Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Effects of One-particle Reduced Density Matrix Optimization in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that adding a penalty for 1-RDM drift between iterations to the VQE cost function improves both molecular-property accuracy and, for poorly expressive ansätze, the energy itself, reducing GateFabric errors from 0.14–0.26…

desk verdict A plausible but unproven 1-RDM penalty for VQE: the property gains look real, yet without a Phase 1-extension control the causal claim is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07667 v1 pith:V5GEU4ZB submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Amanda Marques de Lima , Erico Souza Teixeira , Eivson Darlivam Rodrigues de Aguiar Silva , Ricardo Luiz Longo This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords variationalquantumeigensolverone-particlereduceddensitymatrixmolecularpropertieschemistrysimulationCH5+dissociationk-UpCCGSDGateFabricansatzoptimization
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

Variational quantum eigensolvers (VQE) usually minimize only the energy, but molecular properties such as dipole moments and electron densities are read off from the one-particle reduced density matrix (1-RDM), and an energy-minimal state need not have an accurate 1-RDM. This paper proposes a two-phase VQE in which the first phase minimizes energy and the second adds a penalty proportional to the root-mean-square change of the 1-RDM between iterations, so energy and density matrix are forced to converge together. On the CH5+ dissociation curve, the procedure leaves already-accurate k-UpCCGSD energies nearly unchanged while cutting errors in dipole moments, electron densities, electrostatic potentials, and Mulliken charges, often by one to four orders of magnitude. For a GateFabric ansatz whose energy error before the penalty is 0.14–0.26 Hartree, the same procedure brings the energy to within about 1e−8 Hartree of the CISD reference. The paper concludes that energy alone is not a sufficient convergence criterion for VQE and that simultaneous optimization of energy and 1-RDM is an effective strategy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-particle reduced density matrix, $D_{pq} = \langle \Psi(\theta) | a_p^\dagger a_q | \Psi(\theta) \rangle$, symmetrized as $\tfrac{1}{2}\langle \Psi | a_p^\dagger a_q + a_q^\dagger a_p | \Psi \rangle$ so that measurements give real values. The mechanism that carries the argument is the two-phase cost function $L = w_E E + w_{\mathrm{RDM}} \Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$, with $\Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$ defined as the RMSD between consecutive 1-RDMs; this penalty converts the classical electronic-structure convergence criterion of a stable density matrix into a term the variational optimizer must minimize while the energy-rejection rule keeps the energy from degrading. The active-space 1-RDM from VQE is merged with the Hartree-Fock 1-RDM for frozen orbitals, which is what lets the method report full-molecule densities, dipole moments, and charges from a small quantum circuit.

What would settle it

Run the same two-phase protocol with the $\Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$ penalty weight set to zero, or with a penalty on an unrelated observable, keeping the Phase 2 step count, learning rate, and energy-rejection threshold identical; if the reported improvements in dipole moments and GateFabric energies persist, the 1-RDM penalty itself is not what causes them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that optimizing the 1-RDM alongside the energy, rather than relying on energy minimization alone, improves the accuracy of both energies and density-derived molecular properties in VQE. The algorithm runs ordinary energy minimization in Phase 1, then switches to the cost function $L = w_E E + w_{\mathrm{RDM}} \Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$, where $\Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$ is the RMSD between the 1-RDMs of consecutive iterations, with a rule that rejects parameter updates that worsen the energy beyond a set limit. Tests on CH5+ show that with k-UpCCGSD in an active space (4,4), Phase 2 shrinks the reported errors in dipole moments, electron density topology, electrostatic potential, and Mulliken charges even though the energy barely moves. With GateFabric in active space (2,2), where ordinary VQE misses the CISD energy by 0.14–0.26 Hartree, the two-phase procedure reduces the error to about $10^{-8}$ Hartree. The authors take this as evidence that energy is not a sufficient convergence criterion and that simultaneous 1-RDM optimization is an effective strategy for variational quantum algorithms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that stopping the 1-RDM from changing between iterations is the same as making it more accurate; the paper does not measure the 1-RDM against an external reference during training or compare Phase 2 with a control that keeps optimizing the energy alone for the same number of extra steps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For ansätze whose energies are already close to a high-level reference, the 1-RDM penalty does not move the energy much but can substantially improve density-derived properties.
  • For ansätze with large energy errors, the same Phase 2 penalty can rescue the energy itself, reducing errors by several orders of magnitude.
  • Energy convergence alone is an unreliable criterion for wavefunction quality; monitoring the 1-RDM convergence is needed when molecular properties are the goal.
  • The approach preserves the standard VQE structure, so it can be added without iterative Hamiltonian reconstruction or full 1-RDM diagonalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A control that continues Phase 1 energy minimization for the same number of extra steps, with the same rejection rule but no $\Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$ penalty, would separate the penalty's effect from the effect of simply optimizing longer; the GateFabric rescue may depend on that distinction.
  • Because $\Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$ measures self-consistency rather than distance to the true density matrix, a natural strengthening is to penalize a direct deviation from a reference-density proxy, such as natural-orbital occupancies from a cheaper classical calculation.
  • On noisy hardware, $\Delta_{\mathrm{RDM}}$ is a difference of measured expectation values, so its sampling noise will exceed the energy's; noise-aware weight tuning and extra measurement shots for Phase 2 are a practical follow-up.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-phase VQE protocol in which, after energy minimization (Phase 1), a penalty term is added to the cost function in Phase 2. The penalty is the RMSD between the 1-RDMs of consecutive iterations (ΔRDM, Eq. 18), yielding L = w_E E + w_RDM ΔRDM (Eq. 19). The method is tested on the CH5+ dissociation profile using the k-UpCCGSD ansatz with active space (4,4) and the GateFabric ansatz with active space (2,2), comparing to CISD references in the same active spaces. The authors report that for k-UpCCGSD the energies barely change (10^-5–10^-7 Hartree) while dipole moments, electron densities, electrostatic potentials, and Mulliken charges improve substantially, and for GateFabric the energy error drops from ~0.14–0.26 Hartree to ~10^-8 Hartree. The central claim is that simultaneous optimization of energy and 1-RDM is an effective strategy for improving both energies and molecular properties in VQE.

Significance. If the causal role of the 1-RDM penalty were established, the approach could be a practical, simple addition to VQE for improving density-derived properties, which are relevant for molecular simulations on near-term quantum hardware. The paper addresses a real limitation of energy-only VQE and the idea of borrowing density convergence criteria from classical electronic structure is intuitive. However, the current evidence does not support the central claim: the penalty term is not validated against any external error measure, no control experiment isolates the effect of the penalty from extra optimization steps and the rejection rule, and the hyperparameters are chosen without sensitivity analysis. Because the central mechanism is plausible but unproven, the paper's significance is conditional on substantial additional numerical experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (18)] The penalty term ΔRDM is the RMSD between consecutive 1-RDMs, not the distance to a reference density. Reducing ΔRDM only indicates that successive iterates become similar; it does not imply that the 1-RDM is closer to the exact or CISD 1-RDM. In fact, an optimization that converges to a wrong local minimum will have small ΔRDM but large error. The manuscript nowhere compares ΔRDM to an external error measure, such as ||D - D_CISD||, either during training or at the end of optimization. The statement in Sec. 3.1 that 'the RMSD of 1-RDM was reduced, improving the quality of the description of this matrix' is therefore a logical non sequitur and undermines the central claim that the penalty improves 1-RDM fidelity.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Table 5] The reported GateFabric improvement (from -39.6578 to -39.9176 in 11–12 Phase 2 steps) is not causally tied to the 1-RDM penalty. Phase 2 differs from Phase 1 in two ways simultaneously: it adds the penalty term to the cost function and it introduces an energy-rejection rule (updates that increase energy beyond E_limit are rejected). No control is reported in which Phase 1 energy minimization is continued for the same number of extra steps with w_RDM = 0, with and without the rejection rule. Given that the penalty term is numerically tiny (ΔRDM ≈ 1.5e-2 versus E ≈ -39.7, so the penalty contributes about 4e-4 of the objective's magnitude), the observed 0.26 Hartree improvement could simply be continued SGD escaping a plateau, aided by the rejection filter, rather than an effect of the density penalty. The authors need to demonstrate that the gradient of the penalty term, not the energy gradient, is responsible for the escape.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Tables 1 and 2] For k-UpCCGSD, the energy changes by only 10^-5–10^-7 Hartree between VQE and VQE*, yet property errors improve by orders of magnitude (e.g., the dipole moment error at R = 1.8 Å changes from -4.65e-1 to -7.00e-5 Debye). This pattern is exactly what one would expect if the optimization is moving along near-null directions of the energy landscape, but such motion is not specific to the 1-RDM penalty; additional energy-only steps could produce the same effect. Without a control in which Phase 1 is extended for the same number of iterations, the improvements in molecular properties cannot be attributed to the penalty term. This is a load-bearing gap in the argument.
  4. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (19)] The cost function L = w_E E + w_RDM ΔRDM is not a fixed objective because ΔRDM depends on the previous iteration's parameters; the reference density changes at every step. The optimization is therefore a temporal-difference scheme rather than a standard minimization of a static function. The manuscript does not discuss this aspect or its implications for convergence and for the meaning of 'simultaneous optimization of energy and 1-RDM'. Additionally, the hyperparameters (w_E, w_RDM, E_tol, RDM_tol, n_r, E_limit, and the SGD learning rate) are all fixed to hand-picked values with no sensitivity analysis, so the robustness of the reported improvements is unknown.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] There are many typographical issues, including 'ans\"atzes' instead of 'ansätze' and inconsistent spacing in 'VQE *'. The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofread.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.2] The text refers to 'Figure 5' twice and also to 'Figure 4' with repetitive phrasing; the figure captions and cross-references should be reconciled.
  3. [Table 1 and Table 5] The 'Steps' column lists two numbers (e.g., '7 (13)') and the caption says the values in parentheses refer to Phase 2, but it is unclear whether the first number is Phase 1 steps and the second is total steps or Phase 2 steps. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [Sec. 2.5] The sentence 'In the code developed to optimize 1-RDM in the VQE flow, the following threshold condition:' is a fragment; it should be rewritten to introduce the list of parameters properly.
  5. [References] Reference [31] lists 'MJ Frish' but the correct author is 'M. J. Frisch'.
  6. [Figure 3] The flowchart is difficult to follow, particularly the decision branches for Phase 1 and Phase 2. A cleaner diagram with labeled paths would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central claims are externally benchmarked to CISD and not circular; only the reported ΔRDM reduction restates the algorithm's own termination rule.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.4 (Optimization of 1-RDM), Eqs. (18)-(19), and Section 3.2, Table 5.]
    "Optimization continues until both the energy and ∆RDM fall below their respective thresholds. ... The 1-RDM generated by VQE presented significant errors, whose ∆RDM was approximately 10−2, while in VQE* this error was reduced to 10−7 (Table 5)."

    ∆RDM (Eq. 18) is the RMSD between consecutive iterations, and it is exactly the quantity penalized in Eq. 19 and used as the stopping criterion, with 'Etol and RDMtol equal to 1 × 10−6'. Phase 2 therefore terminates only when ∆RDM < RDMtol, so the reported Phase 2 values (7.20e-7 to 9.90e-7) are guaranteed by the termination rule rather than discovered. Describing this enforced convergence as 'a significant improvement in the description of the 1-RDM' is a restatement of the algorithm's design, not an independent verification of 1-RDM accuracy. This point is minor because the headline energy and molecular-property claims are separately benchmarked against the external CISD reference.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is otherwise self-contained. Phase 2 minimizes L = wE E + wRDM ΔRDM (Eq. 19), but the reported energies, dipole moments, electron densities, electrostatic potentials, and Mulliken charges are all computed from the final 1-RDM via standard formulas (Eqs. 6-13) and compared against CISD values from Gaussian 09, an external reference that never enters the cost function. No parameter is fitted to the CISD target: the weights wE = wRDM = 1 and the thresholds are hand-set, and the energy improvements (GateFabric errors dropping to 1e-8 Hartree in Table 5) are measured against CISD, so they do not reduce to the training objective by construction. The inspiration for the ΔRDM penalty is cited to standard classical practice (PySCF, Gaussian), not to the authors' own prior work, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported. The genuine weaknesses are a missing control that continues Phase 1 energy-only optimization for the same number of extra steps and the tiny magnitude of the penalty relative to the energy term; these are causal-attribution and experimental-design concerns about whether the 1-RDM penalty causes the improvement, not circularity. The only quotable reduction is the ΔRDM convergence claim, which merely restates the RDMtol stopping rule; since it is not load-bearing for the externally benchmarked property results, the overall circularity score is low.

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

The central claim depends mainly on hyperparameters (weights, thresholds, learning rate) and on modeling assumptions (active space, frozen orbitals, CISD reference). No new physical entity is introduced. The ΔRDM term is not fitted to the CISD reference, so the circularity burden is low; however, the choice of wE = wRDM = 1 and the thresholds is ad hoc and could affect all reported numbers.

free parameters (5)
  • wE, wRDM = 1, 1
    Weights in the Phase 2 cost function (Eq. 19); chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis.
  • Etol, RDMtol = 1e-6
    Thresholds for the Phase 1 to Phase 2 transition and for termination; chosen by hand.
  • nr = 10
    Maximum number of consecutive rejected parameter updates before termination.
  • Elimit = E + 1e-4 Hartree
    Allowed energy worsening in Phase 2; controls how far the optimizer can move from the Phase 1 result.
  • SGD learning rate = 0.4
    Step size for stochastic gradient descent; chosen without a hyperparameter study.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The variational principle: the measured expectation value of the Hamiltonian is an upper bound on the exact ground state energy.
    Basis of the VQE algorithm in Section 2.1.
  • standard math The Jordan-Wigner mapping faithfully represents fermionic creation and annihilation operators as Pauli operators.
    Used in Section 2.4, Eq. 15, to measure the 1-RDM on qubits.
  • domain assumption Frozen orbitals outside the active space are adequately described by Hartree-Fock, so the merged 1-RDM in Eq. 14 is valid.
    The full 1-RDM is built by replacing active-space blocks with VQE values and keeping HF values elsewhere.
  • domain assumption CISD in the same active space is a reliable reference for energies and molecular properties.
    All error tables compare VQE and VQE* against CISD(4,4) or CISD(2,2).
  • domain assumption The active spaces (4,4) and (2,2) capture the chemically relevant correlation of CH5+ in the STO-3G basis.
    The choice of active space determines both the qubit count and the quality of the 1-RDM.
  • domain assumption Stochastic gradient descent with learning rate 0.4 reaches a meaningful optimum for the chosen cost functions.
    No convergence guarantees or repeated runs with different seeds are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of One-particle Reduced Density Matrix Optimization in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5GEU4ZB

@misc{pith2026250707667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of One-particle Reduced Density Matrix Optimization in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5GEU4ZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07667}
}
read the original abstract

The variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) is a promising method for simulating molecular systems on near-term quantum computers. This approach employs energy estimation; however, other relevant molecular properties can be extracted from the one-particle reduced density matrix (1-RDM) generated by VQE. The accuracy of these properties strongly depends on the reliability and convergence of the 1-RDM, which is not guaranteed by energy-only optimization. Thus, we investigate the effect of optimizing the 1-RDM within VQE to improve the accuracy of both the energy and molecular properties. A two-step algorithm was implemented that optimizes the energy and 1-RDM by incorporating a penalty term in the cost function to enforce the convergence of the 1-RDM. The first step focuses on energy minimization, while in the second step, a weighted penalty is added to the cost function to promote simultaneous improvement of the energy and 1-RDM. This approach was tested and validated for the k-UpCCGSD and GateFabric ans\"atzes with active spaces (4,4) and (2,2), respectively. k-UpCCGSD produces energies close to CISD, so optimizing 1-RDM has little effect on the energy but significantly improves electronic properties such as electron density, dipole moments, and atomic charges. GateFabric initially shows higher energy deviations from CISD, but optimizing 1-RDM substantially improves both the energy accuracy and the quality of 1-RDM. These results demonstrate that simultaneous optimization of energy and 1-RDM is an effective strategy to improve the accuracy of energies and molecular properties in variational quantum algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representation of the flow of the VQE algorithm. The steps in gray refer to the processes executed on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Construction of 1-RDM using active space. The active and frozen orbitals are generated by VQE and HF, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flowchart for obtaining simultaneous optimization of 1-RDM and energy through VQE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Position of CH+ 5 atoms, obtained with CISD/STO-3G and R = 1.3 Å. These results are corroborated by the topological analysis of the electron density, that is, of the values of the density and its Laplacian (∇2ρ) at the nuclear critical points (NCPs) and bonding critica…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Difference in electron density (in e/Bohr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Difference in electrostatic potential (in e/Bohr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Difference in electron density (in e/Bohr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Free-complement local-schrödinger-equation method for solving the schrödinger equation of atoms and molecules: Basic theories and features

    Hiroshi Nakatsuji and Hiroyuki Nakashima. Free-complement local-schrödinger-equation method for solving the schrödinger equation of atoms and molecules: Basic theories and features. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 142(8), 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Introduction to computational chemistry

    Frank Jensen. Introduction to computational chemistry. John wiley & sons, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Execution of a quantum algorithm for calculating energies of some quantum mechanical systems

    Siddhartha K Chaganti, Amit S Kesari, and Chandra Chowdhury. Execution of a quantum algorithm for calculating energies of some quantum mechanical systems. Chemical Physics, 576:112082, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers

    Markus Reiher et al. Elucidating reaction mechanisms on quantum computers. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(29):7555–7560, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Evaluating the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry

    Seunghoon Lee et al. Evaluating the evidence for exponential quantum advantage in ground-state quantum chemistry. Nature communications, 14(1):1952, 2023

    work page 1952

  6. [6]

    Spin coupling is all you need: Encoding strong electron correlation on quantum computers

    Daniel Marti-Dafcik, Hugh GA Burton, and David P Tew. Spin coupling is all you need: Encoding strong electron correlation on quantum computers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18878, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Complete Active Space Iterative Coupled Cluster Theory

    Robin Feldmann et al. Complete active space iterative coupled cluster theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06070, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Quantum computing

    Michael Nofer et al. Quantum computing. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65(4):361–367, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Simulating physics with computers

    Richard P Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. In Feynman and computation, pages 467–488. Int J Theor Phys, 1982

    1982

  2. [10]

    A survey of important issues in quantum computing and communica- tions

    Zebo Yang, Maede Zolanvari, and Raj Jain. A survey of important issues in quantum computing and communica- tions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 25(2):1059–1094, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Machine learning theory and applications: Hands-on use cases with python on classical and quantum machines

    Xavier Vasques. Machine learning theory and applications: Hands-on use cases with python on classical and quantum machines. John Wiley & Sons, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Quantum simulation of exact electron dynamics can be more efficient than classical mean-field methods

    Ryan Babbush et al. Quantum simulation of exact electron dynamics can be more efficient than classical mean-field methods. Nature Communications, 14(1):4058, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Quantum computing and chemistry

    Jared D Weidman et al. Quantum computing and chemistry. Cell Reports Physical Science, 5(9), 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem

    A Yu Kitaev. Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9511026, 1995

    1995 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A survey of nisq era hybrid quantum-classical machine learning research

    Gennaro De Luca. A survey of nisq era hybrid quantum-classical machine learning research. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology, 2(1):9–15, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor

    Alberto Peruzzo et al. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    Marco Cerezo et al. Variational quantum algorithms. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Evaluating variational quantum eigensolver approaches for simplified models of molecular systems: A case study on protocatechuic acid

    de Jesus et al. Evaluating variational quantum eigensolver approaches for simplified models of molecular systems: A case study on protocatechuic acid. Molecules, 30(1):119, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Calculating the ground-state energy of benzene under spatial deformations with noisy quantum computing

    Wassil Sennane, Jean-Philip Piquemal, and Marko J Ranˇci´c. Calculating the ground-state energy of benzene under spatial deformations with noisy quantum computing. Physical Review A, 107(1):012416, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hartree-fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer

    GOOGLE AI QUANTUM et al. Hartree-fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer. Science, 369(6507):1084–1089, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Vqe method: a short survey and recent developments

    Dmitry A Fedorov et al. Vqe method: a short survey and recent developments. Materials Theory, 6(1):2, 2022. 17

    2022

  15. [23]

    Quantification of electron correlation for approximate quantum calculations

    Shunyue Yuan, Yueqing Chang, and Lucas K Wagner. Quantification of electron correlation for approximate quantum calculations. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 157(19), 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Density functional theory transformed into a one-electron reduced-density-matrix functional theory for the capture of static correlation

    Daniel Gibney, Jan-Niklas Boyn, and David A Mazziotti. Density functional theory transformed into a one-electron reduced-density-matrix functional theory for the capture of static correlation. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 13(6):1382–1388, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Modern quantum chemistry: introduction to advanced electronic structure theory

    Attila Szabo and Neil S Ostlund. Modern quantum chemistry: introduction to advanced electronic structure theory. Courier Corporation, 1996

    1996

  18. [26]

    The electron density: a fidelity witness for quantum computation

    Mårten Skogh et al. The electron density: a fidelity witness for quantum computation. Chemical Science, 15(6):2257–2265, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Correlated reference-assisted variational quantum eigensolver

    Nhan Trong Le and Lan Nguyen Tran. Correlated reference-assisted variational quantum eigensolver. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 127(24):5222–5230, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Reduced density matrix sampling: Self-consistent embedding and multiscale electronic structure on current generation quantum computers

    Jules Tilly et al. Reduced density matrix sampling: Self-consistent embedding and multiscale electronic structure on current generation quantum computers. Physical Review Research, 3(3):033230, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Efficient energy measurement of chemical systems via one-particle re- duced density matrix: A nof-vqe approach for optimized sampling

    Juan Felipe Huan Lew-Yee and Mario Piris. Efficient energy measurement of chemical systems via one-particle re- duced density matrix: A nof-vqe approach for optimized sampling. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 21(5):2402–2413, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Pyscf: the python- based simulations of chemistry framework

    Qiming Sun, Timothy C Berkelbach, Nick S Blunt, George H Booth, Sheng Guo, et al. Pyscf: the python- based simulations of chemistry framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 8(1):e1340, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Gaussian 09, revision a

    MJ Frish et al. Gaussian 09, revision a. 02. Gaussian Inc, Wallingford CT, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices

    Jules Tilly et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices. Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing.Chemical reviews, 119(19):10856–10915, 2019

    Yudong Cao et al. Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing.Chemical reviews, 119(19):10856–10915, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    A comparison of the bravyi–kitaev and jordan–wigner transformations for the quantum simulation of quantum chemistry

    Andrew Tranter et al. A comparison of the bravyi–kitaev and jordan–wigner transformations for the quantum simulation of quantum chemistry. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 14(11):5617–5630, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Quantum computational chemistry

    Sam McArdle et al. Quantum computational chemistry. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92(1):015003, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz

    Jonathan Romero et al. Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz. Quantum Science and Technology, 4(1):014008, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation

    Joonho Lee et al. Generalized unitary coupled cluster wave functions for quantum computation. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 15(1):311–324, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Local, expressive, quantum-number-preserving vqe ansätze for fermionic systems

    Gian-Luca R Anselmetti et al. Local, expressive, quantum-number-preserving vqe ansätze for fermionic systems. New Journal of Physics, 23(11):113010, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Universal quantum circuits for quantum chemistry

    Juan Miguel Arrazola et al. Universal quantum circuits for quantum chemistry. Quantum, 6:742, 2022

    2022

  32. [41]

    Post-hartree-fock methods: configuration interaction, many-body perturbation theory, coupled-cluster theory

    Jacob Townsend, Justin K Kirkland, and Konstantinos D V ogiatzis. Post-hartree-fock methods: configuration interaction, many-body perturbation theory, coupled-cluster theory. In Mathematical Physics in Theoretical Chemistry, pages 63–117. Elsevier, 2019

    2019

  33. [42]

    Toward a quantum computing formulation of the electron nuclear dynamics method via fukutome unitary representation

    Juan C Domínguez, Ismael de Farias, and Jorge A Morales. Toward a quantum computing formulation of the electron nuclear dynamics method via fukutome unitary representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17657, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Molecular electrostatic potential anal- ysis: A powerful tool to interpret and predict chemical reactivity

    Cherumuttathu H Suresh, Geetha S Remya, and Puthannur K Anjalikrishna. Molecular electrostatic potential anal- ysis: A powerful tool to interpret and predict chemical reactivity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 12(5):e1601, 2022

    2022

  35. [44]

    Molecular electron density theory: a modern view of reactivity in organic chemistry

    Luis R Domingo. Molecular electron density theory: a modern view of reactivity in organic chemistry. Molecules, 21(10):1319, 2016

    2016

  36. [45]

    Electrostatic potential topology for probing molecular structure, bonding and reactivity

    Shridhar R Gadre, Cherumuttathu H Suresh, and Neetha Mohan. Electrostatic potential topology for probing molecular structure, bonding and reactivity. Molecules, 26(11):3289, 2021

    2021

  37. [46]

    Introduction to qtaim and beyond

    Fernando Cortés-Guzmán, Juan I Rodríguez, and James SM Anderson. Introduction to qtaim and beyond. In Advances in Quantum Chemical Topology Beyond QTAIM, pages 1–19. Elsevier, 2023. 18

    2023

  38. [47]

    Molecular electrostatic potentials: significance and applications

    Peter Politzer and Jane S Murray. Molecular electrostatic potentials: significance and applications. Chemical reactivity in confined systems: theory, modelling and applications, pages 113–134, 2021

    2021

  39. [48]

    A viewpoint on population analyses

    Ernest R Davidson and Aurora E Clark. A viewpoint on population analyses. International journal of quantum chemistry, 122(8):e26860, 2022

    2022

  40. [49]

    Casscf with extremely large active spaces using the adaptive sampling configuration interaction method

    Daniel S Levine, Diptarka Hait, Norm M Tubman, Susi Lehtola, K Birgitta Whaley, and Martin Head-Gordon. Casscf with extremely large active spaces using the adaptive sampling configuration interaction method. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 16(4):2340–2354, 2020

    2020

  41. [50]

    Resource-efficient chemistry on quantum computers with the variational quantum eigensolver and the double unitary coupled-cluster approach

    Mekena Metcalf, Nicholas P Bauman, Karol Kowalski, and Wibe A De Jong. Resource-efficient chemistry on quantum computers with the variational quantum eigensolver and the double unitary coupled-cluster approach. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 16(10):6165–6175, 2020

    2020

  42. [51]

    Automated construction of molecular active spaces from atomic valence orbitals

    Elvira R Sayfutyarova, Qiming Sun, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Gerald Knizia. Automated construction of molecular active spaces from atomic valence orbitals. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 13(9):4063– 4078, 2017

    2017

  43. [52]

    Quantifying coherence with principal diagonal elements of density matrix

    Manis Hazra and Debabrata Goswami. Quantifying coherence with principal diagonal elements of density matrix. APL Quantum, 1(3), 2024

    2024

  44. [53]

    General formulation of quantum information

    IBM QUANTUM. General formulation of quantum information. https://learning.quantum. ibm.com/course/general-formulation-of-quantum-information/density-matrices# reduced-states-and-the-partial-trace , 2024. Acesso em: 21 jun. 2025

    2024

  45. [54]

    Quantum information and quantum noise

    Gabriel T Landi. Quantum information and quantum noise. en. graduate course in Quantum Information and Quantum noise, 2018

    2018

  46. [55]

    Root mean square error (rmse) or mean absolute error (mae)?–arguments against avoiding rmse in the literature

    Tianfeng Chai and Roland R Draxler. Root mean square error (rmse) or mean absolute error (mae)?–arguments against avoiding rmse in the literature. Geoscientific model development, 7(3):1247–1250, 2014

    2014

  47. [56]

    Overlap properties of chemical bonds in generic systems including unusual bonding situations

    Renaldo T MOURA JR et al. Overlap properties of chemical bonds in generic systems including unusual bonding situations. Journal of Molecular Modeling, 26(11):301, 2020

    2020

  48. [57]

    Nature of the chemical bond in protonated methane

    Felipe P Fleming, André GH Barbosa, and Pierre M Esteves. Nature of the chemical bond in protonated methane. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 110(43):11903–11905, 2006

    2006

  49. [58]

    From kekulé’s tetravalent methane to five-, six-, and seven-coordinate protonated methanes

    George A Olah and Golam Rasul. From kekulé’s tetravalent methane to five-, six-, and seven-coordinate protonated methanes. Accounts of chemical research, 30(6):245–250, 1997

    1997

  50. [59]

    Chemistry of star-forming regions

    Eric Herbst. Chemistry of star-forming regions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 109(18):4017–4029, 2005

    2005

  51. [60]

    The ion chemistry of interstellar clouds

    David Smith. The ion chemistry of interstellar clouds. Chemical reviews, 92(7):1473–1485, 1992

    1992

  52. [61]

    CH + 5 stability and mass spectrometry

    George M Kramer. CH + 5 stability and mass spectrometry. Science, 286(5442):1051–1051, 1999

    1999

  53. [62]

    Molecular electronic-structure theory

    Trygve Helgaker, Poul Jorgensen, and Jeppe Olsen. Molecular electronic-structure theory. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  54. [63]

    Self-consistent molecular-orbital methods

    Warren J Hehre, Robert F Stewart, and John A Pople. Self-consistent molecular-orbital methods. i. use of gaussian expansions of slater-type atomic orbitals. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 51(6):2657–2664, 1969

    1969

  55. [64]

    Schleyer, J Stephen Binkley, and John A Pople

    John B Collins, Paul von R. Schleyer, J Stephen Binkley, and John A Pople. Self-consistent molecular orbital methods. xvii. geometries and binding energies of second-row molecules. a comparison of three basis sets. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 64(12):5142–5151, 1976

    1976

  56. [65]

    Essentials of computational chemistry: theories and models

    Christopher J Cramer. Essentials of computational chemistry: theories and models. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  57. [66]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations

    Ville Bergholm, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, Christian Gogolin, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Vishnu Ajith, M Sohaib Alam, Guillermo Alonso-Linaje, B AkashNarayanan, Ali Asadi, et al. Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Entanglement-variational hardware-efficient ansatz for eigensolvers

    Xin Wang et al. Entanglement-variational hardware-efficient ansatz for eigensolvers. Physical Review Applied, 21(3):034059, 2024

    2024

  59. [68]

    Critic2: A program for real-space analysis of quantum chemical interactions in solids

    Alberto Otero-De-La-Roza, Erin R Johnson, and Víctor Luaña. Critic2: A program for real-space analysis of quantum chemical interactions in solids. Computer Physics Communications, 185(3):1007–1018, 2014

    2014

  60. [69]

    An efficient method for calculating atomic charges of peptides and proteins from electronic populations

    Young Kee Kang and Harold A Scheraga. An efficient method for calculating atomic charges of peptides and proteins from electronic populations. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 112(17):5470–5478, 2008

    2008

  61. [70]

    Atomic orbitals in molecules: general electronegativity and improvement of mulliken population analysis

    Haigang Lu, Dadi Dai, Pin Yang, and Lemin Li. Atomic orbitals in molecules: general electronegativity and improvement of mulliken population analysis. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 8(3):340–346, 2006. 19 Supplementary Materials 1.38 Å1.33 Å 1.57 Å 1.77 Å 2.00 Å Figure S...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.