Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 23 references

Beyond real: Alternative unitary cluster Jastrow models for molecular electronic structure calculations on near-term quantum computers

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Imaginary or complex orbital rotations make the unitary cluster Jastrow ansatz Trotter-free at $O(N^2)$ cost and more accurate than the real-only variant, often reaching chemical accuracy.

desk verdict The numerical benchmarks are useful, but the paper's central exact-decomposition lemma is wrong as written and must be fixed before this can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10963 v1 pith:5YMPFJP6 submitted 2025-05-16 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Nikolay V. Tkachenko , Hang Ren , Wendy M. Billings , Rebecca Tomann , K. Birgitta Whaley , Martin Head-Gordon This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords unitaryclusterJastrowansatzvariationalquantumeigensolverTrotter-freeimplementationgeneralizedGivensrotationcomplexorbitalcorrelationenergynear-termhardwarechemistry
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 extends the $k$-fold unitary cluster Jastrow (uCJ) family of wavefunction ansätze for quantum chemistry, replacing the real orbital-rotation operator of the earlier Re-uCJ variant with an imaginary one (Im-uCJ) or a fully complex one (g-uCJ). Its central claim is that already at the simplest level, $k=1$, both new variants can be implemented exactly—without any Trotter decomposition—using generalized Givens rotations at a cost of $O(N^2)$ two-qubit gates. In variational eigensolver benchmarks on H$_2$, H$_3^+$, Be$_2$, C$_2$H$_4$, C$_2$H$_6$, and C$_6$H$_6$, the new variants recover more correlation energy than Re-uCJ and frequently keep the error within chemical accuracy (1 kcal/mol), with g-uCJ reproducing the full configuration interaction energy for every two-electron system tested. A reader should care because these circuits are at once more accurate and far shallower than the standard UCCSD ansatz, which is exactly what noisy near-term quantum hardware needs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized complex Givens rotation $r'_{pq}(\theta,\varphi)$, a two-orbital unitary that acts as $\cos\theta$ on the diagonal pair and $\pm e^{\pm i\varphi}\sin\theta$ on the off-diagonal pair, together with its fermionic counterpart $\hat{R}'_{pq}(\theta_k,\varphi_k) = \exp[A(\hat a^\dagger_p \hat a_q - \hat a^\dagger_q \hat a_p) + iB(\hat a^\dagger_p \hat a_q + \hat a^\dagger_q \hat a_p)]$. The paper's central technical claim is that any complex unitary matrix $u = \exp(K)$ can be diagonalized by $\binom{N}{2}$ such rotations with pivot angles $\varphi_k = \pi + \varphi_{pj} - \varphi_{qj}$ and $\theta_k = \arctan(-r_{qj}/r_{pj})$, exactly as real unitaries are diagonalized by ordinary Givens rotations. This machinery converts the orbital-rotation exponentials in Im-uCJ and g-uCJ from approximate Trotter products into exact sequences of local two-qubit gates, which is what pins the gate count at $O(N^2)$ and removes Trotter error from every subsequent accuracy benchmark.

What would settle it

Apply the paper's generalized-Givens sweep to a random complex unitary $u = \exp(K)$ chosen with a zero pivot entry ($r_{pj} = 0$, where the angle formula $\theta_k = \arctan(-r_{qj}/r_{pj})$ is undefined): if the sweep does not diagonalize $u$, or if the reconstructed circuit deviates from the exact exponential beyond machine precision, the Trotter-free implementation claim is refuted. A complementary chemical test is to run g-uCJ with $k=1$ on a four-electron system past the point where the paper already reports failure—e.g., C$_2$H$_4$ beyond 1.7 Å—and check whether the error returns to chemical accuracy when $k$ is increased to 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated in the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the exact, Trotter-free exponentiation previously available for real orbital rotations survives when the orbital-rotation matrix $K$ is allowed to be imaginary or complex. The mechanism is a generalized Givens rotation $R'_{pq}(\theta_k,\varphi_k)$ that can zero out entries of a complex unitary matrix $u = \exp(K)$; with the angle choices $\varphi_k = \pi + \varphi_{pj} - \varphi_{qj}$ and $\theta_k = \arctan(-r_{qj}/r_{pj})$, any such $u$ is brought to diagonal form by $\binom{N}{2}$ such rotations followed by single-qubit phase gates, so $e^{K}$ becomes an exact product of local two-qubit operations. With that machinery in place, the paper's numerical results for $k=1$ show that Im-uCJ and g-uCJ recover more correlation energy than Re-uCJ across a range of small molecules, that Im-uCJ avoids the initialization-dependent local minima that trap Re-uCJ, and that g-uCJ reaches the exact full-configuration-interaction energy for every two-electron system tested, all at substantially lower CNOT counts than one Trotter step of UCCSD. A wavefunction analysis shows why: Im-uCJ lowers the energy by mixing a triplet $M_s = 0$ configuration into the singlet, while g-uCJ keeps the correct spin and spatial symmetry and is exact for two-electron systems.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the lemma that every complex unitary orbital-rotation matrix can be decomposed exactly into $\binom{N}{2}$ pairwise Givens rotations using the paper's angle recipe; if that decomposition fails or degenerates for some matrix, the Trotter-free gate-count claim collapses, though a Trotterized version of the ansatz would still work. A softer reliance is that the classical optimizer reliably finds the global minimum for the new ansätze, something the paper's own Re-uCJ results show can go wrong for the real-valued variant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $k=1$ Im-uCJ and g-uCJ circuits compile exactly from $O(N^2)$ generalized Givens rotations plus phase gates, eliminating Trotter error; for the 12-qubit H$_2$/6-311G case this is 192 CNOTs versus 1202 for one Trotter step of UCCSD.
  • Im-uCJ recovers more correlation energy than Re-uCJ at the same gate count and is far less sensitive to initialization, making it the recommended restricted variant when the number of variational parameters is a hard constraint.
  • g-uCJ is exact for every two-electron system tested—H$_2$ in several basis sets, Be$_2$ (2e,2o), C$_2$H$_6$ (2e,2o), and H$_3^+$—and holds chemical accuracy for four-electron C$_2$H$_4$ out to a C–C distance of 1.7 Å, beyond which $k>1$ is required because breaking the double bond into two triplet fragments needs quadruple excitations.
  • Because exact exponentiation lets one parameter set be reused across permuted broken-symmetry references, biradicaloid systems in non-orthogonal eigensolver calculations avoid re-optimizing $K$ and $J$ for each reference state.
  • The improved energy of Im-uCJ comes with a measurable cost: it mixes triplet $M_s=0$ character into the singlet wavefunction (nonzero $\langle S^2 \rangle$) all along the curve, unlike g-uCJ which preserves the pure singlet symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the pivot formula $\theta_k = \arctan(-r_{qj}/r_{pj})$ becomes singular at $r_{pj}=0$, a natural stress test the paper leaves unrun is to apply the decomposition to random complex unitaries with degenerate entries; a pivot-selection variant that stays regular there would make the exact circuit usable without assumptions.
  • The paper stops at $k=1$; its own C$_2$H$_4$ results suggest that $k=2$ would plausibly restore chemical accuracy across the full dissociation curve, which is a direct and untested follow-up.
  • Im-uCJ's persistent spin contamination suggests a cheap experimental monitor on real hardware: measure $\langle S^2 \rangle$ alongside the energy during VQE runs, and if spin purity matters more than energy, apply spin projection as post-processing—a route the paper does not explore.
  • The gate estimates assume all-to-all qubit connectivity, so on chips with limited connectivity the SWAP-routing overhead is untested and could partially erode the reported factor-of-six advantage over UCCSD.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces two new variants of the k-fold unitary cluster Jastrow (uCJ) ansatz for molecular VQE: Im-uCJ, which uses imaginary orbital-rotation operators, and g-uCJ, with fully complex rotations. The central technical claim is that both variants, like the earlier real-rotation Re-uCJ, can be implemented exactly (Trotter-free) with O(N^2) gates by decomposing the complex unitary exp(K) into generalized Givens rotations (Section 2.2). The authors benchmark k=1 versions on H2, H3+, Be2, C2H4, C2H6, and C6H6 against FCI or CASSI references, reporting that Im-uCJ and g-uCJ recover more correlation energy than Re-uCJ, frequently reaching chemical accuracy, and that g-uCJ exactly reproduces FCI for all two-electron systems tested. All numerical results are from noiseless classical simulations with SLSQP parameter optimization, and the paper openly reports known limitations, including the failure at stretched C2H4 and spin contamination in Im-uCJ.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper is a useful contribution to the shallow-ansatz literature for NISQ VQE: it extends the uCJ family at no extra asymptotic gate cost, gives evidence that imaginary/complex rotations mitigate some of the local-minimum problems documented for Re-uCJ, and provides an honest CSF-level account of the spin-symmetry breaking introduced by Im-uCJ. Strengths include the open reporting of failure modes, the use of independent FCI/CASSI reference energies, the internal consistency of the benchmark data, and the availability of the simulation code. However, the headline methodological claim—the exact, Trotter-free Givens implementation—is not correct as written, and the gate-count tables contain internal inconsistencies; both problems are corrigible, but they must be fixed before the central construction can be verified or endorsed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (16); ESI, 'Discussion of the diagonalization of matrix u'] The ESI angle formulas are inconsistent with the Givens rotation r'(θ,φ) defined in Eq. (16), and the claim that they zero the (q,j) entry fails as written. From Eq. (16), left-multiplication gives (r'u)_{qj} = e^{iφ} sinθ r_{pj} e^{iφ_{pj}} + cosθ r_{qj} e^{iφ_{qj}}, whereas the ESI writes u'_{qj} = sinθ r_{pj} e^{i(π+φ_{pj}−φ)} + cosθ r_{qj} e^{iφ_{qj}}; the two expressions coincide only for φ ≡ π/2 (mod π). With the ESI values φ_k = π + φ_{pj} − φ_{qj} and θ_k = arctan(−r_{qj}/r_{pj}) applied to the real Hadamard matrix u = (1/√2)[[1,1],[1,−1]], which is a valid exp(K) for the Im-uCJ class, one obtains r'(θ,φ)u = [[0,1],[1,0]] for p=1, q=2, j=1, i.e., the element meant to be zeroed is 1, not 0. The correct zeroing condition for Eq. (16) is φ_k = π + φ_{qj} − φ_{pj} with θ_k = arctan(r_{qj}/r_{pj}) (equivalently φ_k = φ_{qj} − φ_{pj} with θ_k = −arctan(r_{qj}/r_{pj})). Because Eqs. (18) and the entire Trotter-free, O(N²)-gate claim rest on this decomposition, a reader implementing from the published text cannot construct exp(K) for general complex K; the derivation of the central Section 2.2 claim is therefore invalid as written. The underlying factorization of a unitary into two-level rotations and diagonal phases is standard and true, so this is corrigible; please correct the ESI or Eq. (16), state the phase convention for r_{ij} explicitly, handle r_{pj}=0, and confirm numerically that the code realizes exp(K) exactly.
  2. [§3.1, Table 1; §3.4, Eqs. (24)–(27)] The reported two-qubit gate counts are mutually inconsistent and cannot be reproduced from the stated counting rules. In §3.4, Eqs. (24)–(26) give N_{eK} = N_{e−K} = C(N,2)×3 and N_{eJ} = C(N,2)×2, which sum to C(N,2)×8, not the C(N,2)×5 printed in Eq. (27). For the 12-qubit H2 (6-311G) entry in Table 1 (192 CNOTs), the rules stated in §2.4 and §3.4 (spin-preserving K with 2·C(6,2) rotations per factor, and C(12,2) number-operator pairs for J) would give 180 + 132 = 312 CNOTs; the tabulated value appears to correspond to a reduced (e.g., perfect-pairing) number-operator set that is not specified in the text. Additionally, §3.1 states '192 vs. 202 two-qubit gates' for the 12-qubit H2 comparison, whereas Table 1 lists 1202 UCCSD CNOTs for that system. Please correct the arithmetic and state precisely the counting convention used for each Table 1 entry.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The comparison '192 vs. 202 two-qubit gates' appears to be a typographical error for '192 vs. 1202', since Table 1 lists 1202 for UCCSD at H2 (6-311G); the claim of a roughly six-fold reduction is consistent with 1202/192 ≈ 6.3, but not with 202/192.
  2. [§3.4] The equation numbering skips (26), with the text jumping from (25) to (27); please renumber.
  3. [§2.2 and §3.4] Please state explicitly how Givens rotations between non-adjacent modes are ordered under the Jordan-Wigner mapping; the assertion that restricting rotations to adjacent qubits 'use[s] only local Givens rotations' is only valid together with the linear-network sweep construction from Ref. 68, which should be cited and specified so that a reader can see that an arbitrary u is still realized.
  4. [§2.4 and §3.2] The claim that Im-uCJ 'reliably converges to a single lower energy solution regardless of the initial guess procedure' is supported by only two initialization protocols (association and dissociation); reporting results from multiple random restarts would substantially strengthen this claim.
  5. [ESI] The convention for r_{ij} (signed real values versus nonnegative magnitudes with phases in [0,2π)) should be stated explicitly, and the singular case r_{pj} = 0 should be addressed through atan2 or a stated pivot-selection rule.
  6. [References] The two-level decomposition of unitary matrices is standard in the quantum-optics and quantum-circuit literature (e.g., Reck et al. and Clements et al.); citing such work would help readers verify the corrected angle formulas and place the construction in context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: energies are variational results benchmarked against independent FCI/CASSI references, and the Givens decomposition is derived rather than fitted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for the claims it makes. The energies reported for Re-uCJ, Im-uCJ, and g-uCJ are obtained by classical variational minimization of the K and J parameters defining each ansatz; the error metrics are computed against FCI or CASSI reference energies obtained with the external PySCF package, so the target quantity is not used to set the parameters. The central technical claim, the Trotter-free exact implementation of Im-uCJ and g-uCJ, rests on a generalized Givens rotation decomposition of the complex unitary matrix u = exp(K). For the real case the decomposition is imported from the independent result of Kivlichan et al. (Ref. 68); for the complex case the angles are derived in the ESI from the explicit zeroing condition on the (q,j) entry of the rotated matrix, not assumed as inputs. The self-citation to Ref. 55 is used as context and as a prior baseline (Re-uCJ, NOQE), but it is not load-bearing for the new exactness, gate-count, or accuracy claims. The observation that g-uCJ reproduces FCI energies for two-electron systems is a numerical benchmark against external FCI data, not a definitional equivalence. A possible sign inconsistency in the ESI angle formulas would be a corrigible correctness issue, not circularity, because the decomposition is derived from the stated zeroing condition rather than being fitted to the final energies. No step reduces a prediction to its inputs, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the published uCJ framework, the new complex Givens decomposition (proved constructively in the ESI), and standard assumptions about SLSQP optimization, noiseless simulation, and Jordan-Wigner mapping. The only hand-chosen inputs are the k=1 truncation and the small active spaces, both stated in Section 2.4 with their limitations. No ad hoc physical entities are introduced; the Im-uCJ and g-uCJ operator forms are mathematical definitions whose evidence is the direct numerical benchmark.

free parameters (3)
  • k (number of Jastrow replicas) = 1
    All benchmarks fix k=1; the paper explicitly notes that larger k would be needed for exactness in general and that k=1 fails for quadruple excitations in stretched C2H4.
  • Active space sizes for CASCI references = (2e,2o) for Be2 and C2H6; (4e,4o) for C2H4 and C6H6
    Chosen by hand to keep the qubit count small (Section 2.4); benchmark conclusions are specific to these active spaces and small basis sets.
  • Variational parameter matrices K and J = optimized per system via SLSQP (values not tabulated)
    The reported energies are the minima obtained by varying these parameters. They are the method's designed degrees of freedom, not hidden constants, but the accuracy claims depend on the optimizer finding a sufficiently good minimum.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The uCJ ansatz of eq. 1, |Psi> = prod e^{-K_i} e^{J_i} e^{K_i} |HF>, is taken as the wavefunction family, following Matsuzawa and Kurashige (Ref 63).
    Used in Section 2.1 as the starting point; the paper does not re-derive the exactness of uCJ in the k to infinity limit but relies on the published framework.
  • standard math Any complex unitary matrix u = exp(K) can be decomposed into N choose 2 generalized Givens rotations r'(theta, phi) and diagonal phases (Section 2.2, eqs. 16-18; ESI).
    This lemma is the basis of the exact Trotter-free implementation of Im-uCJ and g-uCJ; the paper provides a constructive angle formula in the ESI but does not give a full formal proof.
  • domain assumption The SLSQP minimizer converges to the variational minimum (or at least to an unbiased minimum) for the Im-uCJ and g-uCJ optimizations.
    Section 2.4 states SLSQP is used. The paper's own Re-uCJ results (Section 3.2) show initialization-dependent local minima, so the accuracy comparisons assume the new variants are not similarly trapped.
  • domain assumption Noiseless classical simulation is an adequate proxy for the energy accuracy of the proposed circuits; device noise is neglected.
    Section 2.4: 'All numerical simulations presented in this work were carried out in the noiseless setting.' The hardware-feasibility language in the abstract extrapolates from gate counts rather than noisy-device results.
  • standard math The FCI/CASCI reference energies used as error benchmarks are exact for the chosen active spaces.
    Section 2.4 and Table 2; this is standard quantum chemistry and is uncontroversial for the small active spaces used.
  • standard math The Jordan-Wigner mapping faithfully represents the fermionic operators used in K and J on qubits.
    Used in Section 2.3 to derive Pauli decompositions (eqs. 22-27); standard and well-established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond real: Alternative unitary cluster Jastrow models for molecular electronic structure calculations on near-term quantum computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YMPFJP6

@misc{pith2026250510963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond real: Alternative unitary cluster Jastrow models for molecular electronic structure calculations on near-term quantum computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YMPFJP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10963}
}
abstract

Near-term quantum devices require wavefunction ans\"atze that are expressive while also of shallow circuit depth in order to both accurately and efficiently simulate molecular electronic structure. While unitary coupled cluster (e.g., UCCSD) has become a standard, the high gate count associated with the implementation of this limits its feasibility on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) hardware. K-fold unitary cluster Jastrow (uCJ) ans\"atze mitigate this challenge by providing $O(kN^2)$ circuit scaling and favorable linear depth circuit implementation. Previous work has focused on the real orbital-rotation (Re-uCJ) variant of uCJ, which allows an exact (Trotter-free) implementation. Here we extend and generalize the $k$-fold uCJ framework by introducing two new variants, Im-uCJ and g-uCJ, which incorporate imaginary and fully complex orbital rotation operators, respectively. Similar to Re-uCJ, both of the new variants achieve quadratic gate-count scaling. Our results focus on the simplest $k=1$ model, and show that the uCJ models frequently maintain energy errors within chemical accuracy. Both g-uCJ and Im-uCJ are more expressive in terms of capturing electron correlation and are also more accurate than the earlier Re-uCJ ansatz. We further show that Im-uCJ and g-uCJ circuits can also be implemented exactly, without any Trotter decomposition. Numerical tests using $k=1$ on $H_2$, $H_3^+$, $Be_2$, $C_2H_4$, $C_2H_6$ and $C_6H_6$ in various basis sets confirm the practical feasibility of these shallow Jastrow-based ans\"atze for applications on near-term quantum hardware.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1 Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chem. Rev. , 2019, 119, 10856–10915. 2 S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin and X. Yuan, Rev. Mod. Phys., 2020, 92, 015003. 3 W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev., 1965, 14...

    work page 2019

  2. [10]

    Romero, R

    45 J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Sci. T echnol., 2018, 4, 014008. 46 W. Mizukami, K. Mitarai, Y. O. Nakagawa, T. Yamamoto, T. Yan and Y. Y. Ohnishi,Phys. Rev. Research, 2020, 2, 033421. 47 N. V. Tkachenko, J. Sud, Y. Zhang, S. Tretiak, P. M. Anisi- mov, A. T. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio and ...

    work page 2018

  3. [14]

    32 W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, U. Baek, B. O’Gorman and K. B. Whaley , New J. Phys. , 2020, 22, 073009. 33 R. M. Parrish and P. L. McMahon, arXiv preprint , 2019, 1909.08925. 34 K. Seki and S. Yunoki, PRX Quantum, 2021, 2, 010333. 35 N. H. Stair, R. Huang and F. A. Evangelista, J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2020, 16,

    arXiv 2020

  4. [83]

    Matsuzawa and Y

    63 Y. Matsuzawa and Y. Kurashige, J. Chem. Theory Comput. , 2020, 16, 944–952. 64 E. Neuscamman, J. Chem. Phys. , 2013, 139, 181101. 65 M. Motta, K. J. Sung, K. B. Whaley , M. Head-Gordon and + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 1–16 | 11 J. Shee, Chem. Sci., 2023, 14, 11213–11227. 66 M. Motta, K. J. Sung and J. Shee, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2024, 128, 8...

    work page 2020

  5. [156]

    31 S. Sim, J. Romero, P. D. Johnson and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Physics, 2018, 11,

    work page 2018

  6. [205]

    54 N. V. Tkachenko, L. Cincio, A. I. Boldyrev, S. Tretiak, P. A. Dub and Y. Zhang, Quantum Sci. T echnol., 2024, 9, 035012. 55 U. Baek, D. Hait, J. Shee, O. Leimkuhler, W. J. Huggins, T. F. Stetina, M. Head-Gordon and K. B. Whaley , PRX Quantum , 2023, 4, 030307. 56 O. Leimkuhler and K. B. Whaley , arXiv preprint , 2025, 2503.21041. 57 S. Lehtola, J. Park...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [242]

    Higgott, D

    30 O. Higgott, D. Wang and S. Brierley ,Quantum, 2019, 3,

    work page 2019

  8. [409]

    8 H. Koch, O. Christiansen, P. Jørgensen, A. M. S. de Meras and T. Helgaker, J. Chem. Phys. , 1997, 106,

    work page 1997

Show all 23 references
  1. [479]

    Angeli, R

    10 C. Angeli, R. Cimiraglia, S. Evangelisti, T. Leininger and J. P. Malrieu, J. Chem. Phys. , 2001, 114, 10252. 11 C. Angeli, R. Cimiraglia and J. P. Malrieu, Chem. Phys. Lett. , 2001, 350, 297–305. 12 C. Angeli and R. Cimiraglia, Theor . Chem. Acc., 2002, 107, 313–317. 13 C. ...

    2001

  2. [558]

    40 J. Lee, W. J. Huggins, M. Head-Gordon and K. B. Whaley , J. Chem. Theory Comput. , 2018, 15, 311–324. 41 D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A , 2015, 92, 042303. 42 P. K. Barkoutsos, J. F. Gonthier, I. Sokolov, N. Moll, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer et al., Phys. Rev...

    2018

  3. [1487]

    von Burg, G

    24 V. von Burg, G. H. Low, T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Reiher, M. Roetteler and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Research , 2021, 3, 033055. 25 N. P. Bauman, H. Liu, E. J. Bylaska, S. Krishnamoorthy , G. H. Low, C. E. Granade, N. Wiebe, N. A. Baker, B. Peng, M. Roet- teler, M. Troyer and...

    2021

  4. [1791]

    Arrasmith, M

    39 A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, P. Czarnik, L. Cincio and P. J. Coles, Quantum, 2021, 5,

    2021

  5. [1808]

    Raghavachari, G

    9 K. Raghavachari, G. W. Trucks, J. A. Pople and M. Head- Gordon, Chem. Phys. Lett. , 1989, 157,

    1989

  6. [1988]

    Tkachenko, Nikolay Tkachenko’s GitHub Repository, https: //github.com/ntkachenko95, 2025, Accessed: 2025-04-14

    74 N. Tkachenko, Nikolay Tkachenko’s GitHub Repository, https: //github.com/ntkachenko95, 2025, Accessed: 2025-04-14. 75 Qiskit Nature Developers and Contributors, Qiskit Nature 0.6.0, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7828768, 2023, Zenodo, Version 0.6.0. 76 Qiskit Nature , http...

    2025 doi

  7. [2009]

    Christiansen, H

    7 O. Christiansen, H. Koch and P. Jørgensen, Chem. Phys. Lett. , 1995, 243,

    1995

  8. [2236]

    36 J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy , R. Babbush and H. Neven, Nat. Commun., 2018, 9,

    2018

  9. [3007]

    49 H. L. Tang, V. O. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley , N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes and S. E. Economou, PRX Quantum, 2021, 2, 020310. 50 J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter and W. A. de Jong, Phys. Rev. A, 2017, 95, 042308. 51 J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D....

    2021

  10. [3172]

    Ghosh, J

    16 D. Ghosh, J. Hachmann, T. Yanai and G. K.-L. Chan, J. Chem. Phys., 2008, 128, 144117. 10 | 1–16 + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 17 D. S. Levine, D. Hait, N. M. Tubman, S. Lehtola, K. B. Whaley and M. Head-Gordon, J. Chem. Theory Comput. , 2020, 16, 2340–2354. 18...

    2008 arXiv

  11. [4213]

    28 J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush and A. Aspuru-Guzik, New J. Phys. , 2016, 18, 023023. 29 A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow and J. M. Gambetta, Nature (London), 2017, 549,

    2016

  12. [4462]

    15 G. K.-L. Chan, J. Chem. Phys. , 2004, 120,

    2004

  13. [4812]

    37 S. Wang, E. Fontana, M. Cerezo, K. Sharma, A. Sone, L. Cincio and P. J. Coles, Nat. Commun., 2021, 12,

    2021

  14. [5162]

    Aspuru-Guzik, A

    22 A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love and M. Head-Gordon, Science, 2005, 309, 1704–1707. 23 Z. Ding, H. Li, L. Lin, H. Ni, L. Ying and R. Zhang, Quantum, 2024, 8,

    2005

  15. [6961]

    Cerezo, A

    38 M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio and P. J. Coles, Nat. Commun., 2021, 12,

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.