Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Quantum-Centric Alchemical Free Energy Calculations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 demonstrates the first alchemical free energy calculation that uses real quantum hardware, with FCI and SQD corrections injected every tenth MD step through a book-ending MBAR workflow.

desk verdict A real first: quantum hardware inside an alchemical free energy workflow—but the CI-stride scheme undermines the MBAR corrections, so the claimed numbers need a control. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20825 v1 pith:Z7SMR7ER submitted 2025-06-25 physics.chem-ph quant-ph

Milana Bazayeva , Zhen Li , Danil Kaliakin , Fangchun Liang , Akhil Shajan , Susanta Das , Kenneth M. Merz Jr This is my paper
classification physics.chem-phquant-ph
keywords alchemicalfreeenergybook-endingcorrectionquantum-centricsimulationsample-basedquantumdiagonalizationQM/MMfullconfigurationinteractionhydrationMBAR
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 sets out to show that quantum hardware can be plugged into an alchemical free energy calculation—one that estimates a free energy difference by mutating a molecule along a coupling parameter $\lambda$—without rebuilding the classical machinery. It uses the book-ending correction: compute a force-field-level free energy first, then add free energy differences between the MM and QM/MM descriptions at the end states, estimated with MBAR over the $\lambda$ path. The new step is that the QM/MM description, normally Hartree-Fock or DFT, can be replaced at intervals by a full configuration interaction (FCI) solver or by a quantum-centric sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) workflow run on real quantum hardware. The authors benchmark this on hydration free energies of ammonia, methane, and water, and report that the CI corrections move methane and water closer to reference solvation values while ammonia moves away. If the approach holds, it opens a practical route to correlated electronic-structure corrections in binding free energy predictions for drug-like systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the book-ending correction computed with MBAR: six $\lambda$ windows interpolate the potential from pure MM at $\lambda=0$ to QM/MM at $\lambda=1$, and the free energy difference between the two descriptions is added to the classical result. The enabling mechanical piece is a CI-stride control in the MD driver's interface to the quantum engine: normally the engine evaluates Hartree-Fock energies and gradients every step, but at user-set intervals the engine writes a molecular-orbital file and hands control to an external CI solver, whose energies and gradients are read back into the trajectory. The quantum-centric route is sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD), in which a low-depth local unitary cluster Jastrow (LUCJ) ansatz is sampled on quantum hardware, the noisy bitstrings are cleaned by a configuration-recovery loop, and the resulting determinant subspaces are diagonalized classically; the paper's contribution is extending that loop to compute nuclear gradients, so the correlated results can drive the dynamics.

What would settle it

Run the book-ending protocol with the CI stride set to one instead of ten and compare the MBAR corrections for the same three solutes; if the every-step and every-tenth-step results differ by more than the reported statistical uncertainties, the mixed Hartree-Fock and CI trajectory is not equivalent to a fully correlated one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a working hybrid quantum-classical free energy protocol: the first alchemical free energy calculation in which real quantum hardware contributes correlated electronic-structure corrections, and the first time the SQD method supplies nuclear gradients inside a molecular dynamics trajectory. Production runs propagate the QM/MM trajectory with Hartree-Fock energies and gradients, and at every tenth step the calculation is redirected to either an FCI solver or an SQD backend; the returned energies and gradients re-enter the dynamics, and MBAR over the six $\lambda$ windows turns the accumulated energies into a correction added to the classical hydration free energy. With the minimal STO-3G basis, the FCI and SQD corrections agree with each other closely and improve the reference agreement for methane and water, but overshoot for ammonia; the authors therefore present the numbers as a baseline benchmark of the interface rather than a final accuracy statement.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that using FCI or SQD energies and gradients only every tenth MD step, with Hartree-Fock in between, gives the same free energy difference as a trajectory driven by the correlated method at every step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Book-ending corrections are no longer limited to Hartree-Fock or DFT; any CI backend that can return energies and gradients can be swapped into the same MD workflow.
  • Because SQD now supplies nuclear gradients, correlated quantum chemistry can shape molecular dynamics trajectories rather than only correcting single-point energies.
  • For weakly correlated solutes, FCI and SQD corrections track each other within a few tenths of a kcal/mol, indicating the quantum-centric route can stand in for exact diagonalization in this regime.
  • The independence of the $\lambda$ windows means the correction phase can be parallelized across multiple quantum devices, which is the paper's stated route to scaling the workflow.
  • The remaining error in ammonia is attributed in the paper to the minimal STO-3G basis and to the force-field Lennard-Jones parameters, so both are the natural targets for improving accuracy next.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the every-tenth-step injection truly reproduces a fully correlated trajectory, the cost of correlated QM/MM free energy sampling drops by roughly an order of magnitude, making the approach practical for far larger solutes than the three tested.
  • The same interface could be used as a method scanner: on a fixed set of sampled configurations, one could compare MBAR corrections from FCI, SQD, and cheaper approximate CI solvers before choosing where to spend sampling effort.
  • The strongest stress test would be a solute with genuine static correlation, where FCI and SQD corrections should diverge from Hartree-Fock and DFT; ammonia, methane, and water are too weakly correlated to reveal such a difference.
  • Because SQD gradients are computed only on the final configuration-recovery iteration, the trajectory's sensitivity to the stride length and gradient frequency remains untested; a stride sweep would show whether the approximation biases the sampled ensemble.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a hybrid quantum-classical workflow that integrates full configuration interaction (FCI) and sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) calculations into the AMBER/QUICK QM/MM book-ending correction scheme for alchemical free energy calculations. The authors compute Hartree-Fock (HF), HF+FCI, and HF+SQD book-ending corrections to the hydration free energies of ammonia, methane, and water, and compare the results with the MNSol database. The main claims are that this is the first demonstration of quantum hardware inside an alchemical workflow, that the new interface is modular and extensible, and that the inclusion of CI-based corrections improves the accuracy of free energy predictions relative to classical MM results.

Significance. If the central method were validated, this would be a notable step: it is the first embedding of real quantum hardware in an alchemical free energy workflow, the first use of SQD nuclear gradients in molecular dynamics, and it provides a reusable interface between AMBER/QUICK and external CI solvers. The paper is commendably explicit about its limitations, including the failure of all quantum corrections for ammonia, and it provides code and workflow links that aid reproducibility. However, the numerical demonstration of 'enhanced accuracy' is currently not supported because the production protocol uses a time-alternating mixture of HF and CI potentials and the paper lacks a validation that this gives the same ensemble as a fully CI-driven trajectory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'Book-ending simulations' and 'MBAR analysis'] The production protocol alternates between HF and FCI/SQD potentials every 10th MD step ('The external CI solvers were activated only during the production runs, at every 10th step'), and the Results repeat that FCI/SQD 'energies and gradients were computed and incorporated in the dynamics at every 10th step'. MBAR, as written in Eq. (7), assumes that each configuration is an equilibrium sample from one of the K λ-states with a well-defined Hamiltonian U_k. With a deterministic alternation between HF and CI potentials, the trajectory's stationary distribution is not Boltzmann for the HF state, the CI state, or any λ-interpolated state in the MBAR set. Consequently, the corrections in Table S2 are not unbiased estimates of the MM→QM/MM free energy difference as defined by Eq. (7). Because all numerical claims rest on these corrections, the authors must either run a control with CI stride = 1 (full CI-driven production) or provide evidence that stride = 10 reproduces the pure-CI ensemble to within the reported statistical errors.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The claim that the workflow 'enhance[s] the accuracy of free energy predictions' is not supported by the ammonia results in Table 1: the classical MM value (-3.87 kcal/mol) underestimates MNSol (-4.29 kcal/mol) by 0.42 kcal/mol, while all three quantum-corrected values (-1.94, -2.35, and -2.20 kcal/mol) move further from the reference. The paper later narrows this to 'particularly for methane and water', but the abstract and the opening of the Results overstate the accuracy gain. The authors should either temper the abstract/conclusion wording or provide a quantitative accuracy claim that acknowledges the negative ammonia result.
  3. [Results, Table 1 and Table S2] The paper does not assess whether the differences between the HF, HF+FCI, and HF+SQD corrections are statistically significant. For ammonia, Table S2 reports 1.93±0.30 (HF), 1.52±0.36 (HF+FCI), and 1.67±0.33 (HF+SQD); the pairwise differences are smaller than the combined standard errors. The statement that the corrections are 'reproducible and consistent' would be strengthened by reporting confidence intervals for the differences or a proper statistical test, especially given the small production length (1 ps per λ-window) and the fact that only every 10th step carries the CI correction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods, MBAR analysis] Eqs. (4)-(7) refer to 'Poisson-Boltzmann distribution' and 'Poisson-Boltzmann constant'; these should be 'Boltzmann distribution' and 'Boltzmann constant'.
  2. [Methods, MBAR analysis, Eq. (7)] The index structure in Eq. (7) is ambiguous: the numerator sums over j and i, and the denominator uses k, but the relationship between these indices and the sample count N_k is not defined precisely. Please rewrite with explicit summation indices and state what quantities are known versus iterated.
  3. [Supplementary Information, Figure S3 caption] The phrase '2-qubits gate depth' is likely a typo for 'two-qubit gate depth'.
  4. [Throughout] The database name is inconsistently written as both 'MNsol' and 'MNSol'; please standardize.
  5. [Methods, Book-ending simulations] The production runs are only 1 ps per λ-window with a 1 fs timestep, so with a stride of 10 the CI solver is invoked only about 100 times per window. Please state explicitly the total number of CI evaluations per window and whether the reported error bars reflect these 100 samples or the full 1000 MD steps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the free-energy corrections are computed by an independent MBAR reweighting and benchmarked against an external database; the self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The reported MM hydration free energies come from a standard thermodynamic integration calculation (Eqs. 1-3), and the book-ending correction is obtained by MBAR (Eqs. 4-7) over six lambda windows using MM and QM/MM potentials. The corrected values in Table 1 are then compared with the external MNSol database; no parameter is fitted to MNSol, so the benchmark is independent. The FCI and SQD energies and gradients are computed from the electronic structure problem rather than fitted to the free-energy target. The LUCJ ansatz is initialized from CCSD amplitudes, but the SQD subspace diagonalization is not constrained to reproduce the CCSD energy or the target free energy, so this is not a self-fulfilling prediction. Prior SQD papers by the same group are cited for methodology, but the paper's central claim does not reduce to those citations. The paper itself notes in the Introduction that 'the systems considered in the present paper do not include the strong electron correlation effects' and later attributes deviations to 'the minimal STO-3G basis set used in this work'; these are honest limitations rather than circular reductions. The CI-stride protocol (external CI solvers activated every 10th MD step) raises a legitimate equilibrium-sampling concern for the MBAR estimator, but that is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the reported values are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

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

This ledger lists the hand-chosen protocol numbers and the domain assumptions underpinning the calculation. No parameters were fitted to the MNSol database, and no new physical entities are introduced; the book-ending correction and SQD are prior methods.

free parameters (6)
  • CI stride = 10 MD steps
    Frequency of FCI/SQD energy and gradient evaluation; chosen by hand, affects the effective QM/MM Hamiltonian and the resulting free energy correction.
  • SQD samples per batch = 100
    Number of bitstring samples per batch in the SQD post-processing (Table S1); a protocol choice.
  • SQD number of batches = 10
    Number of subspaces diagonalized in SQD; protocol choice.
  • SQD S-CORE iterations = 2
    Number of self-consistent configuration recovery iterations; protocol choice.
  • LUCJ ansatz repetitions = 2
    Number of LUCJ layers in the quantum circuit; affects circuit depth and accuracy.
  • Production length per lambda window = 1 ps
    Short sampling time chosen for cost; affects convergence of MBAR estimates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RHF/STO-3G is an adequate level for the QM/MM MD sampling and the MM-to-QM transformation; the CI corrections only need to be applied periodically.
    The interface runs HF at every step and FCI/SQD only at every 10th step, assuming the HF reference is good enough for sampling.
  • domain assumption The book-ending MBAR correction is converged with 1 ps of production sampling per lambda window and six lambda windows.
    The paper uses 1 ps production per window and does not show convergence checks.
  • ad hoc to paper Applying FCI/SQD energies and gradients only every 10th step yields a valid effective potential for the QM/MM end state.
    This mixed Hamiltonian is not a standard, well-defined potential; its free energy is not shown to equal the pure CI trajectory's.
  • domain assumption The chosen active spaces (10e,8o) for ammonia, (10e,9o) for methane, (10e,7o) for water capture the essential correlation for the correction.
    Active space choice determines the CI/SQD results; no validation against larger active spaces is given.
  • domain assumption The LUCJ ansatz parametrized by gas-phase CCSD amplitudes is a good approximation for the QM/MM ground state in solution.
    SQD relies on the LUCJ circuit; the amplitudes come from gas-phase CCSD, and transferability to the embedded system is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-Centric Alchemical Free Energy Calculations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7SMR7ER

@misc{pith2026250620825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-Centric Alchemical Free Energy Calculations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7SMR7ER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20825}
}
read the original abstract

In the present work, we present a hybrid quantum-classical workflow aimed at improving the accuracy of alchemical free energy (AFE) predictions by incorporating configuration interaction (CI) simulations using the book-ending correction method. This approach applies the Multistate Bennett Acceptance Ratio (MBAR) over a coupling parameter {\lambda} to smoothly transition the system from molecular mechanics (MM) ({\lambda} = 0) to a quantum mechanics (QM) ({\lambda} = 1) description. The resulting correction is then applied to the classically (MM) computed AFE to account for the more accurate QM treatment. The standard book-ending procedure uses AMBER to simulate the MM region, and QUICK, AMBER's default QM engine, to handle the QM region with either the Hartree-Fock (HF) method or density functional theory (DFT). In this work, we introduce a novel interface to QUICK, via sander, that enables CI simulations, and can operate in two ways: A) via PySCF backend to perform full configuration interaction (FCI) using conventional computing resources, B) quantum-centric sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) workflow via Qiskit which leverages both quantum hardware and post-processing on conventional computing resources for CI simulations. In this workflow QUICK performs most steps of the calculations, but at user-defined intervals, it redirects the computation to either FCI or SQD backend to get the CI result. We computed the book-end corrections for the hydration free energy (HFE) of three small organic molecules (ammonia, methane, and water) to benchmark the proposed approach and demonstrate how quantum-computers can be used in AFE calculations. We believe that this approach can be scaled to more complex systems like drug-receptor interactions in future studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the book-ending energy correction procedure. At the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow of the standard sander functionality within the QM/MM scheme (left), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P.; McCammon, J

    Straatsma, T. P.; McCammon, J. A. Computational Alchemy. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 1992, 43, 407--435

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Role of Molecular Dynamics and Related Methods in Drug Discovery

    De Vivo, M.; Masetti, M.; Bottegoni, G.; Cavalli, A. Role of Molecular Dynamics and Related Methods in Drug Discovery. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2016, 59, 4035--4061, PMID: 26807648

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    L.; Duffy, E

    Jorgensen, W. L.; Duffy, E. M. Prediction of drug solubility from Monte Carlo simulations. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 2000, 10, 1155--1158

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Li, W.; Yin, Z.; Li, X.; Ma, D.; Yi, S.; Zhang, Z.; Zou, C.; Bu, K.; Dai, M.; Yue, J. et al. A hybrid quantum computing pipeline for real world drug discovery. Scientific Reports 2024, 14

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Salo-Ahen, O. M. H.; Alanko, I.; Bhadane, R.; Bonvin, A. M. J. J.; Honorato, R. V.; Hossain, S.; Juffer, A. H.; Kabedev, A.; Lahtela-Kakkonen, M.; Larsen, A. S. et al. Molecular Dynamics Simulations in Drug Discovery and Pharmaceutical Development. Processes 2021, 9

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    J.; York, D

    Zeng, J.; Tao, Y.; Giese, T. J.; York, D. M. QD : A Quantum Deep Potential Interaction Model for Drug Discovery. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2023, 19, 1261--1275, PMID: 36696673

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    J.; Zeng, J.; Ekesan, S \"olen .; York, D

    Giese, T. J.; Zeng, J.; Ekesan, S \"olen .; York, D. M. Combined QM/MM, Machine Learning Path Integral Approach to Compute Free Energy Profiles and Kinetic Isotope Effects in RNA Cleavage Reactions. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2022, 18, 4304--4317, PMID: 35709391

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    M.; Capece, L.; Martí, M

    Clemente, C. M.; Capece, L.; Martí, M. A. Best Practices on QM/MM Simulations of Biological Systems. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2023, 63, 2609--2627, PMID: 37100031

    work page 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Kar, R. K. Benefits of hybrid QM/MM over traditional classical mechanics in pharmaceutical systems. Drug Discovery Today 2023, 28, 103374

    2023

  2. [10]

    Theoretical studies of enzymic reactions: Dielectric, electrostatic and steric stabilization of the carbonium ion in the reaction of lysozyme

    Warshel, A.; Levitt, M. Theoretical studies of enzymic reactions: Dielectric, electrostatic and steric stabilization of the carbonium ion in the reaction of lysozyme. Journal of Molecular Biology 1976, 103, 227--249

    1976

  3. [11]

    A.; Blaha-Nelson, D.; Kamerlin, S

    Duarte, F.; Amrein, B. A.; Blaha-Nelson, D.; Kamerlin, S. C. Recent advances in QM/MM free energy calculations using reference potentials. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects 2015, 1850, 954--965, Recent developments of molecular dynamics

    2015

  4. [12]

    W.; Merz, K

    Manathunga, M.; Götz, A. W.; Merz, K. M. Computer-aided drug design, quantum-mechanical methods for biological problems. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2022, 75, 102417

    2022

  5. [13]

    Lu, X.; Fang, D.; Ito, S.; Okamoto, Y.; Ovchinnikov, V.; and, Q. C. QM/MM free energy simulations: recent progress and challenges. Molecular Simulation 2016, 42, 1056--1078, PMID: 27563170

    2016

  6. [14]

    J.; Zeng, J.; Lerew, L.; McCarthy, E.; Tao, Y.; Ekesan, S \"olen .; York, D

    Giese, T. J.; Zeng, J.; Lerew, L.; McCarthy, E.; Tao, Y.; Ekesan, S \"olen .; York, D. M. Software Infrastructure for Next-Generation QM/MM- MLP Force Fields. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2024, 128, 6257--6271, PMID: 38905451

    2024

  7. [15]

    York, D. M. Modern Alchemical Free Energy Methods for Drug Discovery Explained. ACS Physical Chemistry Au 2023, 3, 478--491

    2023

  8. [16]

    Free energy perturbation calculations with combined QM/MM potentials: complications, simplifications, and applications to redox potential calculations

    Li, G.; Zhang, X.; Cui, Q. Free energy perturbation calculations with combined QM/MM potentials: complications, simplifications, and applications to redox potential calculations. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 8643--8653

    2003

  9. [17]

    Absolute free energy of solvation from Monte Carlo simulations using combined quantum and molecular mechanical potentials

    Gao, J. Absolute free energy of solvation from Monte Carlo simulations using combined quantum and molecular mechanical potentials. The Journal of Physical Chemistry 1992, 96, 537--540

    1992

  10. [18]

    A priori evaluation of aqueous polarization effects through Monte Carlo QM-MM simulations

    Gao, J.; Xia, X. A priori evaluation of aqueous polarization effects through Monte Carlo QM-MM simulations. Science 1992, 258, 631--635

    1992

  11. [19]

    Microscopic models for quantum mechanical calculations of chemical processes in solutions: LD/AMPAC and SCAAS/AMPAC calculations of solvation energies

    Luzhkov , V.; Warshel , A. Microscopic models for quantum mechanical calculations of chemical processes in solutions: LD/AMPAC and SCAAS/AMPAC calculations of solvation energies . Journal of Computational Chemistry 1992, 13, 199--213

    1992

  12. [20]

    L.; Warrensford, L.; Boresch, S.; Woodcock, H

    Kearns, F. L.; Warrensford, L.; Boresch, S.; Woodcock, H. L. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: “HiPen”, a New Dataset for Validating (S)QM/MM Free Energy Simulations. Molecules 2019, 24

    2019

  13. [21]

    S.; Han, K.; Woodcock, H

    Hudson, P. S.; Han, K.; Woodcock, H. L.; Brooks, B. R. Force matching as a stepping stone to QM/MM CB[8] host/guest binding free energies: a SAMPL6 cautionary tale. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 2018, 32, 983--999

    2018

  14. [22]

    S.; Boresch, S.; Rogers, D

    Hudson, P. S.; Boresch, S.; Rogers, D. M.; Woodcock, H. L. Accelerating QM/MM Free Energy Computations via Intramolecular Force Matching. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2018, 14, 6327--6335

    2018

  15. [23]

    L.; Hudson, P

    Kearns, F. L.; Hudson, P. S.; Woodcock, H. L.; Boresch, S. Computing converged free energy differences between levels of theory via nonequilibrium work methods: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Computational Chemistry 2017, 38, 1376--1388

    2017

  16. [24]

    S.; Boresch, S.; Woodcock, H

    König, G.; Hudson, P. S.; Boresch, S.; Woodcock, H. L. Multiscale Free Energy Simulations: An Efficient Method for Connecting Classical MD Simulations to QM or QM/MM Free Energies Using Non-Boltzmann Bennett Reweighting Schemes. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2014,...

    2014

  17. [25]

    König, G.; Brooks, B. R. Correcting for the free energy costs of bond or angle constraints in molecular dynamics simulations. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects 2015, 1850, 932--943

    2015

  18. [26]

    R.; Thiel, W.; York, D

    König, G.; Brooks, B. R.; Thiel, W.; York, D. M. On the convergence of multi-scale free energy simulations. Molecular Simulation 2018, 44, 1062--1081

    2018

  19. [27]

    C.; Huang, J.; Thiel, W.; MacKerell, A

    König, G.; Pickard, F. C.; Huang, J.; Thiel, W.; MacKerell, A. D.; Brooks, B. R.; York, D. M. A Comparison of QM/MM Simulations with and without the Drude Oscillator Model Based on Hydration Free Energies of Simple Solutes. Molecules 2018, 23, 2695

    2018

  20. [28]

    S.; Woodcock, H

    Hudson, P. S.; Woodcock, H. L.; Boresch, S. Use of Nonequilibrium Work Methods to Compute Free Energy Differences Between Molecular Mechanical and Quantum Mechanical Representations of Molecular Systems. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2015, 6, 4850--4856, PMID: 26539729

    2015

  21. [29]

    J.; York, D

    Giese, T. J.; York, D. M. Development of a Robust Indirect Approach for MM → QM Free Energy Calculations That Combines Force-Matched Reference Potential and Bennett’s Acceptance Ratio Methods. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2019, 15, 5543--5562, PMID: 31507179

    2019

  22. [30]

    J.; Mori-Sánchez, P.; Yang, W

    Cohen, A. J.; Mori-Sánchez, P.; Yang, W. Challenges for Density Functional Theory. Chemical Reviews 2012, 112, 289--320, PMID: 22191548

    2012

  23. [31]

    Distributed Implementation of Full Configuration Interaction for One Trillion Determinants

    Gao, H.; Imamura, S.; Kasagi, A.; Yoshida, E. Distributed Implementation of Full Configuration Interaction for One Trillion Determinants. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2024, 20, 1185--1192, PMID: 38314701

    2024

  24. [32]

    D.; Ma, D.; Olsen, J.; Gagliardi, L.; de Jong, W

    Vogiatzis, K. D.; Ma, D.; Olsen, J.; Gagliardi, L.; de Jong, W. A. Pushing configuration-interaction to the limit: Towards massively parallel MCSCF calculations . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2017, 147, 184111

    2017

  25. [33]

    Abraham, V.; Mayhall, N. J. Selected Configuration Interaction in a Basis of Cluster State Tensor Products. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2020, 16, 6098--6113, PMID: 32846094

    2020

  26. [34]

    A.; Jeanmairet, G.; Alavi, A.; Umrigar, C

    Sharma, S.; Holmes, A. A.; Jeanmairet, G.; Alavi, A.; Umrigar, C. J. Semistochastic heat-bath configuration interaction method: Selected configuration interaction with semistochastic perturbation theory. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2017, 13, 1595--1604

    2017

  27. [35]

    A.; Tubman, N

    Holmes, A. A.; Tubman, N. M.; Umrigar, C. Heat-bath configuration interaction: An efficient selected configuration interaction algorithm inspired by heat-bath sampling. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2016, 12, 3674--3680

    2016

  28. [36]

    Robledo-Moreno, J.; Motta, M.; Haas, H.; Javadi-Abhari, A.; Jurcevic, P.; Kirby, W.; Martiel, S.; Sharma, K.; Sharma, S.; Shirakawa, T. et al. Chemistry beyond the scale of exact diagonalization on a quantum-centric supercomputer. Science Advances 2025, 11, eadu9991

    2025

  29. [37]

    R.; Li, Z.; Motta, M.; Johnson, C.; Saki, A

    Shajan, A.; Kaliakin, D.; Mitra, A.; Moreno, J. R.; Li, Z.; Motta, M.; Johnson, C.; Saki, A. A.; Das, S.; Sitdikov, I. et al. Towards quantum-centric simulations of extended molecules: sample-based quantum diagonalization enhanced with density matrix embedding theory. arXiv pr...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D.; Robledo-Moreno, J.; Job, J

    Liepuoniute, I.; Doney, K. D.; Robledo-Moreno, J.; Job, J. A.; Friend, W. S.; Jones, G. O. Quantum-Centric Study of Methylene Singlet and Triplet States. 2024,

    2024

  31. [39]

    Quantum-centric computation of molecular excited states with extended sample-based quantum diagonalization

    Barison, S.; Robledo Moreno, J.; Motta, M. Quantum-centric computation of molecular excited states with extended sample-based quantum diagonalization. Quantum Science and Technology 2025, 10, 025034

    2025

  32. [40]

    R.; Iosue, J

    Yu, J.; Moreno, J. R.; Iosue, J. T.; Bertels, L.; Claudino, D.; Fuller, B.; Groszkowski, P.; Humble, T. S.; Jurcevic, P.; Kirby, W. et al. Quantum-Centric Algorithm for Sample-Based Krylov Diagonalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09702 2025, Submitted on 16 Jan 2025 (v1), la...

    2025

  33. [41]

    Kaliakin, D.; Shajan, A.; Liang, F.; Merz, K. M. J. Implicit Solvent Sample-Based Quantum Diagonalization. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2025, 129, 5788--5796

    2025

  34. [42]

    Raghavachari, K.; Anderson, J. B. Electron Correlation Effects in Molecules. The Journal of Physical Chemistry 1996, 100, 12960--12973

    1996

  35. [43]

    Martin, J. M. L. Electron Correlation: Nature's Weird and Wonderful Chemical Glue. Israel Journal of Chemistry 2022, 62, e202100111

    2022

  36. [44]

    A.; Aktulga, H

    Case, D. A.; Aktulga, H. M.; Belfon, K.; Cerutti, D. S.; Cisneros, G. A.; Cruzeiro, V. W. D.; Forouzesh, N.; Giese, T. J.; G \"o tz, A. W.; Gohlke, H. et al. AMBER24. 2024; https://ambermd.org

    2024

  37. [45]

    H.; Yang, W.; Lee, T.-S.; Wang, J

    He, X.; Man, V. H.; Yang, W.; Lee, T.-S.; Wang, J. A fast and high-quality charge model for the next generation general AMBER force field. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 153, 114502

    2020

  38. [46]

    Restrained electrostatic potential atomic partial charges for condensed-phase simulations of carbohydrates

    Woods, R.; Chappelle, R. Restrained electrostatic potential atomic partial charges for condensed-phase simulations of carbohydrates. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 2000, 527, 149--156

    2000

  39. [47]

    J.; Trucks, G

    Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V.; Petersson, G. A.; Nakatsuji, H. et al. Gaussian˜16 R evision C .01. 2016, Gaussian Inc. Wallingford CT

    2016

  40. [48]

    Izadi, S.; Onufriev, A. V. Accuracy limit of rigid 3-point water models. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2016, 145, 074501, PMID: 27544113

    2016

  41. [49]

    Izadi, S.; Anandakrishnan, R.; Onufriev, A. V. Building Water Models: A Different Approach. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2014, 5, 3863--3871, PMID: 25400877

    2014

  42. [50]

    Particle mesh Ewald: An N log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems

    Darden, T.; York, D.; Pedersen, L. Particle mesh Ewald: An N log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1993, 98, 10089--10092

    1993

  43. [51]

    Berendsen, H. J. C.; Postma, J. P. M.; van Gunsteren, W. F.; DiNola, A.; Haak, J. R. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1984, 81, 3684--3690

    1984

  44. [52]

    W.; Le Grand, S.; Walker, R

    Hopkins, C. W.; Le Grand, S.; Walker, R. C.; Roitberg, A. E. Long-Time-Step Molecular Dynamics through Hydrogen Mass Repartitioning. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2015, 11, 1864--1874

    2015

  45. [53]

    M.; Götz, A

    Manathunga, M.; Aktulga, H. M.; Götz, A. W.; Merz, K. M. Quantum Mechanics/Molecular Mechanics Simulations on NVIDIA and AMD Graphics Processing Units. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2023, 63, 711--717

    2023

  46. [54]

    Cruzeiro, V. W. D.; Manathunga, M.; Merz, K. M.; Götz, A. W. Open-Source Multi-GPU-Accelerated QM/MM Simulations with AMBER and QUICK. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2021, 61, 2109--2115

    2021

  47. [55]

    R.; Chodera, J

    Shirts, M. R.; Chodera, J. D. Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2008, 129, 124105

    2008

  48. [56]

    K.; Bello, L.; Ben-Haim, Y.; Bucher, D.; Cabrera-Hernández, F

    Aleksandrowicz, G.; Alexander, T.; Barkoutsos, P. K.; Bello, L.; Ben-Haim, Y.; Bucher, D.; Cabrera-Hernández, F. J.; Carballo-Franquis, J.; Chen, A.; Chen, C.-F. et al. Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing. 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    J.; Lishman, J.; Gacon, J.; Martiel, S.; Nation, P

    Javadi-Abhari, A.; Treinish, M.; Krsulich, K.; Wood, C. J.; Lishman, J.; Gacon, J.; Martiel, S.; Nation, P. D.; Bishop, L. S.; Cross, A. W. Quantum computing with Qiskit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810 2024, Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    R.; Li, Z.; Mitra, A.; Motta, M.; Johnson, C.; Saki, A

    Kaliakin, D.; Shajan, A.; Moreno, J. R.; Li, Z.; Mitra, A.; Motta, M.; Johnson, C.; Saki, A. A.; Das, S.; Sitdikov, I. Accurate quantum-centric simulations of supramolecular interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09209 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A.; Gujarati, T.; Sharma, V.; Ferreira, R

    Barroca, M. A.; Gujarati, T.; Sharma, V.; Ferreira, R. N. B.; Na, Y.-H.; Giammona, M.; Mezzacapo, A.; Wunsch, B.; Steiner, M. Surface Reaction Simulations for Battery Materials through Sample-Based Quantum Diagonalization and Local Embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10923 20...

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J.; Whaley, K

    Motta, M.; Sung, K. J.; Whaley, K. B.; Head-Gordon, M.; Shee, J. Bridging physical intuition and hardware efficiency for correlated electronic states: the local unitary cluster Jastrow ansatz for electronic structure. Chemical Science 2023, 14, 11213--11227

    2023

  53. [61]

    C.; Blunt, N

    Sun, Q.; Berkelbach, T. C.; Blunt, N. S.; Booth, G. H.; Guo, S.; Li, Z.; Liu, J.; McClain, J. D.; Sayfutyarova, E. R.; Sharma, S. PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 2018, 8, e1340

    2018

  54. [62]

    S.; Bogdanov, N

    Sun, Q.; Zhang, X.; Banerjee, S.; Bao, P.; Barbry, M.; Blunt, N. S.; Bogdanov, N. A.; Booth, G. H.; Chen, J.; Cui, Z.-H. Recent developments in the PySCF program package. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 153, 024109

    2020

  55. [63]

    V.; Kelly, C

    Marenich, A. V.; Kelly, C. P.; Thompson, J. D.; Hawkins, G. D.; Chambers, C. C.; Giesen, D. J.; Winget, P.; Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G. Minnesota Solvation Database (MNSOL) version 2012. 2020, Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota (DRUM)

    2012

  56. [64]

    https://github.com/qiskit-community/ffsim, 2024; Accessed: 2024-09-01

    ffsims developers ffsim: Faster simulations of fermionic quantum circuits. https://github.com/qiskit-community/ffsim, 2024; Accessed: 2024-09-01

    2024

  57. [65]

    Moritz, P.; Nishihara, R.; Wang, S.; Tumanov, A.; Liaw, R.; Liang, E.; Elibol, M.; Yang, Z.; Paul, W.; Jordan, M. I. Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05889 2017, Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05889

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A Beginners Guide to Python 3 Programming; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2023; pp 487--490

    Hunt, J. A Beginners Guide to Python 3 Programming; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2023; pp 487--490

    2023

  59. [67]

    Coe, J. P. Analytic Gradients for Selected Configuration Interaction. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2023, 19, 874--886, PMID: 36656261

    2023

  60. [68]

    Hunt, John

    Sun, Q. Libcint: An efficient general integral library for Gaussian basis functions. Journal of Computational Chemistry 2015, 36, 1664--1671 mcitethebibliography AFE_QPU.bib0000664000000000000000000032353415027057014011367 0ustar rootroot@article Liepuoniute2024, author = Liep...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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