Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Chemically-Accurate Prediction of the Ionisation Potential of Helium Using a Quantum Processor

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a noisy two-qubit ion-trap processor, using a first-quantised binary encoding and Quantum Computed Moments corrections, predicts the helium ionisation potential to 24.5536 (+0.0011, -0.0005) eV, within 0.034 eV (0.78…

desk verdict A clean 2-qubit proof-of-concept that QCM restores chemical accuracy on hardware, with overclaimed confidence and single-run validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02023 v2 pith:OI5FZXOF submitted 2025-02-04 quant-ph

Manolo C. Per , Nathan Rhodes , Maiyuren Srikumar , Joshua W. Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumchemistryheliumionisationpotentialchemicalaccuracyComputedMomentsvariationaleigensolverfirst-quantisedencodingion-trapprocessornoisyintermediate-scaledevices
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

This paper sets out to show that a current, noisy quantum computer can produce a chemically accurate prediction of a real observable, not just a toy expectation value. The authors map a compact selected-configuration-interaction description of the helium ground state onto two qubits, optimise the state preparation variationally, and then use Quantum Computed Moments from Hamiltonian powers up to $H^4$ to correct the noisy energy. Their ionisation potential for helium is 24.5536 (+0.0011, -0.0005) eV, which agrees with the measured 24.58737618(2) eV to within 0.034 eV (0.78 kcal/mol). That lands inside the 1 kcal/mol threshold known as chemical accuracy, with high statistical confidence. The practical point is that moments-based correction, not just the raw variational energy, is what carries a noisy intermediate-scale device into useful accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dense binary encoding of a 3x3 Hamiltonian onto two qubits, producing ten Pauli strings that can be measured in just five bases (YY, ZZ, ZX, XZ, XX). The paper asserts that, in this encoding, powers of the Hamiltonian matrix expand into the same set of Pauli strings with different coefficients, so all moments entering the correction are obtainable from the same five measurements. Those moments feed the Quantum Computed Moments (QCM) technique: cumulants constructed from $\langle H^n \rangle$ are inserted into the closed-form Hollenberg-Witte expression, which converts noisy low-order expectation values into an improved ground-state energy estimate. The variational circuit is written in native two-qubit gates, and its two parameters are optimised by a modified Rotosolve procedure that tolerates shot noise.

What would settle it

A reader could settle this by computing the matrix powers of the 4x4 encoded Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), expanding each power over the Pauli basis, and evaluating each expansion in the variational state with parameters (-3.0016, -0.1370). If any term outside the original ten Pauli strings has a nonzero expectation value, the QCM moments are incomplete. Equivalently, a classical calculation of the exact moments from the 4x4 Hamiltonian and the prepared state, compared with the five-base reconstruction, would show the bias directly; a hardware rerun that measures the additional bases separately would reveal whether the reported 0.001 eV confidence interval is too small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a small noisy quantum computer can deliver an experimentally validated observable. Working in a first-quantised framework, the authors build a 3x3 Hamiltonian in a seniority-zero, spherically symmetric determinant basis, encode it densely onto two qubits, and obtain a raw expectation value of the Hamiltonian that is far from chemical accuracy. Applying the Quantum Computed Moments correction, built from measured expectation values of $H$, $H^2$, $H^3$, and $H^4$, they obtain a helium ionisation potential of 24.5536 (+0.0011, -0.0005) eV; the experimental frequency-comb value is 24.58737618(2) eV, a deviation of 0.034 eV (0.78 kcal/mol). With 776,900 hardware shots, the central 95th percentile of the bootstrapped QCM distribution spans 0.0016 eV, roughly two orders of magnitude tighter than the raw expectation value. The residual gap from experiment is attributed to the small single-particle basis, not the device.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that measuring the same five spin combinations on the two qubits gives every expectation value needed for $H^2$, $H^3$, and $H^4$, even though the paper does not prove that those powers contain no additional Pauli terms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using only 8,192 hardware shots, the QCM-corrected ionisation potential is already within chemical accuracy of experiment at 95% confidence.
  • The raw expectation value of the Hamiltonian, measured with the same shots, converges to an ionisation potential that misses experiment by about -0.404 eV, so the moments correction is the decisive step.
  • As the shot budget grows, the QCM result converges to the exact in-basis energy, implying the remaining 0.034 eV deviation is dominated by the finite basis set rather than by device noise.
  • Because all four moments come from the same five measurement bases, the QCM correction adds little or no shot overhead for this encoding, in contrast to previous second-quantised QCM applications.
  • In principle, the same pipeline can be applied to other observables and small electronic-structure problems, charting what near-term quantum hardware can contribute before fault tolerance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same-Pauli-strings claim for Hamiltonian powers holds generally for dense encodings of configuration-interaction matrices, QCM becomes a nearly free error-mitigation layer for small CI problems, since the correction reuses existing measurements.
  • A direct test is to compute $H^2$, $H^3$ and $H^4$ for the encoded 4x4 matrix and compare the five-base reconstruction with the exact moments in the prepared variational state; any missing Pauli term with nonzero weight would show up as a systematic shift.
  • The dependence of the residual IP error on basis-set size suggests a scaling path: larger determinant bases encoded on more qubits would test whether the accuracy per shot survives as the Hamiltonian's Pauli support grows.
  • The authors ran the variational optimisation on an emulator and used the physical device only for final moments; a fully on-device optimisation would test whether the roughly constant noise shift they observed persists end to end.
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 manuscript reports a two-qubit trapped-ion (Quantinuum H1-1) calculation of the helium ionization potential. The authors use a first-quantized binary encoding of a three-determinant seniority-zero/spherical-symmetry CI Hamiltonian in the ano-pVDZ basis, variational parameters obtained from emulator-based VQE, and quantum-computed moments (QCM) corrections from hardware measurements in five bases. Their central result is IP = 24.5536 (+0.0011, -0.0005) eV, compared with the experimental value 24.58737618(2) eV, a deviation of 0.034 eV (0.78 kcal/mol). They conclude that noisy NISQ hardware can produce chemically accurate observables with high statistical confidence.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper is a useful demonstration that a small noisy trapped-ion device, combined with a qubit-efficient encoding and a moments-based correction, can match a classically computed in-basis FCI energy and thereby land an ionization potential inside 1 kcal/mol of experiment. The paper is unusually transparent about the bootstrap distribution (including its outliers) and about the basis-set error (Table I). Strengths include the explicit comparison to independent PySCF in-basis FCI, the use of hardware-native circuits, and the careful shot allocation. The significance is, however, limited by the small system size and by the fact that the classical in-basis FCI in the same basis is already within chemical accuracy of experiment.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 3 and Eq. (3)] The reported 95% intervals are shot-noise bootstrap intervals only; they do not include device-noise bias, calibration drift, or the bias of the nonlinear QCM map. The distribution in Fig. 3(a) has extreme outliers on both sides and is summarized by the median precisely because the mean and variance are unstable, which indicates that a small shift in measured moments can produce a large shift in the QCM estimate. Since the abstract claims agreement 'with high statistical confidence' and Section V claims chemical accuracy 'to high confidence,' please either bound the systematic error (e.g., with emulator-noise-model QCM validation), report session-to-session variation across the 34 hardware sessions, or explicitly restrict the confidence claim to shot noise. As written, the 0.78 kcal/mol agreement could be run-specific.
  2. [Section III] The VQE parameters (-3.0016, -0.1370) were optimized on the H1-1 emulator and transferred to hardware under the assumption that device noise shifts the energy by a roughly constant amount. This assumption is stated but not tested, and it is load-bearing because the final QCM energy is evaluated at these parameters. Please provide evidence for the constant-shift assumption (for example, emulator-versus-hardware expectation values at several parameter points) or perform a hardware VQE. Otherwise the role of the hardware in the optimization step is not established.
  3. [Section IV] The assertion that powers H^n for n=2,3,4 can be represented by the same ten Pauli strings as H is unproven, and it is the justification for using only the five measurement bases for all moments. I verified that the claim is in fact true for this Hamiltonian: Eq. (1) is block-diagonal with the |11> state decoupled, and the six independent real-symmetric entries of the 3x3 block are spanned by the listed strings. The manuscript should include this one-line proof or a reference; as written, a load-bearing step of the QCM measurement strategy is unsupported.
  4. [Section II, Table I] The claim that the quantum result is 'chemically accurate' relative to experiment is substantially due to the basis choice: the classical in-basis FCI ionization potential in ano-pVDZ already differs from experiment by only 0.73 kcal/mol (Table I), and the QCM hardware result is within roughly 0.002 eV of that in-basis FCI value. The paper should benchmark the hardware result primarily against the in-basis FCI limit and explicitly separate basis-set error from device error; otherwise the abstract's phrasing conflates the two and overstates what the quantum processor alone is being asked to achieve.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 1] The text refers to 'the three computational basis states encoding our wavefunction in Fig. 1(d)', but Fig. 1 has panels (a)-(c) only; please fix the reference.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The typesetting of Eq. (3) is garbled; please rewrite it with explicit parentheses so that the denominator and the square-root structure are unambiguous.
  3. [Section III] The statement that 'the H1-1 emulator produces expectation values very similar to the quantum hardware' is an empirical claim without displayed evidence; please add a comparison or a reference.
  4. [General] Please add a data/code availability statement for the shot-level bootstrap analysis to support reproducibility.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'high statistical confidence' is undefined in the abstract; either remove it or refer forward to the 95% bootstrap interval defined later.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the helium IP result is benchmarked against external experiment and independent FCI, and the hardware/QCM pipeline uses no fitted target values or self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against external data. The qubit Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) is obtained from first-quantized Slater-determinant matrix elements computed with PySCF/Psi4NumPy, and no target value enters its construction. The VQE parameters are optimized on the H1-1 emulator, and the final hardware run measures expectation values in five bases; the bootstrap distribution and QCM correction are generated from those measured shots alone. The ionisation potential is compared with the experimental value of Kandula et al. (Ref. 9), which is used only as a benchmark, and with the in-basis FCI limit from PySCF; neither is used as an input. The asserted Pauli-support property for H^n in Section IV is not circular: it is a structural claim about the block-diagonal 4x4 encoding, and inspection of Eq. (1) shows the |11> row/column couplings cancel (IX+ZX, XI+XZ, XX+YY), so powers remain in the same 3x3 block and hence in the span of the same Pauli list. The QCM method and binary encoding are cited from prior independent literature, and the reference list contains no papers by the present authors, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The remaining concerns raised by a skeptical reading, namely that the reported 95% intervals include only shot noise and not systematic device drift, are matters of uncertainty quantification and correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unproven Pauli-support closure of the Hamiltonian powers, the emulator-to-hardware transfer of variational parameters, and the basis-set truncation. The first is the most fragile because it affects the data itself, not just the analysis.

free parameters (1)
  • VQE parameters (theta_1, theta_2) = -3.0016, -0.1370
    Optimized variational parameters on the H1-1 emulator. The final hardware expectation values, and hence the reported IP, depend on these values. They are not fitted to experiment, but they are fitted to a noisy emulator landscape.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Powers of the encoded Hamiltonian (H^2, H^3, H^4) have the same Pauli-string support as H itself, so their expectation values can be measured with the same 5 bases.
    Asserted in Section IV without proof. Central to the QCM measurement strategy. If false, the moments are incomplete and the correction is wrong.
  • domain assumption The H1-1 emulator noise model accurately matches the H1-1 hardware for the circuits used, so the VQE parameters optimized on the emulator are near-optimal on hardware.
    Implicit in Section III, where emulator optimization is substituted for hardware optimization. The paper notes the emulator and hardware expectation values are similar, but provides no quantitative comparison for the parameter landscape.
  • domain assumption The seniority-zero and spherical-symmetry restricted basis (3 many-body basis functions in ano-pVDZ) is sufficient to describe the helium ground state to the accuracy claimed.
    Used in Section II. Table I shows the basis-set error in the IP is 0.0317 eV, just inside chemical accuracy. This is a standard modeling choice, but it is a load-bearing assumption for the central claim.
  • standard math The Hollenberg-Witte moment expansion (Eq. 3) provides an accurate estimate of the ground-state energy from the first four moments of H.
    Taken from prior literature (Refs 21-24); the paper does not re-derive it. It is a known result, but its accuracy in the presence of device noise is an empirical question.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemically-Accurate Prediction of the Ionisation Potential of Helium Using a Quantum Processor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OI5FZXOF

@misc{pith2026250202023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemically-Accurate Prediction of the Ionisation Potential of Helium Using a Quantum Processor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OI5FZXOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02023}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computers have the potential to revolutionise our understanding of the microscopic behaviour of materials and chemical processes by enabling high-accuracy electronic structure calculations to scale more efficiently than is possible using classical computers. Current quantum computing hardware devices suffer from the dual challenges of noise and cost, which raises the question of what practical value these devices might offer before full fault tolerance is achieved and economies of scale enable cheaper access. Here we examine the practical value of noisy quantum computers as tools for high-accuracy electronic structure, by using a Quantinuum ion-trap quantum computer to predict the ionisation potential of helium. By combining a series of techniques suited for use with current hardware including qubit-efficient encoding coupled with chemical insight, low-cost variational optimisation with hardware-adapted quantum circuits, and moments-based corrections, we obtain an ionisation potential of 24.5536 (+0.0011, -0.0005) eV, which agrees with the experimentally measured value to within true chemical accuracy, and with high statistical confidence. The methods employed here can be generalised to predict other properties and expand our understanding of the value that might be provided by near-term quantum computers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Optimal distribution of shots among the independent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expectation value of a Hamiltonian as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    o rling , author T. Gould , author S. Grimme , author O. Gritsenko , author H. J. A. \ Jensen , author E. R. \ Johnson , author R. O. \ Jones , author M. Kaupp , author A. M. \ K \

    author author A. M. \ Teale , author T. Helgaker , author A. Savin , author C. Adamo , author B. Aradi , author A. V. \ Arbuznikov , author P. W. \ Ayers , author E. J. \ Baerends , author V. Barone , author P. Calaminici , author E. Canc \`e s , author E. A. \ Carter , author P. K. \ Chattaraj , author H. Chermette , author I. Ciofini , author T. D. \ Cr...

  2. [2]

    Oudot \ and\ author K

    author author B. Oudot \ and\ author K. Doblhoff-Dier ,\ title title Reaction barriers at metal surfaces computed using the random phase approximation: Can we beat dft in the generalized gradient approximation? \ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ ,\ pages 054708 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    author author M. Radoń ,\ title title Predicting spin states of iron porphyrins with dft methods including crystal packing effects and thermodynamic corrections , \ 10.1039/D4CP01327A journal journal Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. \ volume 26 ,\ pages 18182--18195 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1039/d4cp01327a

  4. [4]

    author author R. P. \ Feynman ,\ title title Simulating physics with computers , \ @noop journal journal International Journal of Theoretical Physics \ volume 21 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    author author D. S. \ Abrams \ and\ author S. Lloyd ,\ title title Quantum algorithm providing exponential speed increase for finding eigenvalues and eigenvectors , \ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5162 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 83 ,\ pages 5162--5165 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.5162

  6. [6]

    author author N. S. \ Blunt , author G. P. \ Geh\'er , \ and\ author A. E. \ Moylett ,\ title title Compilation of a simple chemistry application to quantum error correction primitives , \ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013325 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 013325 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.013325

  7. [7]

    van Dam , author H

    author author W. van Dam , author H. Liu , author G. H. \ Low , author A. Paetznick , author A. Paz , author M. Silva , author A. Sundaram , author K. Svore , \ and\ author M. Troyer ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05835 title End-to-end quantum simulation of a chemical system , \ ( year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05835 arXiv:2409.05835 [quant-ph] NoStop

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Dobrautz , author I

    author author W. Dobrautz , author I. O. \ Sokolov , author K. Liao , author P. L. \ Ríos , author M. Rahm , author A. Alavi , \ and\ author I. Tavernelli ,\ title title Toward real chemical accuracy on current quantum hardware through the transcorrelated method , \ 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00070 journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volu...

    doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00070

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    author author D. Z. \ Kandula , author C. Gohle , author T. J. \ Pinkert , author W. Ubachs , \ and\ author K. S. E. \ Eikema ,\ title title Extreme ultraviolet frequency comb metrology , \ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.063001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 105 ,\ pages 0...

    doi

  2. [10]

    Cao , author J

    author author Y. Cao , author J. Romero , author J. P. \ Olson , author M. Degroote , author P. D. \ Johnson , author M. Kieferová , author I. D. \ Kivlichan , author T. Menke , author B. Peropadre , author N. P. D. \ Sawaya , author S. Sim , author L. Veis , \ and\ author A. ...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Setia , author R

    author author K. Setia , author R. Chen , author J. E. \ Rice , author A. Mezzacapo , author M. Pistoia , \ and\ author J. D. \ Whitfield ,\ title title Reducing qubit requirements for quantum simulations using molecular point group symmetries , \ @noop journal journal Journal...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Babbush , author D

    author author R. Babbush , author D. W. \ Berry , author Y. R. \ Sanders , author I. D. \ Kivlichan , author A. Scherer , author A. Y. \ Wei , author P. J. \ Love , \ and\ author A. Aspuru-Guzik ,\ title title Exponentially more precise quantum simulation of fermions in the co...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Bonet-Monroig , author R

    author author X. Bonet-Monroig , author R. Sagastizabal , author M. Singh , \ and\ author T. E. \ O'Brien ,\ title title Low-cost error mitigation by symmetry verification , \ 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062339 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 98 ,\ pages 062339 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  6. [14]

    Szab \'o \ and\ author N

    author author A. Szab \'o \ and\ author N. S. \ Ostlund ,\ http://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:000906565 title Modern quantum chemistry : introduction to advanced electronic structure theory \ ( publisher Mineola (N.Y.) : Dover publications ,\ year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  7. [15]

    Volkmann , author R

    author author H. Volkmann , author R. Sathyanarayanan , author A. Saenz , author K. Jansen , \ and\ author S. K\"uhn ,\ title title Chemically accurate potential curves for H _2 molecules using explicitly correlated qubit-adapt , \ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput....

    2024

  8. [16]

    author author V. E. \ Elfving , author M. Millaruelo , author J. A. \ G\'amez , \ and\ author C. Gogolin ,\ title title Simulating quantum chemistry in the seniority-zero space on qubit-based quantum computers , \ 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.032605 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volu...

    doi

  9. [17]

    Zhao , author J

    author author L. Zhao , author J. Goings , author K. Shin , author W. Kyoung , author J. I. \ Fuks , author J.-K. \ Kevin Rhee , author Y. M. \ Rhee , author K. Wright , author J. Nguyen , author J. Kim , \ and\ author S. Johri ,\ title title Orbital-optimized pair-correlated ...

    doi

  10. [18]

    author author N. P. D. \ Sawaya , author T. Menke , author T. H. \ Kyaw , author S. Johri , author A. Aspuru-Guzik , \ and\ author G. G. \ Guerreschi ,\ title title Resource-efficient digital quantum simulation of d-level systems for photonic, vibrational, and spin-s hamiltoni...

    doi

  11. [19]

    Peruzzo , author J

    author author A. Peruzzo , author J. McClean , author P. Shadbolt , author M.-H. \ Yung , author X.-Q. \ Zhou , author P. J. \ Love , author A. Aspuru-Guzik , \ and\ author J. L. \ O'Brien ,\ title title A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor , \ 10.10...

    doi

  12. [20]

    Ostaszewski , author E

    author author M. Ostaszewski , author E. Grant , \ and\ author M. Benedetti ,\ title title Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits , \ @noop journal journal Quantum \ ,\ pages 391 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  13. [21]

    author author H. J. \ Vallury , author M. A. \ Jones , author C. D. \ Hill , \ and\ author L. C. L. \ Hollenberg ,\ title title Quantum computed moments correction to variational estimates , \ @noop journal journal Quantum \ ,\ pages 373 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  14. [22]

    author author L. C. L. \ Hollenberg ,\ title title Plaquette expansion in lattice hamiltonian models , \ 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.1640 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 47 ,\ pages 1640--1644 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  15. [23]

    author author N. S. \ Witte \ and\ author L. C. L. \ Hollenberg ,\ title title Accurate calculation of ground-state energies in an analytic lanczos expansion , \ 10.1088/0953-8984/9/9/016 journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 9 ,\ pages 2031 ( year 1997...

    doi

  16. [24]

    author author L. C. L. \ Hollenberg \ and\ author N. S. \ Witte ,\ title title General nonperturbative estimate of the energy density of lattice hamiltonians , \ 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3382 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 50 ,\ pages 3382--3386 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    doi

  17. [25]

    author author M. A. \ Jones , author H. J. \ Vallury , author C. D. \ Hill , \ and\ author L. C. L. \ Hollenberg ,\ title title Chemistry beyond the hartree--fock energy via quantum computed moments , \ 10.1038/s41598-022-12324-z journal journal Scientific Reports \ volume 12 ...

    doi

  18. [26]

    author author M. A. \ Jones , author H. J. \ Vallury , \ and\ author L. C. \ Hollenberg ,\ title title Ground-state-energy calculation for the water molecule on a superconducting quantum processor , \ 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.21.064017 journal journal Phys. Rev. Appl. \ volume 2...

    doi

  19. [27]

    Greene-Diniz , author D

    author author G. Greene-Diniz , author D. Z. \ Manrique , author K. Yamamoto , author E. Plekhanov , author N. Fitzpatrick , author M. Krompiec , author R. Sakuma , \ and\ author D. M. \ Ramo ,\ title title Quantum C omputed G reen's F unctions using a C umulant E xpansion of ...

    doi

  20. [28]

    Toloui \ and\ author P

    author author B. Toloui \ and\ author P. J. \ Love ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2579 title Quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry based on the sparsity of the CI -matrix , \ ( year 2013 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2579 arXiv:1312.2579 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    author author W. M. \ Kirby \ and\ author P. J. \ Love ,\ title title Variational quantum eigensolvers for sparse hamiltonians , \ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.110503 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 127 ,\ pages 110503 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi

  22. [30]

    Temme , author S

    author author K. Temme , author S. Bravyi , \ and\ author J. M. \ Gambetta ,\ title title Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits , \ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180509 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 119 ,\ pages 180509 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  23. [31]

    author author W. J. \ Huggins , author S. McArdle , author T. E. \ O'Brien , author J. Lee , author N. C. \ Rubin , author S. Boixo , author K. B. \ Whaley , author R. Babbush , \ and\ author J. R. \ McClean ,\ title title Virtual distillation for quantum error mitigation , \ ...

    doi

  24. [32]

    author author D. G. A. \ Smith , author L. A. \ Burns , author D. A. \ Sirianni , author D. R. \ Nascimento , author A. Kumar , author A. M. \ James , author J. B. \ Schriber , author T. Zhang , author B. Zhang , author A. S. \ Abbott , author E. J. \ Berquist , author M. H. \...

  25. [33]

    Sun , author T

    author author Q. Sun , author T. C. \ Berkelbach , author N. S. \ Blunt , author G. H. \ Booth , author S. Guo , author Z. Li , author J. Liu , author J. D. \ McClain , author E. R. \ Sayfutyarova , author S. Sharma , author S. Wouters , \ and\ author G. K.-L. \ Chan ,\ title ...

    doi

  26. [34]

    Javadi-Abhari , author M

    author author A. Javadi-Abhari , author M. Treinish , author K. Krsulich , author C. J. \ Wood , author J. Lishman , author J. Gacon , author S. Martiel , author P. D. \ Nation , author L. S. \ Bishop , author A. W. \ Cross , author B. R. \ Johnson , \ and\ author J. M. \ Gamb...

    doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    author author Microsoft ,\ https://github.com/microsoft/qsharp title Azure Quantum Development Kit , \ NoStop

  28. [36]

    Svore , author A

    author author K. Svore , author A. Geller , author M. Troyer , author J. Azariah , author C. Granade , author B. Heim , author V. Kliuchnikov , author M. Mykhailova , author A. Paz , \ and\ author M. Roetteler ,\ title title Q\#: Enabling Scalable Quantum Computing and Develop...

  29. [37]

    @noop title Quantinuum H 1-1 , \ ( year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://www.quantinuum.com/ https://www.quantinuum.com/ NoStop

    2024

  30. [38]

    author author J. D. \ Whitfield , author J. Biamonte , \ and\ author A. Aspuru-Guzik ,\ title title Simulation of electronic structure hamiltonians using quantum computers , \ 10.1080/00268976.2011.552441 journal journal Molecular Physics \ volume 109 ,\ pages 735--750 ( year ...

    2011

  31. [39]

    author author B. P. \ Pritchard , author D. Altarawy , author B. Didier , author T. D. \ Gibsom , \ and\ author T. L. \ Windus ,\ title title A new basis set exchange: An open, up-to-date resource for the molecular sciences community , \ 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00725 journal journa...

    doi

  32. [40]

    author author D. E. \ Woon \ and\ author T. H. \ Dunning ,\ title title Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. iv. calculation of static electrical response properties , \ 10.1063/1.466439 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 100 ,\ pages 2975--29...

    doi

  33. [41]

    Neese \ and\ author E

    author author F. Neese \ and\ author E. F. \ Valeev ,\ title title Revisiting the atomic natural orbital approach for basis sets: Robust systematic basis sets for explicitly correlated and conventional correlated ab initio methods? \ 10.1021/ct100396y journal journal J. Chem. ...

    doi

  34. [42]

    author author M. A. \ Nielsen \ and\ author I. L. \ Chuang ,\ @noop title Quantum Computation and Quantum Information \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  35. [43]

    @noop title Q uantinuum E mulator N oise M odel , \ ( year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://docs.quantinuum.com/h-series/user\_guide/emulator\_user\_guide/noise\_model.html https://docs.quantinuum.com/h-series/user\_guide/emulator\_user\_guide/noise\_model.html NoStop

    2024

  36. [44]

    author author Y. Makhlin ,\ title title Nonlocal properties of two-qubit gates and mixed states, and the optimization of quantum computations , \ 10.1023/A:1022144002391 journal journal Quantum Information Processing \ volume 1 ,\ pages 243--252 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    doi

  37. [45]

    @noop title Q uantinuum S ystem M odel H 1 E mulators , \ ( year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://docs.quantinuum.com/h-series/user\_guide/emulator\_user\_guide/emulators/h1\_emulators.html https://docs.quantinuum.com/h-series/user\_guide/emulator\_user\_guide/emulators/h...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Zhu , author S

    author author L. Zhu , author S. Liang , author C. Yang , \ and\ author X. Li ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06504 title Optimizing shot assignment in variational quantum eigensolver measurement , \ ( year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06504 arXiv:2307.06504 [quant-ph] NoStop

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.