Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Chemical bonding concepts emerge naturally from maximally entangled atomic orbitals

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bond orders, hybridization, multicenter bonds, and aromaticity can be read directly from the entanglement pattern of specially constructed atomic orbitals.

desk verdict New QIT-based bonding analysis with strong numerical demonstrations, but the central proxy-to-entanglement step needs more support before the method is treated as rigorous. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15699 v2 pith:DLHZL4P2 submitted 2025-01-26 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Lexin Ding , Eduard Matito , Christian Schilling This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords chemicalbondingorbitalentanglementmaximallyentangledatomicorbitalsbondordermultipartitearomaticitytransitionstatesHilbert-spacepartitioning
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 tries to establish that chemical bonding, usually defined by human convention, can be derived from quantum information alone. It constructs maximally entangled atomic orbitals (MEAOs) by rotating orbitals within each atom so that inter-atomic-centre orbital correlations become as strong as possible. In that basis, pairwise entanglement values reproduce single, double, and triple bond orders and hybridization, while genuine multipartite entanglement among a ring's orbitals tracks aromaticity, including in a cycloaddition transition state. A sympathetic reader should care because this offers one quantitative language for two-center and multicenter bonding and for dissociation processes that standard population analyses miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the maximally entangled atomic orbital basis, obtained by maximizing the proxy function $F_{\mathrm{MEAO}}$, a sum over inter-center orbital pairs of squared two-particle reduced density matrix elements that encode double occupancy and spin-alternating electron transfer. The paper shows analytically that for an idealized two-electron bond this proxy peaks at the same orbital rotation as the true entanglement $E=S(\hat{\rho}_L)$, then uses it to construct MEAOs from a mean-field wavefunction. Two quantum-information tools extract the chemistry: pairwise mutual information $I_{ij}$ groups orbitals into bond clusters above a 10% threshold, and the genuine multipartite entanglement measure $\min_A S(\hat{\rho}_A)$ quantifies how much a cluster is entangled across every possible split, which is what tracks multicenter bonding and aromaticity.

What would settle it

Take a small molecule with disputed bonding, such as ozone or diborane, compute the true inter-atomic-center entanglement directly for all orbital pairs, and compare it with the bonds predicted by the proxy-optimized orbitals; if the two disagree about which orbitals form bonds, or the predicted bond orders contradict established delocalization and multicenter indices, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the entanglement pattern of MEAOs quantitatively recovers both two-center electron-pair bonding and multicenter bonding beyond that picture, with genuine multipartite entanglement serving as an index of bond strength. In CH4, C2H6, C2H4, C2H2, and N2, the number of MEAO pairs with near-maximal mutual information equals the conventional bond order, and the normalized correlation and entanglement values rank $\sigma$ versus $\pi$ and single versus multiple bonds. For benzene and related rings, the genuine multipartite entanglement of the $\pi$-orbital cluster orders aromaticity correctly, decreases under symmetry-breaking deformations, and peaks at the transition state of a six-electron cycloaddition where some established aromaticity indices fail. The LiH dissociation curve reproduces the harpoon-mechanism peak in covalent bond order that population-based Hilbert-space analyses miss.

Load-bearing premise

The method hinges on a hand-chosen measure of inter-orbital correlation being a faithful stand-in for true orbital entanglement in every molecule, although the equivalence is proven only for a single two-electron bond.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lewis structures and bond orders can be generated automatically from a single mean-field wavefunction by counting MEAO pairs whose mutual information exceeds the threshold; the counts match single, double, and triple bonds in the tested hydrocarbons and N2.
  • Multicenter bonding appears as orbital clusters in the MEAO correlation graph, so electron-deficient and hypervalent bonding can be detected without pre-drawn bonding diagrams.
  • Aromaticity can be quantified by the genuine multipartite entanglement of the ring's $\pi$-orbital cluster; the measure reproduces known ordering in substituted and deformed rings and detects aromaticity at a cycloaddition transition state.
  • Bond breaking can be monitored by orbital entanglement, with LiH dissociation reproducing the harpoon-mechanism peak that population-based electron-sharing analyses in Hilbert space miss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the MEAO clusters themselves indicate which orbitals a correlated calculation should treat actively, since the procedure singles out exactly the orbitals that carry genuine multipartite entanglement.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same pipeline to boranes, where three-center two-electron bonds are expected; the paper lists this as future work but does not test it.
  • Worth checking, though not reported in the paper, is how stable the bond-order and aromaticity assignments are under different choices of the initial atomic partition, since the construction begins from one selected partition of the one-particle Hilbert space.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new Hilbert-space framework for chemical bonding analysis based on maximally entangled atomic orbitals (MEAOs). The MEAO basis is defined by maximizing a proxy objective F_MEAO (Eq. 6), a sum of selected two-particle density matrix elements, and is intended to reproduce the entanglement pattern of the true maximally entangled orbital basis. From the MEAO correlation graph, bonds are identified by thresholding the mutual information, and then bipartite entanglement or genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) is evaluated to quantify two-center and multicenter bonding. The authors validate the framework on a series of molecules (CH4, C2H6, C2H4, C2H2, N2, LiH dissociation) and on aromaticity benchmarks including substituted and deformed benzene rings and the Diels-Alder transition state, showing that the MEAO entanglement patterns recover Lewis structures, hybridization, bond orders, and trends in aromaticity.

Significance. If the central construction is sound, this is a valuable contribution: it offers a unified, automated, and quantitatively interpretable bridge between quantum information measures and chemical bonding concepts, with the potential to elevate Hilbert-space partitioning to a level comparable to real-space approaches. The numerical validation is broad and, at a qualitative level, convincing: the MEAOs correctly produce sp, sp2, and sp3 hybridization, the correlation graphs cleanly separate bonding from non-bonding pairs, and the GME values reproduce well-known aromaticity trends, including the challenging Diels-Alder transition state. The paper also clearly states its limitations regarding the proxy nature of F_MEAO, which is a credit to the authors' transparency. The computational implementation is based on established software (PySCF, Block2) and the data for many systems are taken from prior benchmark studies, which aids reproducibility.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II B, Eq. (6), Appendix A] The central construction is that maximizing F_MEAO yields the orbital basis that maximizes true inter-center orbital entanglement. The only analytical support is the two-orbital, two-electron model in Appendix A, where the two selected 2RDM elements are the only off-diagonal coherence blocks of the two-orbital reduced state. For a general polyatomic CAS wavefunction the two-orbital reduced density matrix contains many additional population and coherence blocks, and couplings to the environment mean that the chosen terms do not determine the orbital entropies or the mutual information I_ij used in Steps 2 and 3. The paper itself states in §II B that F_MEAO is a proxy 'not to replicate the exact orbital entanglement,' but the MEAO basis determines all subsequent bond clusters and GME values in Tables I-II and Figs. 2-5. No inequality, monotonicity relation, or numerical sensitivity analysis is provided to show that a basis maximizing F_MEAO is closely aligned with the true entanglement-maximizing basis. I request either a general derivation or, minimally, a systematic numerical test: for several small molecules, compare the F_MEAO-optimized basis with the basis obtained by direct maximization of the sum of inter-center bipartite entanglements (or mutual informations), and demonstrate that the bond assignments and GME values are invariant. This is a load-bearing gap because the novelty of the framework lies precisely in the entanglement-based determination of the orbital basis.
  2. [§II B, Step 3] The bond-cluster detection depends critically on the hand-picked correlation threshold eta = 10% of Imax. The clusters define the active spaces for the subsequent CAS calculations, so the GME values in Table II and Fig. 5 are indirectly controlled by this parameter. No sensitivity analysis is reported: for example, varying eta between 5% and 20% may change the number of orbitals in a cluster, the active space, and hence the numerically evaluated GME. I request a stability analysis over a physically reasonable range of eta, and a statement of how the reported bond assignments and aromaticity trends depend on this choice.
  3. [§II C, Table I] The text interprets the normalized I_ij and E_ij values as 'deviations of the ground state from the idealized Lewis structure' and later as a 'comprehensive index of bond strength.' However, all values in Table I lie in a narrow range (0.875-0.963) while the nominal bond orders vary from 1 to 3; the actual recovery of bond order comes from the number of identified bonding pairs, not from the magnitude of the normalized entanglement. The interpretation of the magnitude as a bond-strength index is therefore not directly supported by the data shown and should be clarified or qualified. If the intent is that the sum over the identified pairs gives the bond order, the text should state this explicitly.
  4. [§II D, Table II] The GME values are interpreted as a quantitative aromaticity index, but the comparison to established indices (MCI, HOMA, FLU, NICS) is only qualitative: the text states that GME 'correctly captures the trend' that benzene is more aromatic than substituted rings, while noting that established indices disagree with each other on the exact ordering. For the five-member rings, no independent index is shown for comparison, and the drop from C5H5- (0.954) to C4H5N (0.725) to C4H4O (0.572) is asserted to reflect aromaticity but is not benchmarked against a reference. I ask the authors to provide a direct quantitative comparison (e.g., a correlation plot or rank table) between GME and at least one established aromaticity index for the full set of molecules in Table II, or to soften the claim from 'quantitative index' to 'qualitative descriptor.' This is not a fatal flaw, but it is necessary to support the paper's strength-of-claim language.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A4)] The parametrization is written as 'ψ_L = cos(θ)ϕ + sin(θ)ϕ, ψ_R = − sin(θ)ϕ + cos(θ)ϕ', where the same orbital ϕ appears twice in each expression; this should presumably read cos(θ)ϕ + sin(θ)φ̄ and − sin(θ)ϕ + cos(θ)φ̄, with φ̄ the antibonding orbital. Please correct the typo.
  2. [§II A, Eq. (3)] The sign convention in the expansion (3) is not explicitly justified; while it is consistent with the fermionic anticommutation relations, a brief comment or a reference to the ordering convention would help readers verify the algebra.
  3. [§II C, Fig. 3] The thermal state in Eq. (9) uses β = 10^3 Ha^{-1}; the justification is given in the text, but the sensitivity of the LiH peak to this specific value is not discussed. A sentence stating the range of β over which the peak persists would strengthen the claim.
  4. [§IV, Methods] The paper uses the term 'full configuration interaction' and 'DMRG' without specifying the active space sizes for the LiH calculation; for reproducibility, state the number of orbitals and electrons in the active space used for the LiH dissociation curves.
  5. [Throughout] Several figure captions (e.g., Figs. 2 and 4) contain raw figure text that is not typeset (e.g., '12345 6 7 ...' and 'C1 H1 ...'), which appears to be an artifact of the rendering. The captions should be rewritten in clean, readable prose.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are benchmarked against external chemical data, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The MEAO basis is defined by maximizing the explicit proxy FMEAO in Eq. (6), which the paper openly describes as a proxy rather than as the exact orbital entanglement: "The role of the proxy function FMEAO is not to replicate the exact orbital entanglement for all two-orbital reduced density matrices, but rather to ensure that its maximum identifies an orbital basis closely aligned with the one that maximizes the true entanglement." Appendix A verifies the proxy only for a single idealized two-electron, two-orbital bond; for polyatomic systems the identification is a stated, testable assumption rather than a definitional identity. The Lewis-structure results in Table I and Figs. 2 and 8 are obtained by computing actual mutual informations and von Neumann entropies after the orbital optimization, and the resulting bond counts and orders are checked against independent chemical knowledge; nothing in Eq. (6) fixes the number or identity of the pairs that exceed the Iij threshold. The GME aromaticity analysis in Table II and Fig. 5 uses active spaces selected from the same correlation graphs, but the GME values are not equal to the selection criterion: a cluster with high pairwise mutual information can still have low or zero genuine multipartite entanglement, so the high GME of benzene and the low GME of non-aromatic rings are nontrivial outputs rather than consequences of the cluster selection. The benchmarks against the aromaticity indices of Ref. [61] and the LiH delocalization index of Ref. [48] are external. The self-citations, including Refs. [33,35,36,45,85], provide background and numerical algorithms but are not load-bearing for the central claim that maximally entangled atomic orbitals recover bonding patterns. The only notable weakness is the unproven transfer of the FMEAO proxy from a single bond to polyatomic CAS states; this is a correctness or robustness limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces a new orbital basis (MEAOs) and a new index (GME for bonds), but these are computational constructs rather than new physical entities. The main free parameters are the threshold eta, the LiH thermal state temperature, and the proxy objective function. The most fragile axiom is the validity of the proxy F_MEAO as a stand-in for true entanglement in general systems.

free parameters (3)
  • Correlation threshold eta = 10% of Imax
    Used in Step 3 to define bonding clusters; its value is chosen, not derived.
  • Inverse temperature beta (LiH) = 10^3 Ha^-1
    Defines the thermal state in Eq. (9) to include degenerate triplet states near dissociation; the choice is a modeling input.
  • Proxy objective F_MEAO = sum of |Gamma|^{2} terms
    Functional form in Eq. (6) is hand-chosen to mimic single-bond entanglement; no uniqueness or optimality proof for general systems.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Orbital entanglement and mutual information, as defined by von Neumann entropy, are appropriate measures of electron correlation between atomic subspaces.
    Used throughout Sec. II; these are established QIT definitions.
  • domain assumption IAO or Meta-Lowdin partitioning yields a meaningful atomic subspace partition.
    Step 1 assumes the chosen Hilbert space partition corresponds to atoms.
  • domain assumption Mean-field (HF/DFT) wavefunctions are sufficient to construct MEAOs.
    Steps 1-3 are performed with a mean-field trial wavefunction, as stated in Fig. 1 caption.
  • domain assumption Genuine multipartite entanglement (Eq. 11) is a valid measure for multicenter bonding strength.
    Used as the aromaticity/bond index; while GME is a standard QIT measure, its identification with chemical bond strength is an interpretative assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The proxy F_MEAO maximization yields the same orbitals as true entanglement maximization.
    Only proven for a single bond in Appendix A; assumed for general molecules.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemical bonding concepts emerge naturally from maximally entangled atomic orbitals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLHZL4P2

@misc{pith2026250115699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemical bonding concepts emerge naturally from maximally entangled atomic orbitals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLHZL4P2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15699}
}
read the original abstract

Chemical bonding is a nonlocal phenomenon that binds atoms into molecules. Its ubiquitous presence in chemistry, however, stands in stark contrast to its ambiguous definition and the lack of a universal perspective for its understanding. In this work, we rationalize and characterize chemical bonding through the lens of an equally nonlocal concept from quantum information, the orbital entanglement. We introduce maximally entangled atomic orbitals (MEAOs) whose entanglement pattern is shown to recover both Lewis (two-center) and beyond-Lewis (multicenter) structures, with multipartite entanglement serving as a comprehensive index of bond strength. Our unifying framework for bonding analyses is effective not only for equilibrium geometries but also for transition states in chemical reactions and complex phenomena such as aromaticity. It also has the potential to elevate the Hilbert space atomic partitioning to match the prevalent real-space partitioning in the theory of atoms in molecules. Accordingly, our work provides a new framework for understanding fuzzy chemical concepts using rigorous, quantitative descriptors from quantum information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An overview of our proposed automatic procedure for determining the bonding patterns of molecules, based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of the valence intrinsic atomic orbitals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Low-lying energy levels of LiH in the singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Six-center bond in C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a)-(d): Test of the genuine multipartite entanglement (GME, normalized by log(4)) against various deformations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Entanglement between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Isosurfaces of valence carbon IAOs and MEAOs for prototypical molecules with single, double, and triple bonds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Low-lying energy levels of LiH in the singlet sector with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set, (b) electron delocalization index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Orbital entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. N. Lewis, The atom and the molecule., J. Am. Chem. Soc 38, 762 (1916)

    1916

  2. [2]

    distance

    In this orbital basis, the state in Eq. (1) has the following form: |Ψbond⟩ = 1 2 (|0⟩L ⊗ | ↑↓⟩R + | ↑⟩L ⊗ | ↓⟩R − | ↓⟩L ⊗ | ↑⟩R + | ↑↓⟩L ⊗ |0⟩R), (3) i.e., it is maximally entangled relative to the orbitals ˜φL and ˜φR, with an entanglement value E = log(4). Here, we used the fact that the entanglement E for pure states follows as the von Neumann entropy...

  3. [3]

    Heitler and F

    W. Heitler and F. London, Wechselwirkung neutraler Atome und hom¨ oopolare Bindung nach der Quanten- mechanik, Z. Phys. 44, 455 (1927)

    1927

  4. [4]

    Gerratt, D

    J. Gerratt, D. Cooper, P. a. Karadakov, and M. Rai- mondi, Modern valence bond theory, Chem. Soc. Rev. 26, 87 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    S. S. Shaik and P. C. Hiberty, A chemist’s guide to va- lence bond theory(John Wiley & Sons, 2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    C. C. J. Roothaan, New developments in molecular or- bital theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 23, 69 (1951)

    1951

  7. [7]

    Malmqvist and B

    P.-˚A. Malmqvist and B. O. Roos, The CASSCF state interaction method, Chem. Phys. Lett. 155, 189 (1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    Andersson, P

    K. Andersson, P. A. Malmqvist, B. O. Roos, A. J. Sadlej, and K. Wolinski, Second-order perturbation theory with a CASSCF reference function, J. Phys. Chem. 94, 5483 (1990)

    1990

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    G. K.-L. Chan and S. Sharma, The Density Matrix Renormalization Group in Quantum Chemistry, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 62, 465 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Bartlett and M

    R. Bartlett and M. Musia l, Coupled-cluster theory in quantum chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 291 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    R. S. Mulliken, Electronic population analysis on lcao– mo molecular wave functions. I, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 1833 (1955)

    1955

  5. [13]

    R. F. Bader and M. E. Stephens, Spatial localization of the electronic pair and number distributions in molecules, J. Am. Chem. Soc 97, 7391 (1975). 10

    1975

  6. [14]

    A. J. Bridgeman, G. Cavigliasso, L. R. Ireland, and J. Rothery, The Mayer bond order as a tool in inorganic chemistry, Dalton Trans. , 2095 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Mayer, Bond order and valence indices: A personal account, J

    I. Mayer, Bond order and valence indices: A personal account, J. Comput. Chem. 28, 204 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    B. O. Roos, A. C. Borin, and L. Gagliardi, Reaching the maximum multiplicity of the covalent chemical bond, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 46, 1469 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    R. F. Bader, Atoms in molecules, Acc. Chem. Res. 18, 9 (1985)

    1985

  10. [18]

    Silvi and A

    B. Silvi and A. Savin, Classification of chemical bonds based on topological analysis of electron localization function, Nature 371, 683 (1994)

    1994

  11. [19]

    A. D. Becke and K. E. Edgecombe, A simple mesure of electron localization in atomic and molecular systems, J. Comp. Phys. 92, 5397 (1990)

    1990

  12. [20]

    ´A. M. Pend´ as and J. Contreras-Garc ´ ıa,Topological Ap- proaches to the Chemical Bond(Springer Nature, 2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Fradera, M

    X. Fradera, M. A. Austen, and R. F. Bader, The lewis model and beyond, J. Phys. Chem. A 103, 304 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Matito, An electronic aromaticity index for large rings, Phys

    E. Matito, An electronic aromaticity index for large rings, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 11839 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Chemical

    I. Mayer, Towards a “Chemical” Hamiltonian, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 23, 341 (1983)

    1983

  16. [24]

    A. E. Reed, R. B. Weinstock, and F. Weinhold, Natural population analysis, J. Chem. Phys. 83, 735 (1985)

    1985

  17. [25]

    Knizia, Intrinsic atomic orbitals: An unbiased bridge between quantum theory and chemical concepts, J

    G. Knizia, Intrinsic atomic orbitals: An unbiased bridge between quantum theory and chemical concepts, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 4834 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Mayer, I

    I. Mayer, I. Bak´ o, and A. Stirling, Are there atomic orbitals in a molecule?, J. Phys. Chem. A 115, 12733 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    R. F. Nalewajski and R. G. Parr, Information theory, atoms in molecules, and molecular similarity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97, 8879 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    R. F. Nalewajski, Information theory of molecular sys- tems (Elsevier, 2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Rissler, R

    J. Rissler, R. M. Noack, and S. R. White, Measuring orbital interaction using quantum information theory, Chem. Phys. 323, 519 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Boguslawski, P

    K. Boguslawski, P. Tecmer, G. Barcza, O. Legeza, and M. Reiher, Orbital entanglement in bond-formation pro- cesses, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 2959 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Krumnow, L

    C. Krumnow, L. Veis, ¨O. Legeza, and J. Eisert, Fermionic orbital optimization in tensor network states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210402 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    C. J. Stein and M. Reiher, Automated selection of ac- tive orbital spaces, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 1760 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    C. J. Stein, D. A. Pantazis, and V. Krewald, Orbital entanglement analysis of exchange-coupled systems, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 10, 6762 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    L. Ding, S. Knecht, Z. Zimbor´ as, and C. Schilling, Quan- tum correlations in molecules: from quantum resourcing to chemical bonding, Quantum Sci. Technol. 8, 015015 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Bensberg and M

    M. Bensberg and M. Reiher, Corresponding active orbital spaces along chemical reaction paths, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 2112 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    L. Ding, S. Knecht, and C. Schilling, Quantum information-assisted complete active space optimization (qicas), J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 11022 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    K. Liao, L. Ding, and C. Schilling, Quantum information orbitals (qio): Unveiling intrinsic many-body complex- ity by compressing single-body triviality, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 15, 6782 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    F. A. Cotton, Chemical applications of group theory (John Wiley & Sons, 1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    Vedral, M

    V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Quantifying entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997)

    1997

  32. [40]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, Information, relative en- tropy of entanglement, and irreversibility, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2263 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    K. Modi, T. Paterek, W. Son, V. Vedral, and M. Williamson, Unified view of quantum and classical correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 080501 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Sun and G

    Q. Sun and G. K.-L. Chan, Exact and Optimal Quantum Mechanics/Molecular Mechanics Boundaries, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 10.1021/ct500512f (2014)

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Adami and N

    C. Adami and N. J. Cerf, von Neumann capacity of noisy quantum channels, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3470 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Groisman, S

    B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, Quantum, clas- sical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032317 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Boguslawski and P

    K. Boguslawski and P. Tecmer, Orbital entanglement in quantum chemistry, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 115, 1289 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    L. Ding, S. Mardazad, S. Das, S. Szalay, U. Schollw¨ ock, Z. Zimbor´ as, and C. Schilling, Concept of orbital entan- glement and correlation in quantum chemistry, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 79 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Matito, M

    E. Matito, M. Sol` a, P. Salvador, and M. Duran, Elec- tron sharing indexes at the correlated level. application to aromaticity calculations, Faraday Discuss. 135, 325 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    J. C. Polanyi and A. H. Zewail, Direct observation of the transition state, Acc. Chem. Res. 28, 119 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Rodr ´ ıguez-Mayorga, E

    M. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mayorga, E. Ramos-Cordoba, P. Salvador, M. Sol` a, and E. Matito, Bonding description of the har- poon mechanism, Mol. Phys. 114, 1345 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Ponec and D

    R. Ponec and D. L. Cooper, Anatomy of bond formation. bond length dependence of the extent of electron sharing in chemical bonds, J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM727, 133 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bility of n-particle mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of linear maps, Phys. Lett. A 283, 1 (2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    D. T. Pope and G. J. Milburn, Multipartite entanglement and quantum state exchange, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052107 (2003)

    2003

  46. [54]

    Ma, Z.-H

    Z.-H. Ma, Z.-H. Chen, J.-L. Chen, C. Spengler, A. Gabriel, and M. Huber, Measure of genuine multipar- tite entanglement with computable lower bounds, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062325 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    M. A. Nielsen, Continuity bounds for entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 064301 (2000)

    2000

  49. [57]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of en- tanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite 11 quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Sol` a, Why aromaticity is a suspicious concept? Why?, Front

    M. Sol` a, Why aromaticity is a suspicious concept? Why?, Front. Chem. 5, 22 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    von Ragu´ e Schleyer and H

    P. von Ragu´ e Schleyer and H. Jiao, What is aromaticity, Pure Appl. Chem. 68, 209 (1996)

    1996

  52. [60]

    P. v. R. Schleyer, Introduction: aromaticity, Chem. Rev. 101, 1115 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    Feixas, E

    F. Feixas, E. Matito, J. Poater, and M. Sol` a, Quantifying aromaticity with electron delocalisation measures, Chem. Soc. Rev. 44, 6389 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Feixas, E

    F. Feixas, E. Matito, J. Poater, and M. Sol` a, On the per- formance of some aromaticity indices: a critical assess- ment using a test set, J. Comp. Chem. 29, 1543 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Hoffmann, Extended H¨ uckel Theory

    R. Hoffmann, Extended H¨ uckel Theory. II.σ Orbitals in the Azines, J. Chem. Phys. 40, 2745 (1964)

    1964

  56. [64]

    Bultinck, M

    P. Bultinck, M. Rafat, R. Ponec, B. Van Gheluwe, R. Carbo-Dorca, and P. Popelier, Electron delocalization and aromaticity in linear polyacenes: atoms in molecules multicenter delocalization index, J. Phys. Chem. A 110, 7642 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    Kruszewski and T

    J. Kruszewski and T. Krygowski, Definition of aromatic- ity basing on the harmonic oscillator model, Tetrahedron Lett. 13, 3839 (1972)

    1972

  58. [66]

    T. M. Krygowski, Crystallographic studies of inter-and intramolecular interactions reflected in aromatic charac- ter of. pi.-electron systems, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. 33, 70 (1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    Matito, M

    E. Matito, M. Duran, and M. Sola, The aromatic fluctuation index (flu): A new aromaticity index based on electron delocalization, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 10.1063/1.1824895 (2005)

    2005 doi

  60. [68]

    P. v. R. Schleyer, C. Maerker, A. Dransfeld, H. Jiao, and N. J. van Eikema Hommes, Nucleus-independent chem- ical shifts: a simple and efficient aromaticity probe, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118, 6317 (1996)

    1996

  61. [69]

    Feixas, E

    F. Feixas, E. Matito, J. Poater, and M. Sola, Aromaticity of distorted benzene rings: exploring the validity of dif- ferent indicators of aromaticity, J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 4513 (2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    Diels and K

    O. Diels and K. Alder, Synthesen in der hydroaromatis- chen reihe, Justus Liebigs Ann. Chem. 460, 98 (1928)

    1928

  63. [71]

    K. C. Nicolaou, S. A. Snyder, T. Montagnon, and G. Vas- silikogiannakis, The Diels–Alder reaction in total synthe- sis, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41, 1668 (2002)

    2002

  64. [72]

    Manoharan, F

    M. Manoharan, F. De Proft, and P. Geerlings, A compu- tational study of aromaticity-controlled Diels–Alder re- actions, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. , 1767 (2000)

    2000

  65. [73]

    Matito, J

    E. Matito, J. Poater, M. Duran, and M. Sol` a, An analy- sis of the changes in aromaticity and planarity along the reaction path of the simplest Diels–Alder reaction. Ex- ploring the validity of different indicators of aromaticity, J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM 727, 165 (2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    P. J. Stephens, F. J. Devlin, C. F. Chabalowski, and M. J. Frisch, Ab initio calculation of vibrational absorption and circular dichroism spectra using density functional force fields, J. Phys. Chem. 98, 11623 (1994)

    1994

  67. [75]

    Ponec and F

    R. Ponec and F. Uhlik, Multicentre bond indices from the generalized population analysis of higher order densities, Croat. Chem. Acta 69, 941 (1996)

    1996

  68. [76]

    Melichar, D

    P. Melichar, D. Hnyk, and J. Fanfrl ´ ık, A systematic ex- amination of classical and multi-center bonding in het- eroborane clusters, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 4666 (2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    Brookhart and M

    M. Brookhart and M. L. Green, Carbon hydrogen- transition metal bonds, J. Organomet. Chem. 250, 395 (1983)

    1983

  70. [78]

    Giambiagi, M

    M. Giambiagi, M. S. de Giambiagi, and K. C. Mundim, Definition of a multicenter bond index, Struct. Chem. 1, 423 (1990)

    1990

  71. [79]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, Pyscf: the python-based simulations of chemistry framework, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci 8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Johnson III

    NIST Computational Chemistry Comparison and Bench- mark Database, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 101, http://cccbdb.nist.gov/, release 22, May 2022, Editor: Russell D. Johnson III

    2022

  73. [81]

    Zhai and G

    H. Zhai and G. K. Chan, Low communication high per- formance ab initio density matrix renormalization group algorithms, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 10.1063/5.0050902 (2021)

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    H. Zhai, H. R. Larsson, S. Lee, Z.-H. Cui, T. Zhu, C. Sun, L. Peng, R. Peng, K. Liao, J. T¨ olle, et al., Block2: A comprehensive open source framework to develop and ap- ply state-of-the-art dmrg algorithms in electronic struc- ture and beyond, J. Chem. Phys.159, 10.1063/5.01...

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, G. Scal- mani, V. Barone, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, X. Li, M. Caricato, A. V. Marenich, J. Bloino, B. G. Janesko, R. Gomperts, B. Mennucci, H. P. Hratchian, J. V. Or- tiz, A. F. Izmay...

    2016

  76. [84]

    Grant and S

    M. Grant and S. Boyd, CVX: Matlab software for disci- plined convex programming, version 2.1, https://cvxr. com/cvx (2014)

    2014

  77. [85]

    Grant and S

    M. Grant and S. Boyd, Graph implementations for nons- mooth convex programs, in Recent Advances in Learn- ing and Control, Lecture Notes in Control and Infor- mation Sciences, edited by V. Blondel, S. Boyd, and H. Kimura (Springer-Verlag Limited, 2008) pp. 95–110, http://stanf...

    2008

  78. [86]

    Ding, Fermionic entanglement and correlation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.03848 10.48550/arXiv.2207.03848 (2022)

    L. Ding, Fermionic entanglement and correlation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.03848 10.48550/arXiv.2207.03848 (2022)

    2022 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    Jmol: an open-source Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D

  80. [88]

    Giambiagi, M

    M. Giambiagi, M. S. de Giambiagi, C. D. dos San- tos Silva, and A. P. de Figueiredo, Multicenter bond in- dices as a measure of aromaticity, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2, 3381 (2000). 12 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.05 0.10 FIG. 6. Entanglement between ψL and ψR in Eq. (A5) (left ...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.