Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Enabling Multireference Calculations on Multi-Metallic Systems with Graphic Processing Units

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GPU acceleration makes converged LASSCF multireference calculations practical for multimetallic catalysts, cutting time-to-solution by roughly 6-13x on a single node.

desk verdict First credible GPU-accelerated LASSCF with real speedups on multimetallic systems, but the headline numbers need an energy-consistency check before they're fully load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03755 v1 pith:OILYPO6W submitted 2025-04-18 physics.comp-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Valay Agarawal , Rishu Khurana , Cong Liu , Matthew R. Hermes , Christopher Knight , Laura Gagliardi This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords GPUaccelerationLASSCFmultireferencemethodsdensityfittingmultimetalliccatalystsperformanceportabilityCoulombandexchangekernelsactivespace
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 reports an initial GPU implementation of localized active space self-consistent field (LASSCF), a multireference method that fragments a large active space into local pieces. The implementation uses density fitting to replace four-center electron repulsion integrals with cheaper three-center Cholesky vectors, and offloads the two dominant kernels — effective Coulomb/exchange potentials (JK) and orbital-transformed integrals (AO2MO) — to multiple GPUs. On realistic iron-sulfur, MOF-node, and dinickel catalyst systems, total time-to-solution drops by roughly 6-13x for LASSCF and about 15-21x for a comparison CASSCF run, on one node with up to four NVIDIA A100 GPUs, with comparable early results on Intel Max Series GPUs. A sympathetic reader would care because multimetallic systems are exactly where multireference methods are needed and previously too slow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is density fitting (Cholesky decomposition) plus a lightweight, portable C++ GPU library that implements two kernels. Density fitting writes the four-center two-electron integral as a contraction of three-center Cholesky vectors with the inverse of a two-center matrix, reducing memory from O($Nao^{4}$) to O(Naux $Nao^{2}$). The JK kernel builds Coulomb and exchange effective potentials by contracting Cholesky vectors with one- and two-particle density matrices; the AO2MO kernel transforms Cholesky vectors from the atomic-orbital basis to the fragment embedding basis and forms the specific integral classes the CASSCF micro-solver needs. Cholesky vectors are cached on the GPUs with a hashing scheme, transfers use pinned memory, and GPU work is launched asynchronously across all devices on a node, so the costliest operations overlap and run in parallel.

What would settle it

Take one of the reported systems, for example the iron-sulfur cluster, and run the same converged LASSCF calculation on CPU and GPU from identical initial guesses while recording final total electronic energies and iteration counts; if the GPU run reaches the same energy through a different path with far fewer iterations, the claimed speedup would not be pure kernel acceleration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the bottleneck of LASSCF on realistic multimetallic systems is not the fragment full-CI active-space solves but a small set of linear-algebra kernels — the JK effective potentials and the AO2MO integral transformations — and that accelerating just these kernels on GPUs is enough to make converged LASSCF calculations practical at roughly 660-1380 atomic orbitals. Concretely, converged LASSCF on the iron-sulfur tetramer with a (22e,40o) active space runs in about 27 minutes with 4 GPUs versus about 3.3 hours on CPU-only (7.3x), and on a MIL-127 MOF node with 1164 orbitals and an (18e,30o) active space in about 1.4 hours versus about 17.8 hours (12.6x). The same kernels make a standalone CASSCF on an aluminum-diiron cluster run 21.4x faster, showing the acceleration is not LASSCF-specific.

Load-bearing premise

The CPU and GPU runs are doing essentially the same numerical work, so the wall-clock ratios measure speed rather than different convergence paths or iteration counts; the supporting information shows identical inputs can converge differently between runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Converged LASSCF runs on realistic catalyst models with 660-1380 atomic orbitals and active spaces up to (22e,40o) become feasible on a single multi-GPU node.
  • Because only the JK and AO2MO kernels are accelerated, the speedup carries over to plain CASSCF runs without extra user code changes.
  • As basis sets grow, the cost balance shifts further toward the accelerated kernels, so the speedup is expected to grow rather than shrink with system size.
  • The same code runs without tuning on NVIDIA and Intel GPUs, though multi-GPU scaling efficiency above four GPUs is not yet ideal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the kernel-centric strategy is as general as the CASSCF result suggests, post-LASSCF methods that reuse the same effective-potential machinery should inherit much of the speedup with little extra implementation effort.
  • A natural next test is whether the JK and AO2MO kernels remain the bottleneck once the exact full-CI solver moves to GPUs; the paper itself flags the CI solver and Cholesky-vector memory as future bottlenecks.
  • The single-node, multi-GPU design points to fragment-level distributed parallelism as the straightforward way to scale beyond one node, since fragment CASSCF tasks are independent.
  • The portability claim could be tested further by running the same kernels on AMD GPUs; the paper mentions that a translated HIP version exists but results are deferred.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an initial GPU-accelerated implementation of LASSCF (and, as a byproduct, CASSCF) within the mrh/PySCF framework, using density fitting and a portable C++ library (libgpu) with CUDA, SYCL, and HIP backends. The authors profile CPU-only LASSCF, identify the JK (effective potential) and AO2MO (CASSCF ERI) kernels as dominant bottlenecks, offload these to GPUs, and benchmark end-to-end convergence runs and controlled-workload 'unit' runs on Polaris (NVIDIA A100) and Aurora (Intel Max Series) nodes. They report 5–13x speedups for LASSCF on multimetallic systems with up to about 1200 atomic orbitals and an active space of (22e,40o), a 21.4x speedup for a CASSCF benchmark, and multi-GPU scaling experiments. The companion data repository provides input files, output files, and analysis scripts.

Significance. If the performance claims are verified, this is a useful contribution: it brings GPU acceleration to a multireference method that is otherwise severely limited for multi-metallic systems, demonstrates multi-GPU use for LASSCF, and shows performance portability to Intel GPUs without vendor-specific rewrites. The paper's strengths include detailed bottleneck profiling (Sec. 2.C), a clear description of the software design (Sec. 3), controlled-workload unit runs (Sec. 4.C), open data (ref. 83), and an honest discussion of convergence-path variability in the SI. The central claim—that end-to-end LASSCF time-to-solution is reduced by roughly one order of magnitude on realistic systems—is plausible but, as detailed below, is not yet established because the CPU and GPU runs are not directly shown to solve the same electronic-structure problem to the same tolerance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.A, Sec. 4.C, SI Sec. II.B] The paper never reports a converged total-energy comparison between CPU and GPU runs. Section 4.A says polyacetylenes were used for 'testing accuracy' but no numerical results are given, and the SI (Sec. II.B) states that identical inputs can take different convergence paths, with a GPU run stuck in a local minimum until iteration 27, concluding 'Irregular convergence patterns can distort performance metrics. Stable convergence tests are required.' Since the GPU path replaces JK and AO2MO kernels that change floating-point evaluation order, convergence-path divergence is expected, not hypothetical. Therefore the wall-time ratios in Tables I and II may include algorithmic workload differences (number of LASSCF cycles, CASSCF iterations, recombination cycles) rather than pure GPU acceleration. The authors should report final converged energies (or equivalent convergence diagnostics such as final orbital gradients and CI gradients) for every CPU and GPU run in Tables I–III, and show that they reach the same stationary point to the same tolerance. Without this, the headline speedups are not fully supported.
  2. [Sec. 4.C, Table I, system C] The speedups are based on single runs without error bars or repeat measurements, and the authors themselves document workload variability that directly affects the reported numbers. For the system C unit run, the CPU run performs 37 recombination SCF cycles while the Polaris and Aurora runs perform 51 and 55 cycles, respectively (Sec. 4.C); Table I reports 8.0x and 10.5x speedups for system C, yet the per-cycle recombination speedup is stated to be about 8x, closer to system B. This means the apparent 10.5x figure is partly a workload artifact. The authors should provide multiple repeats (or cycle-resolved timings) for at least the systems with unstable convergence (B and C), and report speedups as mean and spread. A single run is insufficient for a performance claim whose own SI says the metric is distorted by convergence patterns.
  3. [Sec. 4.D, Table III] The multi-GPU scaling results do not support a strong scaling claim. For LASSCF on system A with Polaris, the wall time decreases from 685 s (1 GPU) to 488 s (4 GPUs), but GPU active time drops from 47% to 26%; on Aurora, the time decreases from 722 s (1 GPU) to 565 s (4 GPUs) and then increases to 587 s at 6 GPUs. The authors correctly attribute the 6-GPU degradation to serialized accumulation, but the lack of repeat measurements makes it impossible to distinguish genuine scaling from run-to-run variability, which the SI shows is substantial for these systems. Please provide repeated scaling runs or per-phase timing breakdowns with uncertainties so that the 'fully utilize multi-GPU compute nodes' claim can be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Sec. 4.C, Table I] The abstract states '5-10x in total application runtime', but Table I reports 12.6x for system B on both architectures; the body also says '7-10x' in the introduction. Please reconcile these numbers, e.g., by saying 'up to 13x' or by restricting the abstract claim to the systems summarized there.
  2. [Fig. 8(c) caption and Sec. 4.A] The caption of Fig. 8(c) says system C has a (11e,10o) active space, but the text in Sec. 4.A describes system C as two Ni+2 centers with (8e,10o) each, giving a total (16e,20o) active space. Please correct the typo.
  3. [Sec. 2.D.i] The statement that 'most modern software, including PySCF, perform this calculation in blocks of size Nblk' would benefit from a brief explanation of how Nblk affects load balance and memory, and whether the PySCF default of 240 is optimal for the GPU versions; the authors note this as future work, which is fine.
  4. [SI Sec. II.A] There is a typo in the SI: 'Iron Sulfur cluster (or sytem A)' should read 'system A'.
  5. [Sec. 4.C] The phrase 'Subsection 2 2.C' should be 'Subsection 2.C', and 'atleast' should be 'at least' in the conclusions section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the speedups are direct wall-time measurements against a CPU baseline, with no derived quantity reduced to fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical performance measurements: GPU-accelerated LASSCF/CASSCF runs are timed against CPU-only runs on the same systems, with speedups reported directly from wall times in Tables I-III. There is no fitted parameter that is later relabeled as a prediction, and no equation in the paper reduces to a quantity defined by the paper's own prior work in a way that forces the result. The LASSCF theory cited from Refs. 23-24 is legitimate prior methodology that the implementation accelerates; the truth of those equations is not the thing being demonstrated, and citing them is not circular. The SI's explicit caveat that "Irregular convergence patterns can distort performance metrics. Stable convergence tests are required" is a genuine benchmarking limitation: CPU and GPU convergence paths can differ, so the end-to-end speedup numbers may partly reflect workload differences rather than pure hardware acceleration. The authors partially address this with fixed-cycle 'unit' runs in Sec. 4.C, which holds iteration caps constant. This concern affects the strength and interpretation of the speedup figures, but it is not circularity, because the measurements remain direct comparisons of the same implementation with and without GPU kernels. The mention of "testing accuracy" on polyacetylenes is unquantified, but a missing accuracy check is a completeness or correctness issue, not a self-referential reduction. No load-bearing step depends on a self-citation chain or on defining an input in terms of the output. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the correct finding is no significant circularity.

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

No new physical entities are postulated in the paper. The only new objects are software components (libgpu, hashing scheme, CUDA/SYCL/HIP backends), which are implementation artifacts rather than scientific entities. The free parameters listed are implementation and benchmark controls, not fitted physical constants, while the axioms are the methodological assumptions inherited from LASSCF theory, density fitting, and the portability translation approach.

free parameters (2)
  • Nblk (JK block size) = 240
    Kept at the PySCF default for all runs; it controls memory versus performance in blocked Coulomb and exchange builds and could bias measured speedups if changed per system.
  • Maximum cycle caps for unit runs = 10/50/10
    LASSCF maximum cycles, CASSCF maximum cycles, and recombination maximum cycles are set to 10, 50, and 10 in the controlled comparisons. They are chosen by hand to create similar workloads and are not fitted to data, but they determine the unit-run speedup numbers.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LASSCF method as defined in Refs 23 and 24 correctly describes the target multimetallic systems with the chosen fragment active spaces and embedding potentials (Eqs. 3-7).
    The paper does not derive or validate LASSCF theory; it inherits the method and assumes the fragment decomposition is chemically valid for the iron-sulfur cluster, MOF node, dinickel catalyst, and aluminum-iron oxide cluster.
  • domain assumption Density fitting (Eq. 12) gives accurate 4-center electron repulsion integrals for these systems within the auxiliary basis used.
    The GPU implementation computes with fitted integrals; errors relative to exact ERIs are not discussed for the benchmark systems.
  • ad hoc to paper Auto-translated SYCL and HIP kernels, generated via SYCLomatic and HIPify with only minor modifications, compute the same numerical results as the CUDA kernels.
    The portability claim rests on this assumption; no numerical evidence is presented that Aurora runs match Polaris or CPU energies.
  • domain assumption PySCF's fragment CASSCF solver and CI code are correct and unchanged in the GPU workflow.
    Only JK and AO2MO are GPU-ported; all other steps run on the CPU in both baseline and accelerated runs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enabling Multireference Calculations on Multi-Metallic Systems with Graphic Processing Units." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OILYPO6W

@misc{pith2026250503755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enabling Multireference Calculations on Multi-Metallic Systems with Graphic Processing Units},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OILYPO6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03755}
}
read the original abstract

Modeling multimetallic systems efficiently enables faster prediction of desirable chemical properties and design of new materials. This work describes an initial implementation for performing multireference wave function method localized active space self-consistent field (LASSCF) calculations through the use of multiple graphics processing units (GPUs) to accelerate time-to-solution. Density fitting is leveraged to reduce memory requirements, and we demonstrate the ability to fully utilize multi-GPU compute nodes. Performance improvements of 5-10x in total application runtime were observed in LASSCF calculations for multimetallic catalyst systems up to 1200 AOs and an active space of (22e,40o) using up to four NVIDIA A100 GPUs. Written with performance portability in mind, comparable performance is also observed in early runs on the Aurora exascale system using Intel Max Series GPUs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Flowchart of LASSCF algorithm. Highlighted boxes represented various phases of calculations. The green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: CPU run profile for iron-sulfur cluster. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: General code structure for offloading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: A sample code to run a LASSCF calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Systems under study. (a) Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Calculation profiles for: (a) LASSCF on system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Calculation profiles for: (a) LASSCF on system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Scaling of (a) LASSCF and (b) CASSCF with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: LASSCF runs till convergence with CPU, Polaris, Aurora [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: LASSCF runs till convergence with CPU, Polaris, Aurora [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: LASSCF runs till convergence with CPU and three identical Polaris runs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: LASSCF unit runs for Iron sulfur cluster with various resources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: LASSCF runs for unit runs for Nickel Diiron system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: LASSCF runs for unit runs for DiNickel system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Effect of variation of basis set on performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Effect of variation of fragments on performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Effect of variation of active space on performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: GPU trace timelines for three versions of algorithms to perform Eq. 1 - 4 in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Szabo \ and\ author N

    author author A. Szabo \ and\ author N. S. \ Ostlund ,\ @noop title Modern quantum chemistry: introduction to advanced electronic structure theory \ ( publisher Courier Corporation ,\ year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  2. [2]

    Kohn \ and\ author L

    author author W. Kohn \ and\ author L. J. \ Sham ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review \ volume 140 ,\ pages A1133 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965

  3. [3]

    M ller \ and\ author M

    author author C. M ller \ and\ author M. S. \ Plesset ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review \ volume 46 ,\ pages 618 ( year 1934 ) NoStop

    1934

  4. [4]

    C \' i z ek ,\ @noop journal journal J

    author author J. C \' i z ek ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 45 ,\ pages 4256 ( year 1966 ) NoStop

    1966

  5. [5]

    C \' i z ek ,\ @noop journal journal Adv

    author author J. C \' i z ek ,\ @noop journal journal Adv. Chem. Phys \ volume 14 ,\ pages 35 ( year 1969 ) NoStop

    1969

  6. [6]

    C \' z ek \ and\ author J

    author author J. C \' z ek \ and\ author J. Paldus ,\ @noop journal journal Int. J. Quantum Chem. \ volume 5 ,\ pages 359 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    1971

  7. [7]

    author author R. J. \ Bartlett \ and\ author M. Musia ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of Modern Physics \ volume 79 ,\ pages 291 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  8. [8]

    author author B. O. \ Roos , author P. R. \ Taylor , \ and\ author P. E. \ Sigbahn ,\ @noop journal journal Chemical Physics \ volume 48 ,\ pages 157 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Huron , author J

    author author B. Huron , author J. P. \ Malrieu , \ and\ author P. Rancurel ,\ 10.1063/1.1679199 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 58 ,\ pages 5745 ( year 1973 ) NoStop

    1973 doi

  2. [10]

    Cimiraglia \ and\ author M

    author author R. Cimiraglia \ and\ author M. Persico ,\ 10.1002/jcc.540080105 journal journal J. Comput. Chem. \ volume 8 ,\ pages 39 ( year 1987 ) NoStop

    1987 doi

  3. [11]

    Miralles , author O

    author author J. Miralles , author O. Castell , author R. Caballol , \ and\ author J. P. \ Malrieu ,\ 10.1016/0301-0104(93)80104-H journal journal Chem. Phys. \ volume 172 ,\ pages 33 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    Neese ,\ 10.1063/1.1615956 journal journal J

    author author F. Neese ,\ 10.1063/1.1615956 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 119 ,\ pages 9428 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    author author N. M. \ Tubman , author J. Lee , author T. Y. \ Takeshita , author M. Head-Gordon , \ and\ author K. B. \ Whaley ,\ 10.1063/1.4955109 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 145 ,\ pages 044112 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    author author A. A. \ Holmes , author N. M. \ Tubman , \ and\ author C. J. \ Umrigar ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00407 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 3674 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    author author S. R. \ White ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 69 ,\ pages 2863 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  8. [16]

    author author P. A. \ Malmqvist , author A. Rendell , \ and\ author B. O. \ Roos ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. Chem. \ volume 94 ,\ pages 5477 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990

  9. [17]

    Olsen , author B

    author author J. Olsen , author B. O. \ Roos , author P. J \"o rgensen , \ and\ author H. J. A. \ Jensen ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 89 ,\ pages 2185 ( year 1988 a ) NoStop

    1988

  10. [18]

    Olsen , author B

    author author J. Olsen , author B. O. \ Roos , author P. J \"o rgensen , \ and\ author H. J. A. \ Jensen ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 89 ,\ pages 2185 ( year 1988 b ) NoStop

    1988

  11. [19]

    Ma , author G

    author author D. Ma , author G. Li Manni , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 135 ,\ pages 044128 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  12. [20]

    author author K. D. \ Vogiatzis , author G. Li Manni , author S. J. \ Stoneburner , author D. Ma , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 11 ,\ pages 3010 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  13. [21]

    author author S. O. \ Odoh , author G. L. \ Manni , author R. K. \ Carlson , author D. G. \ Truhlar , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal Chem. Sci. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 2399 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  14. [22]

    author author C. a. \ Jim \' e nez-Hoyos \ and\ author G. E. \ Scuseria ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.085101 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 92 ,\ pages 085101 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    author author M. R. \ Hermes , author R. Pandharkar , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 16 ,\ pages 4923 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  16. [24]

    author author M. R. \ Hermes \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01009 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 15 ,\ pages 972 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Pandharkar , author M

    author author R. Pandharkar , author M. R. \ Hermes , author C. J. \ Cramer , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 18 ,\ pages 6557 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  18. [26]

    Mavrandonakis , author K

    author author A. Mavrandonakis , author K. D. \ Vogiatzis , author A. D. \ Boese , author K. Fink , author T. Heine , \ and\ author W. Klopper ,\ @noop journal journal Inorganic Chemistry \ volume 54 ,\ pages 8251 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  19. [27]

    author author J. G. \ Vitillo , author A. Bhan , author C. J. \ Cramer , author C. C. \ Lu , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal Acs Catalysis \ volume 9 ,\ pages 2870 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  20. [28]

    Khurana , author V

    author author R. Khurana , author V. Agarawal , \ and\ author C. Liu ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry C \ volume 128 ,\ pages 16986 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  21. [29]

    Sharma , author D

    author author P. Sharma , author D. G. \ Truhlar , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the American Chemical Society \ volume 142 ,\ pages 16644 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  22. [30]

    Campanella , author A

    author author A. Campanella , author A. Gin , author S. Sung , author C. Jackson , author R. Martinez , author A. Ozarowski , author I. Bhowmick , \ and\ author J. Zadrozny ,\ @noop \ ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  23. [31]

    Knizia \ and\ author G

    author author G. Knizia \ and\ author G. K.-L. \ Chan ,\ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 109 ,\ pages 186404 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  24. [32]

    Ma , author M

    author author H. Ma , author M. Govoni , \ and\ author G. Galli ,\ @noop journal journal npj Computational Materials \ volume 6 ,\ pages 85 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  25. [33]

    @noop title Top 500 supercomputers - june 2024 , \ howpublished https://top500.org/lists/top500/2024/06/ ,\ note accessed: 2024-06-17 NoStop

    2024

  26. [34]

    author author I. S. \ Ufimtsev \ and\ author T. J. \ Martinez ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 4 ,\ pages 222 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  27. [35]

    author author J. L. \ Galvez Vallejo , author C. Snowdon , author R. Stocks , author F. Kazemian , author F. C. \ Yan Yu , author C. Seidl , author Z. Seeger , author M. Alkan , author D. Poole , author B. M. \ Westheimer , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemic...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Spiga \ and\ author I

    author author F. Spiga \ and\ author I. Girotto ,\ in\ @noop booktitle 2012 20th Euromicro international conference on parallel, distributed and network-based processing \ ( organization IEEE ,\ year 2012 )\ pp.\ pages 368--375 NoStop

    2012

  29. [37]

    author author E. G. \ Hohenstein , author N. Luehr , author I. S. \ Ufimtsev , \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart \' nez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 142 ( year 2015 a ) NoStop

    2015

  30. [38]

    Li , author Q

    author author R. Li , author Q. Sun , author X. Zhang , \ and\ author G. K. \ Chan ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09700 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kussmann \ and\ author C

    author author J. Kussmann \ and\ author C. Ochsenfeld ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 13 ,\ pages 2712 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  32. [40]

    Andrade \ and\ author A

    author author X. Andrade \ and\ author A. Aspuru-Guzik ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of chemical theory and computation \ volume 9 ,\ pages 4360 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  33. [41]

    Alkan , author B

    author author M. Alkan , author B. Q. \ Pham , author D. Del Angel Cruz , author J. R. \ Hammond , author T. A. \ Barnes , \ and\ author M. S. \ Gordon ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 161 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  34. [42]

    author author D. B. \ Williams-Young , author A. Asadchev , author D. T. \ Popovici , author D. Clark , author J. Waldrop , author T. L. \ Windus , author E. F. \ Valeev , \ and\ author W. A. \ de Jong ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 158 ( yea...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Stocks , author E

    author author R. Stocks , author E. Palethorpe , \ and\ author G. M. \ Barca ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 20 ,\ pages 2505 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  36. [44]

    Asadchev \ and\ author M

    author author A. Asadchev \ and\ author M. S. \ Gordon ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of chemical theory and computation \ volume 8 ,\ pages 4166 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  37. [45]

    author author G. M. \ Barca , author D. L. \ Poole , author J. L. G. \ Vallejo , author M. Alkan , author C. Bertoni , author A. P. \ Rendell , \ and\ author M. S. \ Gordon ,\ in\ @noop booktitle SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storag...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Bussy , author O

    author author A. Bussy , author O. Sch \"u tt , \ and\ author J. Hutter ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 158 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  39. [47]

    Qi , author Y

    author author J. Qi , author Y. Zhang , \ and\ author M. Yang ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 159 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  40. [48]

    Stopper \ and\ author R

    author author D. Stopper \ and\ author R. Roth ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 147 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  41. [49]

    Jia , author Z

    author author W. Jia , author Z. Cao , author L. Wang , author J. Fu , author X. Chi , author W. Gao , \ and\ author L.-W. \ Wang ,\ @noop journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 184 ,\ pages 9 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  42. [50]

    Snowdon \ and\ author G

    author author C. Snowdon \ and\ author G. M. \ Barca ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 20 ,\ pages 9394 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  43. [51]

    author author E. G. \ Hohenstein , author N. Luehr , author I. S. \ Ufimtsev , \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart \' nez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 142 ( year 2015 b ) NoStop

    2015

  44. [52]

    author author J. W. \ Snyder , author E. G. \ Hohenstein , author N. Luehr , \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart \' nez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 143 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  45. [53]

    author author E. G. \ Hohenstein , author M. E. \ Bouduban , author C. Song , author N. Luehr , author I. S. \ Ufimtsev , \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart \' nez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 143 ( year 2015 c ) NoStop

    2015

  46. [54]

    Menczer , author M

    author author A. Menczer , author M. van Damme , author A. Rask , author L. Huntington , author J. Hammond , author S. S. \ Xantheas , author M. Ganahl , \ and\ author O. Legeza ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  47. [55]

    Xiang , author W

    author author C. Xiang , author W. Jia , author W.-H. \ Fang , \ and\ author Z. Li ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 20 ,\ pages 775 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  48. [56]

    Straatsma , author R

    author author T. Straatsma , author R. Broer , author S. Faraji , author R. Havenith , author L. Suarez , author R. Kathir , author M. Wibowo , \ and\ author C. De Graaf ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 152 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  49. [57]

    Huang , author Z

    author author Y. Huang , author Z. Guo , author H. Q. \ Pham , \ and\ author D. Lv ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08314 \ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gao , author S

    author author H. Gao , author S. Imamura , author A. Kasagi , \ and\ author E. Yoshida ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 20 ,\ pages 1185 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  51. [59]

    Sun , author X

    author author Q. Sun , author X. Zhang , author S. Banerjee , author P. Bao , author M. Barbry , author N. S. \ Blunt , author N. A. \ Bogdanov , author G. H. \ Booth , author J. Chen , author Z.-H. \ Cui , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volu...

    2020

  52. [60]

    author author J. W. \ Mullinax , author E. Maradzike , author L. N. \ Koulias , author M. Mostafanejad , author E. Epifanovsky , author G. Gidofalvi , \ and\ author A. E. \ DePrince III ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of chemical theory and computation \ volume 15 ,\ pages 61...

    2019

  53. [61]

    Herault , author Y

    author author T. Herault , author Y. Robert , author G. Bosilca , author R. J. \ Harrison , author C. A. \ Lewis , author E. F. \ Valeev , \ and\ author J. J. \ Dongarra ,\ in\ @noop booktitle 2021 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) \ ( or...

    2021

  54. [62]

    Seritan , author C

    author author S. Seritan , author C. Bannwarth , author B. S. \ Fales , author E. G. \ Hohenstein , author C. M. \ Isborn , author S. I. \ Kokkila-Schumacher , author X. Li , author F. Liu , author N. Luehr , author J. W. \ Snyder Jr , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Wiley Int...

    2021

  55. [63]

    Koch , author A

    author author H. Koch , author A. S \'a nchez de Mer \'a s , \ and\ author T. B. \ Pedersen ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 118 ,\ pages 9481 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  56. [64]

    Neese , author F

    author author F. Neese , author F. Wennmohs , author A. Hansen , \ and\ author U. Becker ,\ @noop journal journal Chemical Physics \ volume 356 ,\ pages 98 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  57. [65]

    Laqua , author T

    author author H. Laqua , author T. H. \ Thompson , author J. Kussmann , \ and\ author C. Ochsenfeld ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of chemical theory and computation \ volume 16 ,\ pages 1456 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  58. [66]

    \ Werner \ and\ author P

    author author H.-J. \ Werner \ and\ author P. J. \ Knowles ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 82 ,\ pages 5053 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    1985

  59. [67]

    \ Werner \ and\ author W

    author author H.-J. \ Werner \ and\ author W. Meyer ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 73 ,\ pages 2342 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980

  60. [68]

    author author M. R. \ Hermes ,\ https://github.com/MatthewRHermes/mrh title https://github.com/MatthewRHermes/mrh , \ ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  61. [69]

    author author pybind11 Authors ,\ @noop title pybind11 , \ howpublished https://github.com/pybind/pybind11 ,\ note accessed: 2025-02-18 NoStop

    2025

  62. [70]

    author author N. S. \ developers ,\ @noop title Nsight systems , \ howpublished https://developer.nvidia.com/nsight-systems ,\ note accessed: 2025-02-18 NoStop

    2025

  63. [71]

    Wu , author Q

    author author X. Wu , author Q. Sun , author Z. Pu , author T. Zheng , author W. Ma , author W. Yan , author X. Yu , author Z. Wu , author M. Huo , author X. Li , author W. Ren , author S. Gong , author Y. Zhang , \ and\ author W. Gao ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.09452 title ...

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Authors ,\ @noop title Syclomatic , \ howpublished https://github.com/oneapi-src/SYCLomatic ,\ note accessed: 2025-02-18 NoStop

    author author S. Authors ,\ @noop title Syclomatic , \ howpublished https://github.com/oneapi-src/SYCLomatic ,\ note accessed: 2025-02-18 NoStop

    2025

  65. [73]

    https://github.com/ROCm/HIPIFY title Hipify , \ howpublished https://github.com/ROCm/HIPIFY ,\ note accessed: 2025-02-18 NoStop

    2025

  66. [74]

    author author H. C. \ Edwards , author C. R. \ Trott , \ and\ author D. Sunderland ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2014.07.003 journal journal Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing \ volume 74 ,\ pages 3202 ( year 2014 ) ,\ note domain-Specific Languages and High-Lev...

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    Trott , author L

    author author C. Trott , author L. Berger-Vergiat , author D. Poliakoff , author S. Rajamanickam , author D. Lebrun-Grandie , author J. Madsen , author N. Al Awar , author M. Gligoric , author G. Shipman , \ and\ author G. Womeldorff ,\ 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3098509 journal journa...

  68. [76]

    author author C. R. \ Trott , author D. Lebrun-Grandié , author D. Arndt , author J. Ciesko , author V. Dang , author N. Ellingwood , author R. Gayatri , author E. Harvey , author D. S. \ Hollman , author D. Ibanez , author N. Liber , author J. Madsen , author J. Miles , autho...

  69. [77]

    Nath , author S

    author author R. Nath , author S. Tomov , \ and\ author J. Dongarra ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Proceedings of the 2009 International Meeting on High Performance Computing for Computational Science, VECPAR'10 \ ( publisher Springer ,\ address Berkeley, CA ,\ year 2010 ) NoStop

    2009

  70. [78]

    author author cuTensor Authors ,\ @noop title cutensor , \ howpublished https://developer.nvidia.com/cutensor ,\ note accessed: 2025-02-18 NoStop

    2025

  71. [79]

    Kurashige , author G

    author author Y. Kurashige , author G. K.-L. \ Chan , \ and\ author T. Yanai ,\ @noop journal journal Nature chemistry \ volume 5 ,\ pages 660 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  72. [80]

    Yeh , author S

    author author B. Yeh , author S. Chheda , author S. D. \ Prinslow , author A. S. \ Hoffman , author J. Hong , author J. E. \ Perez-Aguilar , author S. R. \ Bare , author C. C. \ Lu , author L. Gagliardi , \ and\ author A. Bhan ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the American C...

    2023

  73. [81]

    author author T. H. \ Dunning Jr ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of chemical physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 1007 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989

  74. [82]

    Czerny , author K

    author author F. Czerny , author K. Searles , author P. Sot , author J. F. \ Teichert , author P. W. \ Menezes , author C. Coperet , \ and\ author M. Driess ,\ @noop journal journal Inorganic Chemistry \ volume 60 ,\ pages 5483 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  75. [83]

    Agarawal ,\ 10.5281/zenodo.15242737 title Gpu4lasscf data , \ howpublished 10.5281/zenodo.15242737 ,\ note accessed: 2025-04-17 NoStop

    author author V. Agarawal ,\ 10.5281/zenodo.15242737 title Gpu4lasscf data , \ howpublished 10.5281/zenodo.15242737 ,\ note accessed: 2025-04-17 NoStop

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    Piroozan , author S

    author author N. Piroozan , author S. J. \ Pennycook , author T. M. \ Razakh , author P. Caday , author N. Kumar , \ and\ author A. Nakano ,\ in\ @noop booktitle SC24-W: Workshops of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis ...

    2024

  77. [85]

    Hermes , author J

    author author M. Hermes , author J. Bhavnesh , author V. Agarawal , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/67cb271581d2151a028627d9 title Localized active space state interaction singles , \ ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  78. [86]

    Agarawal , author D

    author author V. Agarawal , author D. S. \ King , author M. R. \ Hermes , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 20 ,\ pages 4654 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  79. [87]

    Sharma , author K

    author author S. Sharma , author K. Sivalingam , author F. Neese , \ and\ author G. K.-L. \ Chan ,\ @noop journal journal Nature chemistry \ volume 6 ,\ pages 927 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  80. [88]

    Pfirrmann , author C

    author author S. Pfirrmann , author C. Limberg , \ and\ author B. Ziemer ,\ @noop journal journal Dalton Transactions \ ,\ pages 6689 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  81. [89]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number org...

    2010

  82. [90]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

  83. [91]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

  84. [92]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number org...

    2010

  85. [93]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.