robert G. Parr. “Development of the Colle-Salvetti correlation-energy formula into a functional of the electron density”. In: Phys. Rev. B 37 (2 Jan. 1988), pp. 785–789. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785. 40

    1988 doi

  40. [49]

    Ab Initio Calculation of Vibrational Absorp- tion and Circular Dichroism Spectra Using Density Functional Force Fields

    P. J. Stephens et al. “Ab Initio Calculation of Vibrational Absorp- tion and Circular Dichroism Spectra Using Density Functional Force Fields”. In: The Journal of Physical Chemistry 98.45 (Nov. 1994), pp. 11623–11627. issn: 0022-3654. doi: 10.1021/j100096a001

    1994 doi

  41. [50]

    Balanced basis sets of split valence, triple zeta valence and quadruple zeta valence quality for H to Rn: Design and assessment of accuracy

    Florian Weigend and Reinhart Ahlrichs. “Balanced basis sets of split valence, triple zeta valence and quadruple zeta valence quality for H to Rn: Design and assessment of accuracy”. In: Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7 (18 2005), pp. 3297–3305. doi: 10.1039/B508541A

    2005 doi

  42. [51]

    Software update: The ORCA program system—Version 5.0

    Frank Neese. “Software update: The ORCA program system—Version 5.0”. In: WIREs Computational Molecular Science 12.5 (2022), e1606. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1606

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    doi: 10.1007/s11128-010-0168-z

    issn: 1573-1332. doi: 10.1007/s11128-010-0168-z

    doi

  44. [56]

    Spin-state energetics of carbenes studied by modern coupled cluster methods

    Reza Ghafarian Shirazi. “Spin-state energetics of carbenes studied by modern coupled cluster methods”. doctoralthesis. Ruhr-Universit¨ at Bochum, Universit¨ atsbibliothek, 2019.doi: 10.13154/294-6753

    2019 doi

  45. [2000]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0001106

    doi arXiv

  46. [3338]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.23068

    doi

  47. [9618]

    doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00128

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.