pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19239 · v1 · pith:RUHML6T2new · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum-Classical Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo at the Edge of Practicability

Francesco Nappi , Matthew Kiser , Fedor \v{S}imkovic IV This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carloquantum-classical hybrid algorithmsPfaffian regularizationalgorithmic differentiationmolecular ground statesfault-tolerant quantum computinghydrogen chainslithium superoxide
0
0 comments X

The pith

Aitken's block transformation and algorithmic differentiation cut QC-AFQMC classical scaling from N^{5.5} to N^{4.5}.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that applying Aitken's block transformation to singular Pfaffians, together with algorithmic differentiation for the force bias, reduces the leading classical computational cost per Monte Carlo step in quantum-classical auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo from order N to the 5.5 to order N to the 4.5. This produces an estimated 248 times faster runtime for a system with 100 molecular spin-orbitals. The improved method is used to compute the ground-state energy of H8 using quantum data from the IQM Emerald processor after tensor-network error mitigation, and it is validated on larger hydrogen chains and a lithium-air battery molecule. These changes move the approach closer to practical use for chemically relevant systems in the early fault-tolerant quantum computing era.

Core claim

Central to the improvement is the application of Aitken's block transformation to handle singular Pfaffians arising in the estimation of overlaps between a quantum trial state and classical Slater-determinant walkers. Together with the use of algorithmic differentiation for the computation of the force bias, this yields a 248× estimated runtime improvement for a system of 100 molecular orbitals.

What carries the argument

Aitken's block transformation for regularizing singular Pfaffians in quantum-classical overlap estimation, paired with algorithmic differentiation of the force bias.

If this is right

  • Estimated 248x runtime improvement for 100-orbital systems.
  • Successful ground-state calculation for H8 using real quantum hardware data with error mitigation.
  • Scalability shown on hydrogen chains up to H12 and Li2O4 in (26e, 20o) active space.
  • Runtime estimates for fault-tolerant implementation indicate promise for early fault-tolerant era.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reduced scaling may allow QC-AFQMC to address molecules larger than those currently feasible with hybrid quantum-classical methods.
  • Similar regularization techniques could benefit other Monte Carlo algorithms that encounter singular determinants or Pfaffians.
  • Integration with advanced error mitigation like tensor networks suggests hybrid workflows can extend the reach of noisy quantum devices.

Load-bearing premise

Aitken's block transformation correctly handles singular Pfaffians without introducing uncontrolled bias or inflating Monte Carlo variance beyond standard error analysis.

What would settle it

Running the QC-AFQMC calculation on a small system known to produce singular Pfaffians both with and without the block transformation, and verifying that the resulting energies and error bars match within statistical uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19239 by Fedor \v{S}imkovic IV, Francesco Nappi, Matthew Kiser.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Estimated classical and quantum resource requirements of QC-AFQMC. Further details on assumptions and timings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Reaction pathway of lithium superoxide to lithium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Reaction energies for three configurations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. QC-AFQMC evolution for a) H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Performance analysis of the filter state method using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Absolute value of the error between the exact polyno [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce algorithmic improvements to quantum-classical auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (QC-AFQMC) that reduce the dominant per-step classical scaling from $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(N^{5.5})$ to $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(N^{4.5})$ as a function of the number of molecular spin-orbitals $N$. Central to this improvement is the application of Aitken's block transformation to handle singular Pfaffians arising in the estimation of overlaps between a quantum trial state and classical Slater-determinant walkers. Together with the use of algorithmic differentiation for the computation of the force bias, this yields a $248\times$ estimated runtime improvement for a system of 100 molecular orbitals. Using our workflow, we demonstrate a ground-state energy calculation for $H_8$ from quantum data collected on IQM Emerald and post-processed with a tensor-network-based error-mitigation technique. We further validate the method's scalability through noiseless simulation of hydrogen chains up to $H_{12}$, and on the lithium-air battery related rearrangement pathway of the $Li_2O_4$ lithium superoxide dimer in a (26e, 20o) active space. We estimate both quantum and classical runtimes for a potential fault-tolerant implementation of QC-AFQMC, showing that the method holds promise for the early fault-tolerant era. These results move QC-AFQMC a step closer to treating chemically relevant systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces algorithmic improvements to quantum-classical auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (QC-AFQMC) that reduce the dominant per-step classical scaling from ilde{O}(N^{5.5}) to ilde{O}(N^{4.5}) via Aitken's block transformation applied to singular Pfaffians in quantum-classical overlap estimation, combined with algorithmic differentiation for the force bias. This yields an estimated 248x runtime improvement for a 100-orbital system. Demonstrations include a ground-state energy calculation for H8 using quantum data from IQM Emerald with tensor-network error mitigation, noiseless simulations on hydrogen chains up to H12, and the Li2O4 lithium superoxide dimer rearrangement in a (26e, 20o) active space. Runtime estimates for a potential fault-tolerant implementation are also provided.

Significance. If the scaling reduction holds while preserving the unbiased character of the Monte Carlo estimator and without uncontrolled variance inflation, the work would meaningfully advance the practicality of QC-AFQMC toward chemically relevant systems. The demonstrations on small molecules and the fault-tolerant runtime projections provide concrete evidence of progress, though the absence of detailed validation for the key regularization step limits the strength of the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Aitken transformation section] Abstract and the section introducing Aitken's block transformation: the claim that this transformation regularizes singular Pfaffians while preserving the unbiased Monte Carlo estimator is load-bearing for the scaling reduction and 248x estimate, yet the demonstrations on H8, H12, and Li2O4 provide no direct side-by-side comparison of energies or observables obtained with versus without the transformation on systems where both are numerically stable; this leaves open whether the regularization is exact or introduces bias/variance inflation not controlled by standard AFQMC error analysis.
  2. [Results on demonstrations] Results sections on H8, H12, and Li2O4 demonstrations: no quantitative error-bar analysis, comparison against known exact results, or validation of post-hoc error mitigation is reported for the computed energies, which is required to substantiate the soundness of the improved workflow and the estimated runtime gains.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The use of ilde{\mathcal{O}} notation for the scaling should be accompanied by an explicit statement of the hidden factors and assumptions in the complexity analysis.
  2. [Methods] Clarify in the methods whether the algorithmic differentiation for force bias is applied before or after the Aitken transformation, as the interaction between these two improvements is not immediately clear from the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point-by-point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation of the regularization step and the demonstration results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Aitken transformation section] Abstract and the section introducing Aitken's block transformation: the claim that this transformation regularizes singular Pfaffians while preserving the unbiased Monte Carlo estimator is load-bearing for the scaling reduction and 248x estimate, yet the demonstrations on H8, H12, and Li2O4 provide no direct side-by-side comparison of energies or observables obtained with versus without the transformation on systems where both are numerically stable; this leaves open whether the regularization is exact or introduces bias/variance inflation not controlled by standard AFQMC error analysis.

    Authors: The Aitken block transformation is an exact algebraic identity applied to the Pfaffian matrix when it is singular (i.e., when the quantum-classical overlap would otherwise be undefined or numerically unstable). Because it is a mathematically equivalent rewriting of the Pfaffian determinant, the Monte Carlo estimator remains unbiased; the transformation is applied conditionally and reduces to the standard expression on non-singular cases. We agree that a direct numerical comparison on a small system where both formulations are stable would strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will add such a comparison (e.g., on H4 or H6) together with a brief derivation appendix confirming the identity preserves the estimator. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on demonstrations] Results sections on H8, H12, and Li2O4 demonstrations: no quantitative error-bar analysis, comparison against known exact results, or validation of post-hoc error mitigation is reported for the computed energies, which is required to substantiate the soundness of the improved workflow and the estimated runtime gains.

    Authors: The H8 calculation uses real-device data post-processed with tensor-network error mitigation, while H12 and Li2O4 are noiseless simulations. We will expand the results sections to include (i) statistical error bars on all reported energies, (ii) direct comparisons to literature exact or high-accuracy values for the hydrogen chains, and (iii) additional quantitative metrics validating the tensor-network mitigation step on the H8 data. These additions will be placed in the main text or a dedicated supplementary section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: scaling claims derive from external algorithmic techniques

full rationale

The paper's central improvement—reducing per-step scaling from O(N^5.5) to O(N^4.5) via Aitken's block transformation on singular Pfaffians plus algorithmic differentiation for force bias—is presented as an application of known methods to the QC-AFQMC overlap estimation step. The 248x runtime estimate follows directly from the new asymptotic scaling applied to a 100-orbital system, without any fitted parameters renamed as predictions or self-referential definitions. No equations in the abstract or described workflow reduce the claimed result to its inputs by construction. Demonstrations on H8, H12 and Li2O4 are validation runs, not load-bearing for the scaling derivation itself. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided material. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only view yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond standard assumptions of auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5793 in / 1071 out tokens · 21908 ms · 2026-06-26T20:37:05.565745+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. K. Narula, J. E. Allison, D. R. Bauer, and H. S. Gandhi, Materials chemistry issues related to advanced materials applications in the automotive industry, Chem- istry of Materials8, 984 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    S. M. Arnold, D. Cebon, and M. Ashby, Materials selec- tion for aerospace systems, inAerospace Materials and Applications(American Institute of Aeronautics and As- tronautics, Inc., 2018) pp. 209–274

    2018

  3. [3]

    K. R. Campos, P. J. Coleman, J. C. Alvarez, S. D. Dreher, R. M. Garbaccio, N. K. Terrett, R. D. Tillyer, M. D. Truppo, and E. R. Parmee, The importance of syn- thetic chemistry in the pharmaceutical industry, Science 363, eaat0805 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    J. M. Lewer, Z. R. Stickelman, J. H. Huang, J. F. Pelo- quin, and J. Kostal, Structure-to-process design frame- work for developing safer pesticides, Science Advances8, eabn2058 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Hammes-Schiffer, Catalysts by design: The power of theory, Accounts of Chemical Research50, 561 (2017)

    S. Hammes-Schiffer, Catalysts by design: The power of theory, Accounts of Chemical Research50, 561 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, and U. Vazi- rani, Strengths and weaknesses of quantum computing, SIAM Journal on Computing26, 1510 (1997)

    1997

  7. [7]

    Alexeev, M

    Y. Alexeev, M. Amsler, M. A. Barroca, S. Bassini, T. Battelle, D. Camps, D. Casanova, Y. J. Choi, F. T. Chong, C. Chung, C. Codella, A. D. C´ orcoles, J. Cruise, A. Di Meglio, I. Duran, T. Eckl, S. Economou, S. Eiden- benz, B. Elmegreen, C. Fare, I. Faro, C. S. Fern´ andez, R. N. B. Ferreira, K. Fuji, B. Fuller, L. Gagliardi, G. Galli, J. R. Glick, I. Gob...

    2024

  8. [8]

    B¨ artschi, F

    A. B¨ artschi, F. Caravelli, C. Coffrin, J. Colina, S. Eiden- benz, A. Jayakumar, S. Lawrence, M. Lee, A. Y. Lokhov, A. Mishra, S. Misra, Z. Morrell, Z. Mughal, D. Neill, A. Piryatinski, A. Scheie, M. Vuffray, and Y. Zhang, Po- tential applications of quantum computing at los alamos national laboratory (2025), arXiv:2406.06625 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Gundlach, K

    H. Gundlach, K. Sharkey, J. Lynch, V. Hazoglou, K.-C. Hsu, C. Dukatz, E. Crane, K. Walczyk, M. Bodziak, J. Galatsanos-Dueck, and N. Thomp- son, Quantum advantage in computational chemistry? (2025), arXiv:2508.20972 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Huang, S

    H.-Y. Huang, S. Choi, J. R. McClean, and J. Preskill, The vast world of quantum advantage (2025), arXiv:2508.05720 [quant-ph]. 18

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    O’Gorman, S

    B. O’Gorman, S. Irani, J. Whitfield, and B. Fefferman, Intractability of electronic structure in a fixed basis, PRX Quantum3, 020322 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  13. [13]

    H. Ni, H. Li, and L. Ying, On low-depth algorithms for quantum phase estimation, Quantum7, 1165 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications9, 10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07090-4 2018

  15. [15]

    Liu, Z.-Y

    H.-Y. Liu, Z.-Y. Chen, T.-P. Sun, C. Xue, Y.-C. Wu, and G.-P. Guo, Can variational quantum algorithms demon- strate quantum advantages? time really matters (2023), arXiv:2307.04089 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Alexeev, V

    Y. Alexeev, V. S. Batista, N. Bauman, L. Bertels, D. Claudino, R. Dutta, L. Gagliardi, S. Godwin, N. Govind, M. Head-Gordon, M. R. Hermes, K. Kowal- ski, A. Li, C. Liu, J. Liu, P. Liu, J. M. Garc´ ıa-Lastra, D. Mejia-Rodriguez, K. Mueller, M. Otten, B. Peng, M. Raugas, M. Reiher, P. Rigor, W. J. Shaw, M. van Schilfgaarde, T. Vegge, Y. Zhang, M. Zheng, and...

    2025

  17. [17]

    Amsler, P

    M. Amsler, P. Deglmann, M. Degroote, M. P. Kaicher, M. Kiser, M. K¨ uhn, C. Kumar, A. Maier, G. Samsonidze, A. Schroeder, M. Streif, D. Vodola, C. Wever, and Q. M. S. W. Group, Classical and quantum trial wave functions in auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo applied to oxy- gen allotropes and a cubr2 model system, The Journal of Chemical Physics159, 044119 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Huang, Y.-T

    B. Huang, Y.-T. Chen, B. Gupt, M. Suchara, A. Tran, S. McArdle, and G. Galli, Evaluating a quantum-classical quantum Monte Carlo algorithm with matchgate shad- ows (2024), arXiv:2404.18303 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Kiser, M

    M. Kiser, M. Beuerle, and F. I. ˇSimkovic, Contex- tual Subspace auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo: Im- proved bias with reduced quantum resources, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation21, 2256 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    L. Zhao, J. J. Goings, W. Aboumrad, A. Arrasmith, L. Calderin, S. Churchill, D. Gabay, T. Harvey-Brown, M. Hiles, M. Kaja, M. Keesan, K. Kulesz, A. Maksy- mov, M. Maruo, M. Mu˜ noz, B. Nijholt, R. Schiller, Y. de Sereville, A. Smidutz, F. Tripier, G. Yao, T. Za- veri, C. Collins, M. Roetteler, E. Epifanovsky, A. Kovyr- shin, L. Tornberg, A. Broo, J. R. Ha...

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    W. J. Huggins, B. A. O’Gorman, N. C. Rubin, D. R. Reichman, R. Babbush, and J. Lee, Unbiasing fermionic quantum Monte Carlo with a quantum computer, Nature 603, 416 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Jiang, J

    T. Jiang, J. Zhang, M. K. A. Baumgarten, M.-F. Chen, H. Q. Dinh, A. Ganeshram, N. Maskara, A. Ni, and J. Lee, Walking through hilbert space with quantum computers, Chemical Reviews125, 4569 (2025), pMID: 40315368, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00508

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00508 2025

  23. [23]

    Buonaiuto, A

    G. Buonaiuto, A. M. Romero, B. Coyle, A. E. Paine, V. P. Soloviev, S. Scali, and M. Krompiec, A unified quantum computing quantum monte carlo framework through structured state preparation (2026), arXiv:2603.25582 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Zhang, Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo for corre- lated electron systems, inEmergent Phenomena in Cor- related Matter, Vol

    S. Zhang, Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo for corre- lated electron systems, inEmergent Phenomena in Cor- related Matter, Vol. 3, edited by E. Pavarini, E. Koch, and U. Schollw¨ ock (Forschungszentrum J¨ ulich, J¨ ulich,

  25. [25]

    lecture Notes of the Autumn SchoolCorrelated Electrons 2013

    2013

  26. [26]

    Xu, C.-M

    H. Xu, C.-M. Chung, M. Qin, U. Schollw¨ ock, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Coexistence of superconductivity with par- tially filled stripes in the Hubbard model, Science384, eadh7691 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    J. Lee, H. Q. Pham, and D. R. Reichman, Twenty years of auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo in quantum chem- istry: An overview and assessment on main group chem- istry and bond-breaking, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation18, 7024 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Jiang, B

    T. Jiang, B. O’Gorman, A. Mahajan, and J. Lee, Unbias- ing fermionic auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo with matrix product state trial wavefunctions, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013038 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    E. F. Kjønstad, Y. Damour, S. Sharma, and G. K. Chan, Systematic improvement of trial states in phaseless auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo (2025), arXiv:2510.06486 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Mahajan, J

    A. Mahajan, J. Lee, and S. Sharma, Selected configura- tion interaction wave functions in phaseless auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo, The Journal of Chemical Physics 156, 174111 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Zweig and J

    A. Zweig and J. Bruna, Towards antisymmetric neural ansatz separation, arXiv:2208.03264 (2022), arXiv:2208.03264 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Luongo, Quantum algorithms for data analy- sis,https://quantumalgorithms.org/chapter-intro

    A. Luongo, Quantum algorithms for data analy- sis,https://quantumalgorithms.org/chapter-intro. html#modified-hadamard-test(2024), in:Quantum Al- gorithms, Chapter 2: Quantum Computing and Quan- tum Algorithms, Section 2.4.4. Accessed: 2 June 2026

    2024

  33. [33]

    Kiser, A

    M. Kiser, A. Schroeder, G.-L. R. Anselmetti, C. Kumar, N. Moll, M. Streif, and D. Vodola, Classical and quantum cost of measurement strategies for quantum-enhanced auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo, New Journal of Physics26, 033022 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measure- ments, Nature Physics16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, Match- gate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics404, 629 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Abdurakhimov, J

    L. Abdurakhimov, J. Adam, H. Ahmad, O. Aho- nen, M. Algaba, G. Alonso, V. Bergholm, R. Beriwal, M. Beuerle, C. Bockstiegel, A. Calzona, C. F. Chan, D. Cucurachi, S. Dahl, R. Davletkaliyev, O. Fedorets, A. G. Frieiro, Z. Gao, J. Guldmyr, A. Guthrie, J. Hassel, H. Heimonen, J. Heinsoo, T. Hiltunen, K. Holland, J. Ho- tari, H. Hsu, A. Huhtala, E. Hyypp¨ a, A...

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    V. S. Bryantsev, M. Blanco, and F. Faglioni, Stability of lithium superoxide lio2 in the gas phase: Computational study of dimerization and disproportionation reactions, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A114, 8165 (2010)

    2010

  38. [38]

    S. P. S. Badwal, S. S. Giddey, C. Munnings, A. I. Bhatt, and A. F. Hollenkamp, Emerging electrochemical energy conversion and storage technologies, Frontiers in Chem- istry2, 79 (2014)

    2014

  39. [39]

    U. Das, K. C. Lau, P. C. Redfern, and L. A. Curtiss, Structure and stability of lithium superoxide clusters and relevance to li–o2 batteries, The Journal of Physi- cal Chemistry Letters5, 813 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    A. M. Kale, S.-Y. Lee, and S.-J. Park, A comprehen- sive review of carbon-based air cathode materials for ad- vanced non-aqueous lithium–air batteries, Energy Stor- age Materials73, 103874 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Q. Gao, H. Nakamura, T. P. Gujarati, G. O. Jones, J. E. Rice, S. P. Wood, M. Pistoia, J. M. Garcia, and N. Yamamoto, Computational investiga- tions of the lithium superoxide dimer rearrangement on noisy quantum devices, The Journal of Physi- cal Chemistry A125, 1827 (2021), pMID: 33635672, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.0c09530

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.0c09530 2021

  42. [42]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Huang, J. Sun, D. Lv, and X. Yuan, Quan- tum computing quantum monte carlo algorithm, Physical Review A112, 10.1103/jt8s-hzhd (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/jt8s-hzhd 2025

  43. [43]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Hubbard, Calculation of partition functions, Phys

    J. Hubbard, Calculation of partition functions, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 77 (1959); R. L. Stratonovich, On a Method of Calculating Quantum Distribution Functions, Soviet Physics Doklady2, 416 (1957)

    1959

  45. [45]

    J. W. Negele,Quantum many-particle systems(CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    Zhang and H

    S. Zhang and H. Krakauer, Quantum Monte Carlo method using phase-free random walks with Slater de- terminants, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 136401 (2003)

    2003

  47. [47]

    D. Thouless, Stability conditions and nuclear rotations in the Hartree-Fock theory, Nuclear Physics21, 225 (1960); Vibrational states of nuclei in the random phase approx- imation, Nuclear Physics22, 78 (1961)

    1960

  48. [48]

    Wimmer, Algorithm 923: Efficient numerical com- putation of the Pfaffian for dense and banded skew- symmetric matrices, ACM Trans

    M. Wimmer, Algorithm 923: Efficient numerical com- putation of the Pfaffian for dense and banded skew- symmetric matrices, ACM Trans. Math. Softw.38, 1 (2012)

    2012

  49. [49]

    J. R. Bunch, A note on the stable decomposition of skew- symmetric matrices, Math. Comp.38, 475 (1982)

    1982

  50. [50]

    Zhang,The Schur Complement and Its Applications (Springer New York, NY, 2006)

    F. Zhang,The Schur Complement and Its Applications (Springer New York, NY, 2006)

    2006

  51. [51]

    Gonz´ alez-Ballestero, L

    C. Gonz´ alez-Ballestero, L. Robledo, and G. Bertsch, Nu- meric and symbolic evaluation of the Pfaffian of general skew-symmetric matrices, Computer Physics Communi- cations182, 2213 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    Motta and S

    M. Motta and S. Zhang, Ab initio computations of molec- ular systems by the auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method, WIREs Computational Molecular Science8, 10.1002/wcms.1364 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1002/wcms.1364 2018

  53. [53]

    Lumi supercomputer (2026)

    2026

  54. [54]

    Kanno, M

    K. Kanno, M. Kohda, R. Imai, S. Koh, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Quantum-selected configuration interaction: classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum comput- ers (2023), arXiv:2302.11320 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Matsuzawa and Y

    Y. Matsuzawa and Y. Kurashige, Jastrow-type decom- position in quantum chemistry for low-depth quantum circuits, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 944 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Hafid, H

    A. Hafid, H. Iwakiri, K. Tsubouchi, N. Yoshioka, and M. Kohda, Hardness of classically sampling quantum chemistry circuits (2025), arXiv:2504.12893 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    J. S. Kottmann and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Optimized low- depth quantum circuits for molecular electronic structure using a separable-pair approximation, Physical Review A 105, 10.1103/physreva.105.032449 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.032449 2022

  58. [58]

    Dias and R

    B. Dias and R. Koenig, Classical simulation of non- Gaussian fermionic circuits, Quantum8, 1350 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Helsen and M

    J. Helsen and M. Walter, Thrifty shadow estimation: Reusing quantum circuits and bounding tails, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240602 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Zhou and Q

    Y. Zhou and Q. Liu, Performance analysis of multi-shot shadow estimation, Quantum7, 1044 (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    S. Chen, W. Yu, P. Zeng, and S. T. Flammia, Robust shadow estimation, PRX Quantum2, 030348 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    D. E. Koh and S. Grewal, Classical shadows with noise, Quantum6, 776 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Zhao and A

    A. Zhao and A. Miyake, Group-theoretic error mitigation enabled by classical shadows and symmetries, npj Quan- tum Information10, 10.1038/s41534-024-00854-5 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00854-5 2024

  64. [64]

    Wu and D

    B. Wu and D. E. Koh, Error-mitigated fermionic clas- sical shadows on noisy quantum devices, npj Quantum Information10, 10.1038/s41534-024-00836-7 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00836-7 2024

  65. [65]

    Perez-Garcia, F

    D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix Product State representations, Quantum Info. Comput.7, 401 (2007)

    2007

  66. [66]

    P. Rall, D. Liang, J. Cook, and W. Kretschmer, Simu- lation of qubit quantum circuits via Pauli propagation, Phys. Rev. A99, 062337 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Miller, J

    A. Miller, J. Favre, Z. Holmes, ¨O. Salehi, R. Chakraborty, A. Nyk¨ anen, Z. Zimbor´ as, A. Glos, and G. Garc´ ıa-P´ erez, Simulation of fermionic circuits using majorana propaga- tion (2025), arXiv:2503.18939 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    A. Zhao, N. C. Rubin, and A. Miyake, Fermionic partial tomography via classical shadows, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 110504 (2021)

    2021

  69. [69]

    Heyraud, H

    V. Heyraud, H. Chomet, and J. Tilly, Unified framework for matchgate classical shadows, npj Quantum Informa- tion11, 65 (2025)

    2025

  70. [70]

    Gidney, N

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state culti- vation: growing t states as cheap as cnot gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    MacKay, G

    D. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. McFadden, Sparse- 20 graph codes for quantum error correction, IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory50, 2315–2330 (2004)

    2004

  72. [72]

    Zhang, H

    A. Zhang, H. Xie, Y. Gao, J.-N. Yang, Z. Bao, Z. Zhu, J. Chen, N. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Zhong, S. Xu, K. Wang, Y. Wu, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y. Zou, Z. Tan, Z. Cui, F. Shen, T. Li, Y. Han, Y. He, G. Liu, J. Shen, H. Wang, Y. Wang, H. Dong, J. Deng, H. Li, Z. Wang, C. Song, Q. Guo, P. Zhang, Y. Li, and H. Wang, Demonstrating quantum error mitigation on logical qubit...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-67768-4 2025

  73. [73]

    Jeon and Z

    M. Jeon and Z. Cai, Quantum error correction on error-mitigated physical qubits (2026), arXiv:2601.18384 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    E. F. Kjønstad, H. Zhai, J. Shee, S. Sharma, and G. K.- L. Chan, Can phaseless auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo with broken symmetry trials describe iron-sulfur clusters? (2026), arXiv:2605.03270 [physics.chem-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Mazzola and G

    G. Mazzola and G. Carleo, Exponential challenges in un- biasing quantum Monte Carlo algorithms with quantum computers (2022), arXiv:2205.09203 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Weston, D

    S. Wouters, B. Verstichel, D. Van Neck, and G. K.- L. Chan, Projector quantum monte carlo with matrix product states, Physical Review B90, 10.1103/phys- revb.90.045104 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2014

  77. [77]

    Kr¨ amer, A tutorial on automatic differentiation with complex numbers (2024), arXiv:2409.06752 [cs.MS]

    N. Kr¨ amer, A tutorial on automatic differentiation with complex numbers (2024), arXiv:2409.06752 [cs.MS]

    arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    TOP500 Project, Top500 supercomputer sites — November 2025,https://www.top500.org/lists/ top500/list/2025/11/(2025), accessed: 2026-06-14

    2025

  79. [79]

    F. D. Malone, A. Mahajan, J. S. Spencer, and J. Lee, ipie: A python-based auxiliary-field quan- tum monte carlo program with flexibility and effi- ciency on cpus and gpus, Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation19, 109 (2023), pMID: 36503227, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00934

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00934 2023

  80. [80]

    Jiang, M

    T. Jiang, M. K. A. Baumgarten, P.-F. Loos, A. Mahajan, A. Scemama, S. F. Ung, J. Zhang, F. D. Malone, and J. Lee, Improved modularity and new features in ipie: Toward even larger AFQMC calculations on CPUs and GPUs at zero and finite temperatures, The Journal of Chemical Physics161, 10.1063/5.0225596 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0225596 2024

Showing first 80 references.