Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Auxiliary Field Quantum Monte Carlo for Electron-Photon Correlation

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read QED-AFQMC reproduces exact polaritonic ground-state energies where QED coupled-cluster methods drift.

desk verdict Sound extension of AFQMC to the Pauli–Fierz Hamiltonian, but it hides the sign constraint and overstates the no-truncation claim; worth revising and then refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16021 v1 pith:M4KL4AH7 submitted 2025-05-21 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Braden M. Weight , Yu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords auxiliary-fieldquantumMonteCarloPauli–FierzHamiltonianpolaritonicgroundstatecavityelectrodynamicselectron-photoncorrelationstronglight-mattercouplingQEDcoupledclustercavity-modifiedchemistry
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 QED-AFQMC, an auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method for the Pauli–Fierz Hamiltonian of molecules coupled to quantized cavity photons. It claims the method captures the polaritonic ground state across coupling strengths, matching QED full configuration interaction (QED-FCI) benchmarks for the HF molecule while avoiding the explicit photonic truncation that limits coupled-cluster approaches. Because the electron-photon coupling is folded into one-body propagators through shared auxiliary fields, photon excitations are sampled rather than enumerated, which the authors argue makes the method scalable to larger systems and stronger couplings. If correct, QED-AFQMC offers a non-perturbative, systematically improvable route to cavity-modified chemistry where QED-CCSD systematically underestimates electron-photon correlation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the Monte Carlo form of the Pauli–Fierz Hamiltonian, $\hat{H}_{\mathrm{MC}} = \hat{T} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_\gamma \hat{L}_\gamma^2 + \hat{H}_{\mathrm{ph}} + C$. The two-electron integrals are factored by modified Cholesky decomposition, and the bilinear coupling $\hat{F}_\alpha \hat{B}_\alpha$ is decomposed through the identity $\hat{F}_\alpha \hat{B}_\alpha = \frac{1}{4}[(\hat{F}_\alpha + \hat{B}_\alpha)^2 - (\hat{F}_\alpha - \hat{B}_\alpha)^2]$, which introduces $2N_\alpha$ auxiliary fields (or $3N_\alpha$ with an alternative identity). The Hubbard–Stratonovich transformation then turns the two-body propagator into a Gaussian integral over auxiliary fields, and because the fermionic and photonic one-body operators commute, the same auxiliary field propagates both electrons and photons simultaneously. This is what removes the need to enumerate high photonic excitations explicitly.

What would settle it

Run QED-AFQMC on a single molecule in a two-mode cavity at strong coupling while increasing the Fock-space truncation from n=5 to n=10 and increasing the walker population; if the energy drifts or the variance grows with system size in the absence of an explicitly stated constraint, the method's unbiased-scalability claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo framework can be extended to the full Pauli–Fierz Hamiltonian by rewriting the bilinear electron-photon coupling as a sum of squares of one-body operators, so that a single Hubbard–Stratonovich transformation decouples fermionic and photonic degrees of freedom through shared auxiliary fields. The authors report that QED-AFQMC reproduces QED-FCI correlation energies for HF across couplings up to $\lambda = 0.4$, while QED-CCSD-S2U2 deviates increasingly in the strong-coupling limit and only appears to agree with QED-FCI at higher photonic truncation through a cancellation of errors. They further report that for the C$_2$N$_2$H$_6$ isomerization, QED-AFQMC barrier heights lie between the QED-HF overestimate and the QED-CCSD underestimate, which they take to be the accurate prediction of cavity-modified reactivity. The method is implemented in second quantization with a Cholesky decomposition of the two-electron integrals and importance-sampled auxiliary fields.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stochastic imaginary-time propagation remains sign-stable as the system grows; the paper describes walker population control but never states whether a phaseless or constrained-path approximation is applied, so the scalability and bias-free claims rest on the sign problem staying mild.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QED-CCSD's apparent agreement with QED-FCI at higher photonic truncation is identified as a cancellation of errors, meaning truncated coupled-cluster results should not be trusted for strong-coupling ground states.
  • Because photon excitations are sampled rather than truncated, QED-AFQMC can treat larger photonic Fock spaces at little additional cost relative to the electronic calculation.
  • The same Monte Carlo Hamiltonian form extends to multiple photon modes and to model systems such as Hubbard–Holstein by changing operator definitions.
  • For reactions like the C2N2H6 isomerization, cavity-induced barrier changes predicted by QED-AFQMC differ from both QED-HF and QED-CCSD, pointing to the importance of full electron-photon correlation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the method samples photonic excitations rather than enumerating them, a direct next test is a single molecule in a multi-mode cavity, where the photon Hilbert space grows combinatorially and QED-FCI becomes prohibitive; agreement with QED-CCSD at moderate coupling would be a simple first check.
  • The decomposition identity for the bilinear coupling offers a concrete tuning knob: the two-square form introduces fewer auxiliary fields than the three-square form, and the paper's own reasoning predicts smaller fluctuations as the number of photon modes grows, which could be verified on a two-mode system.
  • Pairing QED-AFQMC with the displacement and squeezing photonic trial wavefunctions the authors mention could shrink the required Fock space further and push the method into ultra-strong coupling, an extension the paper leaves for future work.
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 paper proposes QED-AFQMC, an auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method for the Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian describing molecules coupled to cavity photons. The Hamiltonian is rewritten in a Monte Carlo form via modified Cholesky decomposition and Hubbard-Stratonovich transformations, with a trial wavefunction that is a product of a Hartree-Fock determinant and a photonic Fock state. The method is benchmarked against QED-FCI and QED-CCSD for the HF molecule over a range of dipole coupling strengths, and is then applied to the C2N2H6 isomerization reaction. The central claims are that QED-AFQMC accurately captures polaritonic ground states, remains accurate where QED-CCSD fails, and can treat large photonic Fock spaces without explicit truncation of photonic excitations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, QED-AFQMC would be a valuable systematically improvable tool for strongly coupled light-matter systems, complementing existing QED-CCSD and QED-DFT approaches. The paper has clear strengths: the benchmark calculations cleanly reproduce QED-FCI for the tested systems, no free parameters are fitted to the target energies, and the implementation is released as open source in the OpenMS package. However, the evidence presented is limited to small molecules, the photonic truncation claim is overstated relative to the actual calculations, and the fermionic sign/phase control of the algorithm is not specified. These issues must be resolved before the accuracy and scalability claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections II.B and III.A] The manuscript never states whether the AFQMC simulations use free projection or a phaseless/constrained-path approximation, and it does not report the average sign or walker population statistics. Because the fermionic sign problem is the central factor determining AFQMC scalability, the clean convergence in Figures 1-3 cannot be distinguished from a mild sign problem in small systems or from a constrained algorithm whose bias is unquantified. Please specify the projection constraint explicitly and report the average sign or phase, the walker population dynamics, and a direct assessment of bias (for example, by comparing free and phaseless propagation on the HF benchmark).
  2. [Sections III.A and III.B] All calculations truncate the photonic Fock space at five photon-number states, as stated in III.A, and Figure 5 uses a truncation at n=2. Yet the Introduction and Section III.B claim that the method 'avoids explicit truncation of photonic excitations' and enables 'efficient treatment of large photonic Fock states without additional computational overhead.' The constant-overhead statement refers only to the cost per Fock state within a chosen truncation, not to the removal of the truncation itself. Please revise the language and provide a systematic convergence study of energies and observables with respect to the Fock-space truncation (for example, n=2, 5, 10) to substantiate the no-truncation claim.
  3. [Section II.A.1, Eq. (7)] The simplification Q^alpha_pq = -sum_s g^alpha_ps g^alpha_sp is justified by assuming a complete basis set, but all electronic calculations use the finite 6-31G basis. This introduces an uncontrolled approximation into the DSE-modified one-electron integrals for every reported calculation. Since all compared methods use the same simplified Hamiltonian, the QED-FCI benchmarks remain internally consistent, but the claim that the Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian is solved accurately is weakened. Please quantify the error by comparing the complete-basis-simplified Hamiltonian with the exact finite-basis DSE expression for at least one benchmark system, or explicitly state this as a limitation.
  4. [Section III.B and Figure 4] The scalability claim is not supported by the presented evidence. The only non-benchmark application is the C2N2H6 isomer at 6-31G with a single coupling scan, and no system-size scaling, timing, memory usage, or sign-behavior data are provided. Please add scaling data or temper the claim to 'potentially scalable' pending such tests; as written, the abstract and conclusion overstate the demonstrated capabilities.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Figure 1 caption] The phrase 'Quantum Imaginary time evolution' in the Figure 1 caption is awkward; it should be 'Imaginary-time evolution'.
  2. [Section II.B] The sentence discussing 'constrained or phaseless variants of AFQMC' mentions these variants but never identifies which one the present implementation uses; this ambiguity should be resolved in the algorithmic description, not only in response to the major comment above.
  3. [Equation (13)] The notation hat L = {hat L^e, hat L^{ep}} is formally ambiguous because hat L is written as a set while Eq. (13) squares it; clarifying that each element in the set is squared individually would improve readability.
  4. [References] Reference [54], a phaseless AFQMC method for cavity-QED matter systems, is cited but not discussed in the text; a brief comparison of the two approaches' approximations and constraints would help position this work relative to the existing literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central accuracy claim is benchmarked against external exact QED-FCI, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper rewrites the Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian into an AFQMC Monte Carlo Hamiltonian using modified Cholesky decomposition and Hubbard-Stratonovich identities (Eqs. 8-14), which are algebraic transformations that do not import the target energies. The trial wavefunction is a direct product of a Hartree-Fock determinant and a photonic Fock state (Section II.B), and it is not optimized against QED-FCI. The benchmarks used to support the accuracy claim are external exact references: QED-FCI and QED-CCSD for HF and C2N2H6. Numerical settings such as time step, total imaginary time, walker count, and Fock truncation are stated as computational parameters rather than fitted to the reported energies. Self-citations appear only for contextual prior methods and for future variational improvements (e.g., displacement and squeezing ansatze), not as the load-bearing justification for the central result. The absence of an explicitly stated phaseless or constrained-path approximation, and the lack of reported average sign, are potential robustness concerns but not circularity. Accordingly, no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

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

The method is ab initio, so the ledger contains no fitted physical constants. The free parameters are numerical convergence settings and the Fock truncation. The main ad hoc assumptions are the complete-basis DSE simplification and the sufficiency of the photonic truncation, while the absence of a stated sign constraint is a critical domain assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • Photonic Fock truncation = 5 photon number states
    All QED-AFQMC and QED-FCI calculations truncate the photon Hilbert space at five Fock states, and QED-CCSD uses two. This is a hand-chosen convergence parameter, and the paper's claim of avoiding photonic truncation conflicts with it.
  • Imaginary time step = 0.005 a.u.
    Chosen for Trotter convergence; affects the accuracy of the imaginary-time propagation.
  • Total imaginary time = 20 a.u.
    Chosen to ensure convergence to the ground state; not fitted to the target energies.
  • Number of walkers = 2000 or 4000
    Chosen for statistical accuracy; larger walker counts reduce noise but do not change the central result.
  • Electronic basis set = 6-31G
    Standard basis-set choice; limits the electronic Hilbert space and affects the DSE complete-basis assumption.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation separates electronic and nuclear motion
    Invoked throughout; the Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian is written for fixed nuclei, standard in molecular cavity QED.
  • domain assumption The Pauli-Fierz Hamiltonian with a single cavity mode and dipole approximation describes the coupled system
    The paper uses this model Hamiltonian (Eqs. 4-6) without deriving it, which is the accepted starting point in polaritonic chemistry.
  • ad hoc to paper Complete basis set is assumed for the DSE simplification
    Section II.A.1 states 'we assume a complete basis set, and therefore Q_alpha_pq = - sum_s g_ps g_sp'. The 6-31G basis is not complete, and the resulting error is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncating the photonic Fock space at five states is sufficient for the benchmark claims
    The paper uses n=5 for the main QED-FCI and QED-AFQMC results, and n=2 for QED-CCSD, without showing convergence in the Fock dimension for the C2N2H6 case.
  • domain assumption The AFQMC sampling is unbiased and controlled without an explicitly stated sign or phaseless constraint
    The paper never mentions a phaseless or constrained-path approximation, yet fermionic AFQMC usually needs such control to avoid the sign problem for larger systems. This is a load-bearing assumption for the scalability claim.
  • standard math Trial wavefunction has nonzero overlap with the ground state
    Required for imaginary-time projection to converge to the ground state; standard for AFQMC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Auxiliary Field Quantum Monte Carlo for Electron-Photon Correlation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4KL4AH7

@misc{pith2026250516021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Auxiliary Field Quantum Monte Carlo for Electron-Photon Correlation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4KL4AH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16021}
}
read the original abstract

Hybrid light-matter polaritonic states have shown great promise for altering already known and enabling novel chemical reactions and controlling photophysical phenomena. This field has recently become one of the most prominent and active areas of research that connects the communities of chemistry and quantum optics. The ab initio modeling of such polaritonic phenomena has led to updating commonly used electronic structure methods, such as Hartree-Fock, density functional, and coupled cluster theories, to explicitly include Bosonic degrees of freedom. In this work, we explore the quantum electrodynamic auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo (QED-AFQMC) method to accurately capture the polaritonic ground state of representative quantum chemical benchmark systems to explore electron-photon correlations. We analyze these correlations across multiple examples and benchmark the QED-AFQMC results against other ab initio quantum electrodynamics methods, including QED-coupled cluster and QED-full configuration interaction, demonstrating the method's accuracy and its potential for scalable simulations of strongly coupled light-matter systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16021 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum Imaginary time evolution within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a) Correlation energies and b) DSE-mediated changes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same plots as in Figure 3, but with the photonic Fock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The one-body opera- tor is given by ˆh(r) = − 1 2 ∇2 + ˆVext(r), which includes both the kinetic energy and the external potential

    Molecular and Pauli-Fierz (PF) Hamiltonians The second-quantized many-electron Hamiltonian for real molecules within the Born-Oppenheimer approxima- tion can be written as ˆHe = MX pq hpqc† pcq + 1 2 MX pqrs Vpqrsc† pc† qcrcs, (1) where M is the number of atomic orbitals (AOs), hpq = Z drϕ∗ p(r)ˆhϕq(r) (2) and Vpqrs = Z Z drdr′ϕ∗ p(r)ϕ∗ q(r′) ˆVee(r, r′)ϕ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the following, we discuss how to trans- form each component of the PF Hamiltonian into the MC formalism

    Monte Carlo (MC) Hamiltonian As shown later, the Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) formalism requires rewriting the orig- inal Hamiltonian into the format of a so-called Monte Carlo Hamiltonian, ˆHMC = ˆT + 1 2 NγX γ ˆL2 γ + C, (8) which consists of a one-body operator ˆT = P pq Tpqˆc† pˆcq, squares of one-body terms ˆLγ = P pq Lpqˆc† pˆcq, and ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Hubbard-Stratonovich Transformation: Auxiliary Fields The two-body propagators, e−∆τ P γ ˆL2 γ 2 , can be de- composed into one-body propagators via the Hub- bard–Stratonovich (HS) transformation: e−∆τ P γ ˆL2 γ /2 = Y γ Z dxγ 1√ 2π e−x2 γ /2exγ √−∆τ ˆLγ , (18) where {xγ} are the auxiliary fields. In other words, the original imaginary-time propagation in...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (19) Note that although we decouple the electronic and pho- tonic degrees of freedom, they remain indirectly coupled via the shared auxiliary fields. In practice, we imple- ment importance sampling by modifying the underlying probability distribution of the auxiliary fields, analogous to the biased sampling approach widely used in conven- tional AFQMC for...

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Nagarajan, A

    K. Nagarajan, A. Thomas, and T. W. Ebbesen, Chem- istry under vibrational strong coupling, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143, 16877 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    F. J. Garcia-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Ma- nipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields, Science 373, 10.1126/science.abd0336 (2021)

    doi:10.1126/science.abd0336 2021

  7. [7]

    J. A. Hutchison, T. Schwartz, C. Genet, E. Devaux, and T. W. Ebbesen, Modifying chemical landscapes by cou- pling to vacuum fields, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 1592 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Schwartz, J

    T. Schwartz, J. A. Hutchison, C. Genet, and T. W. Ebbe- sen, Reversible switching of ultrastrong light-molecule coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 196405 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    T. W. Ebbesen, Hybrid light–matter states in a molecular and material science perspective, Acc. Chem. Res. 49, 2403 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    A. Sau, K. Nagarajan, B. Patrahau, L. Lethuillier-Karl, R. M. A. Vergauwe, A. Thomas, J. Moran, C. Genet, and T. W. Ebbesen, Modifying woodward–hoffmann stere- oselectivity under vibrational strong coupling, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 60, 5712 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Thomas, L

    A. Thomas, L. Lethuillier-Karl, K. Nagarajan, R. M. A. Vergauwe, J. George, T. Chervy, A. Shalabney, E. De- vaux, C. Genet, J. Moran, and T. W. Ebbesen, Tilting a ground-state reactivity landscape by vibrational strong coupling, Science 363, 615 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Thomas, J

    A. Thomas, J. George, A. Shalabney, M. Dryzhakov, S. J. Varma, J. Moran, T. Chervy, X. Zhong, E. De- vaux, C. Genet, J. A. Hutchison, and T. W. Ebbesen, Ground-state chemical reactivity under vibrational cou- pling to the vacuum electromagnetic field, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55,...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Thomas, A

    A. Thomas, A. Jayachandran, L. Lethuillier-Karl, R. M. A. Vergauwe, K. Nagarajan, E. Devaux, C. Genet, J. Moran, and T. W. Ebbesen, Ground state chem- istry under vibrational strong coupling: dependence of thermodynamic parameters on the rabi splitting energy, Nanophotonics 9,...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Lather, P

    J. Lather, P. Bhatt, A. Thomas, T. W. Ebbesen, and J. George, Cavity catalysis by cooperative vibra- tional strong coupling of reactant and solvent molecules, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 58, 10635 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hirai, J

    K. Hirai, J. A. Hutchison, and H. Uji-i, Molecular chem- istry in cavity strong coupling, Chem. Rev. 123, 8099 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    B. S. Simpkins, A. D. Dunkelberger, and I. Vurgaftman, Control, modulation, and analytical descriptions of vi- brational strong coupling, Chem. Rev. 123, 5020 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Thomas, E

    A. Thomas, E. Devaux, K. Nagarajan, G. Rogez, M. Sei- del, F. Richard, C. Genet, M. Drillon, and T. W. Ebbe- sen, Large enhancement of ferromagnetism under a col- lective strong coupling of ybco nanoparticles, Nano Lett. 21, 4365 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    R. M. A. Vergauwe, A. Thomas, K. Nagarajan, A. Sha- labney, J. George, T. Chervy, M. Seidel, E. Devaux, V. Torbeev, and T. W. Ebbesen, Modification of enzyme 9 activity by vibrational strong coupling of water, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 58, 15324 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    A. M. Berghuis, V. Serpenti, M. Ramezani, S. Wang, and J. G. Rivas, Light–matter coupling strength controlled by the orientation of organic crystals in plasmonic cavities, J. Phys. Chem. C 124, 12030 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    A. M. Berghuis, R. H. Tichauer, L. M. A. de Jong, I. Sokolovskii, P. Bai, M. Ramezani, S. Murai, G. Groen- hof, and J. G. Rivas, Controlling exciton propagation in organic crystals through strong coupling to plasmonic nanoparticle arrays, ACS Photonics 9, 2263 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    D. Xu, A. Mandal, J. M. Baxter, S.-W. Cheng, I. Lee, H. Su, S. Liu, D. R. Reichman, and M. Delor, Ultrafast imaging of polariton propagation and interactions, Nat Commun 14, 3881 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    H. Deng, H. Haug, and Y. Yamamoto, Exciton-polariton bose-einstein condensation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1489 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    G. G. Rozenman, K. Akulov, A. Golombek, and T. Schwartz, Long-Range Transport of Organic Exciton- Polaritons Revealed by Ultrafast Microscopy, ACS Pho- tonics 5, 105 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Timmer, M

    D. Timmer, M. Gittinger, T. Quenzel, S. Stephan, Y. Zhang, M. F. Schumacher, A. L¨ utzen, M. Silies, S. Tre- tiak, J.-H. Zhong, A. De Sio, and C. Lienau, Plasmon mediated coherent population oscillations in molecular aggregates, Nat. Commun. 14, 8035 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    J. M. L¨ uttgens, F. J. Berger, and J. Zaumseil, Popula- tion of Exciton–Polaritons via Luminescent sp3 Defects in Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes, ACS Photonics 8, 182 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    M¨ ohl, A

    C. M¨ ohl, A. Graf, F. J. Berger, J. L¨ uttgens, Y. Zakharko, V. Lumsargis, M. C. Gather, and J. Zaumseil, Trion- Polariton Formation in Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Microcavities, ACS Photonics 5, 2074 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    A. Graf, L. Tropf, Y. Zakharko, J. Zaumseil, and M. C. Gather, Near-infrared exciton-polaritons in strongly cou- pled single-walled carbon nanotube microcavities, Nat. Commun. 7, 13078 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    A. Graf, M. Held, Y. Zakharko, L. Tropf, M. C. Gather, and J. Zaumseil, Electrical pumping and tuning of exciton-polaritons in carbon nanotube microcavities, Nat. Mater. 16, 911 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    M. Son, Z. T. Armstrong, R. T. Allen, A. Dhavamani, M. S. Arnold, and M. T. Zanni, Energy cascades in donor- acceptor exciton-polaritons observed by ultrafast two- dimensional white-light spectroscopy, Nat. Commun. 13, 7305 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    R. T. Allen, A. Dhavamani, M. Son, S. K´ ena-Cohen, M. T. Zanni, and M. S. Arnold, Population of Subradiant States in Carbon Nanotube Microcavities in the Ultra- strong Light–Matter Coupling Regime, J. Phys. Chem. C 126, 8417 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Mandal, D

    A. Mandal, D. Xu, A. Mahajan, J. Lee, M. Delor, and D. R. Reichman, Microscopic Theory of Multimode Po- lariton Dispersion in Multilayered Materials, Nano Lett. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c01017 (2023)

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    L. P. Lindoy, A. Mandal, and D. R. Reichman, Resonant cavity modification of ground-state chemi- cal kinetics, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 6580 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c01521

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Ruggenthaler, D

    M. Ruggenthaler, D. Sidler, and A. Rubio, Understand- ing polaritonic chemistry from ab initio quantum electro- dynamics, Chem. Rev. 123, 11191 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Mandal, M

    A. Mandal, M. A. D. Taylor, B. M. Weight, E. R. Koessler, X. Li, and P. Huo, Theoretical advances in po- lariton chemistry and molecular cavity quantum electro- dynamics, Chem. Rev. 123, 9786 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    B. M. Weight, X. Li, and Y. Zhang, Theory and model- ing of light-matter interactions in chemistry: current and future, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10.1039/D3CP01415K (2023)

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Foley, Jonathan J., J

    I. Foley, Jonathan J., J. F. McTague, and I. DePrince, A. Eugene, Ab initio methods for polariton chemistry, Chem. Phys. Rev. 4, 041301 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    D. S. Wang and S. F. Yelin, A roadmap toward the the- ory of vibrational polariton chemistry, ACS Photonics 8, 2818 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    T. S. Haugland, J. P. Philbin, T. K. Ghosh, M. Chen, H. Koch, and P. Narang, Understanding the polaritonic ground state in cavity quantum electrodynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14822 (2023), 11 pages, 3 Figures, arXiv:2307.14822 [physics.chem-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zhang, T

    Y. Zhang, T. Nelson, and S. Tretiak, Non-adiabatic molecular dynamics of molecules in the presence of strong light-matter interactions, J. Chem. Phys. 151, 154109 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Flick, H

    J. Flick, H. Appel, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Cavity born–oppenheimer approximation for correlated electron–nuclear-photon systems, J. Chem. Theory Com- put. 13, 1616 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    B. M. Weight, T. D. Krauss, and P. Huo, Investigating molecular exciton polaritons using ab initio cavity quan- tum electrodynamics, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14, 5901 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Schnappinger, D

    T. Schnappinger, D. Sidler, M. Ruggenthaler, A. Rubio, and M. Kowalewski, Cavity born–oppenheimer hartree– fock ansatz: Light–matter properties of strongly coupled molecular ensembles, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 14, 8024 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    T. S. Haugland, E. Ronca, E. F. Kjønstad, A. Rubio, and H. Koch, Coupled cluster theory for molecular polaritons: Changing ground and excited states, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041043 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Z.-H. Cui, A. Mandal, and D. R. Reichman, Varia- tional lang–firsov approach plus møller–plesset perturba- tion theory with applications to ab initio polariton chem- istry, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 20, 1143 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    R. R. Riso, T. S. Haugland, E. Ronca, and H. Koch, Molecular orbital theory in cavity QED environments, Nat. Commun. 13, 1368 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Li and Y

    X. Li and Y. Zhang, First-principles molecular quantum electrodynamics theory at all coupling strengths, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18228 (2023), report number: LA- UR-23-32211, arXiv:2310.18228 [physics.chem-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mazin and Y

    I. Mazin and Y. Zhang, Light-matter hybridization and entanglement from the first-principles, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15022 (2024), report number: LA-UR-24- 31481, arXiv:2411.15022 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Flick, C

    J. Flick, C. Sch¨ afer, M. Ruggenthaler, H. Appel, and A. Rubio, Ab initio optimized effective potentials for real molecules in optical cavities: Photon contributions to the molecular ground state, ACS Photonics 5, 992 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Pellegrini, J

    C. Pellegrini, J. Flick, I. V. Tokatly, H. Appel, and A. Ru- bio, Optimized effective potential for quantum electrody- namical time-dependent density functional theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 093001 (2015). 10

    2015

  42. [50]

    Flick, N

    J. Flick, N. Rivera, and P. Narang, Strong light-matter coupling in quantum chemistry and quantum photonics, Nanophotonics 7, 1479 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Ruggenthaler, J

    M. Ruggenthaler, J. Flick, C. Pellegrini, H. Appel, I. V. Tokatly, and A. Rubio, Quantum-electrodynamical density-functional theory: Bridging quantum optics and electronic-structure theory, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012508 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Ruggenthaler, N

    M. Ruggenthaler, N. Tancogne-Dejean, J. Flick, H. Ap- pel, and A. Rubio, From a quantum-electrodynamical light–matter description to novel spectroscopies, Nat. Rev. Chem. 2, 1 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    T. S. Haugland, C. Sch¨ afer, E. Ronca, A. Rubio, and H. Koch, Intermolecular interactions in optical cavities: An ab initio qed study, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 094113 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0039256

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Pavoˇ sevi´ c, S

    F. Pavoˇ sevi´ c, S. Hammes-Schiffer, A. Rubio, and J. Flick, Cavity-modulated proton transfer re- actions, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 4995 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c13201

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    A. E. DePrince, Cavity-modulated ionization potentials and electron affinities from quantum electrodynamics coupled-cluster theory, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 094112 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    A. F. White, Y. Gao, A. J. Minnich, and G. K.-L. Chan, A coupled cluster framework for electrons and phonons, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 224112 (2020), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0033132/15582189/224112 1 online.pdf

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    B. M. Weight, S. Tretiak, and Y. Zhang, Diffusion quan- tum monte carlo approach to the polaritonic ground state, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032804 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Weber, L

    L. Weber, L. dos Anjos Cunha, M. A. Morales, A. Rubio, and S. Zhang, Phaseless auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo method for cavity-qed matter systems, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 21, 2909 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Y. Tang, G. M. Andolina, A. Cuzzocrea, M. Mezera, P. B. Szab´ o, Z. Sch¨ atzle, F. No´ e, and P. A. Erdman, Deep quantum monte carlo approach for polaritonic chemistry (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Flick and P

    J. Flick and P. Narang, Ab initio polaritonic potential- energy surfaces for excited-state nanophotonics and po- laritonic chemistry, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 094116 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    J. Yang, Q. Ou, Z. Pei, H. Wang, B. Weng, Z. Shuai, K. Mullen, and Y. Shao, Quantum-electrodynamical time-dependent density functional theory within gaus- sian atomic basis, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 064107 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    J. Yang, Z. Pei, E. C. Leon, C. Wickizer, B. Weng, Y. Mao, Q. Ou, and Y. Shao, Cavity quantum- electrodynamical time-dependent density functional the- ory within Gaussian atomic basis. II. Analytic energy gradient, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 124104 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    M. D. Liebenthal, N. Vu, and A. E. DePrince, Equation- of-motion cavity quantum electrodynamics coupled- cluster theory for electron attachment, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 054105 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    M. D. Liebenthal, N. Vu, and A. E. I. DePrince, As- sessing the effects of orbital relaxation and the coherent- state transformation in quantum electrodynamics density functional and coupled-cluster theories, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10821 (2023), published version available ...

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    N. Vu, G. M. McLeod, K. Hanson, and A. E. I. DePrince, Enhanced diastereocontrol via strong light–matter in- teractions in an optical cavity, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 126, 9303 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Mordovina, C

    U. Mordovina, C. Bungey, H. Appel, P. J. Knowles, A. Rubio, and F. R. Manby, Polaritonic coupled-cluster theory, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023262 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    N. Vu, D. Mejia-Rodriguez, N. P. Bauman, A. Panyala, E. Mutlu, N. Govind, and J. J. I. Foley, Cavity quan- tum electrodynamics complete active space configuration interaction theory, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 20, 1214 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Flick and P

    J. Flick and P. Narang, Cavity-correlated electron- nuclear dynamics from first principles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 113002 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Sch¨ afer, F

    C. Sch¨ afer, F. Buchholz, M. Penz, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Making ab initio QED functional(s): Non- perturbative and photon-free effective frameworks for strong light–matter coupling, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2110464118 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Flick, Simple exchange-correlation energy functionals for strongly coupled light-matter systems based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Phys

    J. Flick, Simple exchange-correlation energy functionals for strongly coupled light-matter systems based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 143201 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    G. M. Akselrod, J. Huang, T. B. Hoang, P. T. Bowen, L. Su, D. R. Smith, and M. H. Mikkelsen, Large- area metasurface perfect absorbers from visible to near- infrared, Adv. Mater. 27, 8028 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    T. B. Hoang, G. M. Akselrod, and M. H. Mikkelsen, Ultrafast room-temperature single photon emission from quantum dots coupled to plasmonic nanocavities, Nano Lett. 16, 270 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    B. M. Weight, D. J. Weix, Z. J. Tonzetich, T. D. Krauss, and P. Huo, Cavity quantum electrodynamics enables para- and ortho-selective electrophilic bromination of ni- trobenzene, Journal of the American Chemical Society 146, 16184 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    H. Koch, A. S´ anchez de Mer´ as, and T. B. Pedersen, Reduced sgcaling in electronic structure calculations us- ing cholesky decompositions, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9481 (2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    N. H. F. Beebe and J. Linderberg, Simplifications in the generation and transformation of two-electron integrals in molecular calculations, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 12, 683 (1977)

    1977

  68. [76]

    Purwanto and S

    W. Purwanto and S. Zhang, Quantum monte carlo method for the ground state of many-boson systems, Phys. Rev. E 70, 056702 (2004)

    2004

  69. [77]

    Shi and S

    H. Shi and S. Zhang, Some recent developments in auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo for real materials, The Journal of Chemical Physics 154, 024107 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    M. Suzuki, Relationship between d-dimensional quan- tal spin systems and (d+1)-dimensional ising systems: Equivalence, critical exponents and systematic approx- imants of the partition function and spin correlations, Progress of Theoretical Physics 56, 1454 (1976)

    1976

  71. [79]

    N. C. Costa, K. Seki, S. Yunoki, and S. Sorella, Phase diagram of the two-dimensional hubbard-holstein model, Commun. Phys. 3, 80 (2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    Zhang, Multiscale ecosystem for solving maxwell- schr¨ odinger equations of open quantum systems (openms) (2023)

    Y. Zhang, Multiscale ecosystem for solving maxwell- schr¨ odinger equations of open quantum systems (openms) (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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