Recent Developments and Perspectives in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers for Molecular Electronic Structure: Methods, Tradeoffs, and Benchmarking

Cong Liu; Rishu Khurana; Taylor Harville; Vitor F. Grizzi

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Recent Developments and Perspectives in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers for Molecular Electronic Structure: Methods, Tradeoffs, and Benchmarking

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that adaptively grown VQE ansätze — ADAPT-VQE in particular — can match or beat standard UCCSD-VQE accuracy with far fewer variational parameters, and that a threshold of 10^-2 is enough for chemical accuracy at the STO-3

desk verdict A useful VQE review whose original threshold-scan benchmarking is not yet reproducible and whose ADAPT-vs-USCC parameter comparison rests on an unexamined equivalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.11384 v2 pith:CF6A7YPI submitted 2026-02-11 quant-ph

Taylor Harville , Rishu Khurana , Vitor F. Grizzi , Cong Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V55 PACS 03.67.Ac31.15.A

keywords VQEADAPT-VQEUSCCunitarycoupledclusterquantumchemistryNISQbenchmarkingexcitedstates

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 surveys variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) methods for molecular electronic structure and adds its own benchmarking. It argues that adaptive ansatz construction, which grows the wavefunction operator by operator according to energy gradients, recovers most correlation energy with dramatically fewer parameters than a fixed unitary coupled cluster ansatz. Concretely, its calculations on five small molecules with the STO-3G basis show that ADAPT-VQE with a 10^-2 selection threshold stays below chemical accuracy (1 kcal/mol from full CI), and a 10^-3 threshold beats standard UCCSD-VQE everywhere on the potential energy curves. The companion method USCC, which screens operators classically, needs tighter thresholds and roughly 2.6–3.4 times more parameters to match ADAPT-VQE at equal accuracy. A sympathetic reader would care because parameter count tracks circuit depth, the main bottleneck for noisy near-term quantum hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the operator-selection threshold epsilon, used twice: ADAPT-VQE measures the energy gradient of each candidate excitation on the quantum device and adds the operator with largest gradient until the gradient norm falls below epsilon; USCC screens single and double excitations classically by the magnitude of Hamiltonian matrix elements and iteratively adds disconnected triples and quadruples, halving the threshold each round. The paper's conclusions about which method needs fewer parameters rest on comparing these two screening procedures at nominally equal epsilon values, with the generalized UCCSD operator pool of ADAPT-VQE capturing higher-order correlation mor

What would settle it

Re-run the ADAPT-VQE and USCC benchmarks on H2O or BeH2 with thresholds calibrated to select the same number of operators (or normalized by the root-mean-square gradient at the first iteration), and check whether USCC still needs 2.6–3.4X more parameters than ADAPT-VQE at matching accuracy; if the gap disappears, the paper's central method comparison is an artifact of threshold calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central benchmarking claim is that adaptive operator selection pays off: for H2, LiH, H6, H2O, and BeH2 in STO-3G, ADAPT-VQE with threshold 10^-2 reaches energies within 1 kcal/mol of full configuration interaction across most of the potential energy surface, and with 10^-3 it is uniformly more accurate than standard UCCSD-VQE while using a fraction of the parameters (e.g., 75 vs 140 for H2O at the tightest threshold). USCC, which selects operators by classical Hamiltonian-matrix-element screening rather than measured gradients, achieves comparable accuracy only with thresholds of 10^-3 or 10^-4, and requires 2.6X (H2O) to 3.4X (BeH2) more parameters to match ADAPT-VQE's accuracy at 10^-

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the epsilon threshold in ADAPT-VQE and the epsilon threshold in USCC select operators on the same scale, so that equal numerical thresholds give a fair comparison of parameter counts and accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the benchmarking holds, practitioners on NISQ hardware should default to ADAPT-VQE with coarse thresholds (10^-2) rather than fixed UCCSD-VQE, gaining accuracy and cutting gate depth.
The threshold must be tightened as basis set grows; a 10^-2 rule of thumb is only valid for minimal STO-3G, so resource estimates at production basis sets need re-benchmarking.
USCC's classical prescreening is quantum-cheap but parameter-hungry at matching accuracy; its value is limited to cases where gradient measurements are too costly.
For strongly correlated or multireference systems, neither UCCSD-based VQE nor ADAPT alone captures static correlation; the paper points to orbital-optimized and localized active-space variants (ADAPT-VQE-SCF, LAS-nuVQE) as the path forward.

Reading between the lines

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

If epsilon thresholds are not commensurable across methods, the parameter-ratio comparisons (2.6–3.4X) may overstate ADAPT-VQE's advantage; a calibration check would settle this.
The benchmark's restriction to STO-3G means the practical threshold recommendations are for minimal basis sets; for production basis sets one would expect the needed epsilon to decrease roughly as the number of low-weight excitations grows.
The excited-state section points toward a convergence: ground-state VQE plus a classical linear-response diagonalization (qEOM-type) is the most NISQ-friendly route, and the same workflow should extend to ionization potentials and electron affinities via self-consistent operators.
The simulator overview implies that benchmarking quality on real devices will remain bottlenecked by noise models rather than raw simulator speed, so future comparative studies should report noise-injected parameter-vs-accuracy curves.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the review half of this paper is fine and will help people entering the VQE space. The benchmark half is the actual contribution, and it needs work before I'd trust the quantitative claims.

The survey covers the expected territory—ADAPT-VQE, qubit-ADAPT, nu-VQE, USCC, chemistry-inspired active-space methods, excited-state extensions—and the characterizations are consistent with the cited literature. The authors also deserve credit for being explicit that their threshold recommendations are tied to STO-3G and small molecules; that's the right kind of caution.

The soft spots are all in the benchmarking section. The biggest one is the ADAPT-VQE vs USCC comparison. The two epsilons mean different things: ADAPT stops when the gradient norm falls below ε, USCC screens operators by Hamiltonian matrix elements. The paper asserts 'similar errors for similar thresholds' and Figure 5 may support that empirically for these molecules, but the assertion is not backed by any analysis showing the two thresholds are on the same scale. If they are off by a constant factor, the parameter ratios (2.6X, 2.7X, 3.4X) and the recommended thresholds become calibration artifacts rather than method comparisons. The fix is straightforward: do a matching-error comparison, or at least show the actual errors side by side at each threshold.

Second, the SI is promised but not present in the arXiv version. Computational details, parameter counts for the other molecules, and presumably code or input files are all missing. That makes the new benchmark data non-reproducible. Third, Table 1 is mislabeled: the caption says non-symmetric H2O but the columns list H4 (STO-3G), H4 (6-31G), and H2O (STO-3G). Likely a cut-and-paste error, but it needs fixing. Fourth, the paper never states whether the simulations are noiseless statevector runs; if they are, error bars are unnecessary, but that should be explicit. Minor citation issue: ref 3 doesn't support the '6,000 qubits' claim.

Who is this for? People looking for an orientation to recent VQE methods, and anyone who wants preliminary threshold guidance for minimal-basis small molecules. The benchmark conclusions should not be extrapolated beyond that. I'd send it to peer review, but I'd insist the SI be included and the threshold issue be addressed before publication.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) methods for molecular electronic structure, organized into three areas: circuit/ansatz complexity reduction (ADAPT-VQE, qubit-ADAPT-VQE, nu-VQE, USCC, and assorted other flavors), chemistry-inspired workflows (ClusterVQE, FMO-VQE, ADAPT-VQE-SCF, LAS-nuVQE), and excited-state extensions (VQD, VQE/AC, folded-spectrum VQE, qEOM variants). It also contains original benchmarking in Section 5, comparing UCCSD-VQE, ADAPT-VQE, and USCC on small molecules (H2, LiH, H4, H6, H2O, BeH2) at STO-3G and 6-31G, reporting energy errors relative to FCI and parameter counts at various thresholds. Section 6 reviews quantum simulators and Section 7 gives recommendations for ADAPT-VQE and USCC threshold values. The paper's central quantitative claim is that ADAPT-VQE achieves chemical accuracy with substantially fewer parameters than USCC and standard VQE when compared at corresponding threshold values.

Significance. If the benchmarking is sound, the paper would provide a useful practical comparison of adaptive VQE methods and a broad survey of recent developments. The review covers a reasonable range of representative methods, and the qualitative tradeoff discussions (e.g., parameter count vs. circuit depth vs. measurement overhead) are broadly consistent with the cited literature. The original benchmark is the main novel contribution, but its quantitative conclusions are not currently supported: the comparison between ADAPT-VQE and USCC rests on treating their threshold parameters as commensurable, and the computational details needed to reproduce or interpret the benchmarks are not provided. With a recalibrated comparison and full details, the core conclusions could survive, but as written the evidence is insufficient.

major comments (1)

[Section 5, Table 1, Fig. 5 vs. Section 2.4 and Eq. (13)] Section 5: The original benchmarking calculations are not reproducible as reported. The text says computational details are given in the SI, but no SI is included; the manuscript does not specify the simulator used, the classical optimizer, optimizer convergence tolerances, fermion-to-qubit mapping, operator-pool definitions, active spaces, or whether the simulations are noiseless statevector calculations. The reported 'average number of parameters' is given without variance, and Figures 4–6 contain no statistical or convergence details. Since the benchmark is the paper's main quantitative contribution, these omissions are load-bearing. Please include full computational specifications and at least basic statistical reporting for the parameter counts.

minor comments (4)

[Table 1] The caption and column structure are inconsistent. Table 1 is captioned as average parameters for non-symmetric H2O, but it also contains columns for H4 (STO-3G) and H4 (6-31G), while the text says the other molecules' parameter counts are in the SI. Please reconcile the caption and text, and ensure the table accurately reflects what is reported.
[Introduction and references] Reference 3 does not support the claim that the current largest quantum computer has just over 6,000 physical qubits; the cited paper is about VQE with fewer qubits. References 44 and 45 appear to be the same paper. Please correct the citation and deduplicate.
[Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistent notations: 'Futhermore' (Section 2.1), 'are are' (Section 5), 'ansatz' pluralization, 'Federov' for Fedorov, and inconsistent use of epsilon^-1 versus epsilon_1. Please standardize notation and proofread.
[Figure 6] In Figure 6, the USCC epsilon^-3 and epsilon^-4 curves overlap and are shown as a single trend line. Please add explicit markers or a legend note so the overlap is not mistaken for missing data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey and benchmark conclusions are supported by the authors' own FCI-benchmarked simulations and by external published results, with no load-bearing self-citation or definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper makes no original theoretical derivation; its contribution is a survey plus new benchmarking against FCI. The central recommendations (ADAPT-VQE epsilon-2 for chemical accuracy, USCC epsilon-3/4) are supported by the authors' own simulations reported in Section 5 (Figs. 4-6, Table 1), not by citing prior ADAPT-VQE/USCC papers as proof. Eq. 13 defines the ADAPT convergence criterion and Section 2.4 defines the USCC screening; the comparison at equal numerical epsilon values involves an unvalidated calibration assumption, but that is a benchmarking-validity/correctness concern, not a circular reduction: neither method's error is defined in terms of the other's threshold, and the claimed parameter ratios are raw outputs of the calculations, not identities. Citations to Grimsley et al. (ref 21), Fedorov et al. (ref 18), and Tang et al. (ref 22) are external, independently published results; none of the present authors appears as a load-bearing authority for the paper's conclusions. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no self-citation chain is invoked to force a choice. Hence no circular step meets the evidential bar.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters in the sense of fitting a model; the epsilon thresholds are scanned choices. It relies on standard quantum mechanics and on the correctness of cited algorithms. The key unjustified premise is that the epsilon parameter is commensurable between ADAPT-VQE and USCC, which underpins the quantitative comparisons.

free parameters (1)

operator-selection threshold epsilon = 10^-1 to 10^-4 (scanned)
Operator selection thresholds chosen for the benchmark; the recommendation of epsilon=10^-2 for ADAPT-VQE is derived from the resulting data, so it is a hand-chosen parameter that the paper's guidelines depend on.

assumptions (4)

standard math The variational principle ensures that VQE energy estimates are upper bounds to the exact ground-state energy.
Used throughout Section 1 and benchmarking as the basis for comparing VQE energies to FCI.
domain assumption The FCI energies used as references in Section 5 are exact within the given basis set.
The benchmark error is defined as |E_method - FCI|, assuming FCI is the ground truth for the basis set.
domain assumption The cited ADAPT-VQE, USCC, and related methods perform as described in their original papers.
The review's summary of each flavor's performance (e.g., ADAPT-VQE achieving chemical accuracy with fewer parameters) relies on the correctness of references [21,22,25,18,23,27, etc.].
ad hoc to paper Threshold values epsilon are comparable across ADAPT-VQE and USCC, so parameter counts and errors can be directly compared.
The benchmarking compares methods at the same labeled epsilon though their operator selection criteria differ; the equivalence is not verified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recent Developments and Perspectives in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers for Molecular Electronic Structure: Methods, Tradeoffs, and Benchmarking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CF6A7YPI

@misc{pith2026260211384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recent Developments and Perspectives in Variational Quantum Eigensolvers for Molecular Electronic Structure: Methods, Tradeoffs, and Benchmarking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CF6A7YPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.11384}
}

read the original abstract

The variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) is a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm designed for noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) hardware to estimate eigenvalues of many-body Hamiltonians. Unlike fully quantum approaches such as quantum phase estimation (QPE), VQE trades deep coherent circuits for repeated state preparation, measurement, and classical optimization, making it more compatible with limited qubit counts and finite coherence times. Recent developments have focused on reducing quantum resource requirements while retaining chemically meaningful wavefunction structure. In this paper, we examine recent progress in VQE methods for molecular electronic structure with an emphasis on three themes: (i) strategies for circuit and ansatz complexity reduction, including adaptive and selectively screened approaches, (ii) chemically motivated workflows that combine VQE with orbital optimization, fragmentation, and localized active-space ideas to better address strong correlation, and (iii) extensions of VQE to excited-state calculations. Throughout, we emphasize the tradeoffs among parameter count, gate depth, symmetry preservation, measurement overhead, and classical preprocessing, and discuss where these approaches may become most useful for chemically challenging active spaces. We also highlight benchmarking considerations for assessing both accuracy and resource requirements, and conclude with a perspective on regimes in which VQE may offer the greatest long-term value, particularly multireference active spaces and low-lying excited-state manifolds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11384 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** General schematic of the VQE algorithm, showing the fermionic to qubit Hamil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The ADAPT-VQE algorithm begins on the quantum computer by generating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Electronic Structure Calculations from Occupation Numbers on Quantum Computers
physics.chem-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

ON-VQE estimates molecular energies from quantum-measured occupation numbers alone, reducing VQE measurement settings to a single qubit-wise commuting group.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[13]

(48) Cadi Tazi, L.; Thom, A. J. Folded spectrum vqe: A quantum computing method for the calculation of molecular excited states.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2024,20, 2491–2504. (49) Ollitrault, P . J.; Kandala, A.; Chen, C.-F.; Barkoutsos, P . K.; Mezzacapo, A.; Pistoia, M.; Sheldon, S.; Woerner, S.; Gambetta, J. M.; Tavernelli, I. Quantum e...

arXiv 2024
[79]

Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Fewer Qubits

(3) Choi, S.; Jarmolajev, I.; Huh, J. Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Fewer Qubits. 2020, (4) Elfving, V . E.; Broer, B. W.; Webber, M.; Gavartin, J.; Halls, M. D.; Lorton, K. P .; Bochevarov, A. How Will Quantum Computers Provide an Industrially Relevant Computational Advantage in Quantum Chemistry?2020, (5) Kitaev, A. Y. Quantum measurements and th...

arXiv 2020
[703]

M.; Mezzacapo, A.; Temme, K

(19) Bravyi, S.; Gambetta, J. M.; Mezzacapo, A.; Temme, K. Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians. 2017;https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08213. 45 (20) Bravyi, S. B.; Kitaev, A. Y. Fermionic Quantum Computation.Annals of Physics2002, 298, 210–226. (21) Grimsley, H. R.; Economou, S. E.; Barnes, E.; Mayhall, N. J. An Adaptive Variational Algorithm...

arXiv 2017
[774]

(71) Li, Y.; Benjamin, S. C. Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimisation.Physical Review X2017,7, 021050. (72) Temme, K.; Bravyi, S.; Gambetta, J. M. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits.Physical Review Letters2017,119, 180509. (73) Muller, M.; Zanner, M.; others Towards a Digital Twin of Noisy Quantum Comp...

arXiv
[2010]

M.; Wecker, D.; Troyer, M

(8) Reiher, M.; Wiebe, N.; Svore, K. M.; Wecker, D.; Troyer, M. Elucidating reaction mech- anisms on quantum computers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2017, 114, 7555–7560. (9) Aharonov, D.; Ben-Or, M. Fault Tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Er- ror.1996, (10) Dob ˇs´ıˇcek, M.; Johansson, G.; Shumeiko, V .; Wendin, G. Arbitrary Acc...

arXiv 1996
[2024]

(55) Bayraktar, H.; Charara, A.; Clark, D.; Cohen, S.; Costa, T.; Fang, Y.-L

2024; pp 579–589. (55) Bayraktar, H.; Charara, A.; Clark, D.; Cohen, S.; Costa, T.; Fang, Y.-L. L.; Gao, Y.; Guan, J.; Gunnels, J.; Haidar, A.; others cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). 2023; pp 1050–1061. (56) Developers, C.Cirq; Zenodo,

2024
[2025]

A.; collaborators qsim

(57) team, Q. A.; collaborators qsim. 2020;https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4023103. (58) Jones, T.; Brown, A.; Bush, I.; Benjamin, S. C. QuEST and high performance simula- tion of quantum computers.Scientific reports2019,9, 10736. (59) Suzuki, Y.; Kawase, Y.; Masumura, Y.; Hiraga, Y.; Nakadai, M.; Chen, J.; Nakan- ishi, K. M.; Mitarai, K.; Imai, R.; Tamiya...

arXiv 2020
[2422]

(40) Barca, G. M. J. et al. Recent developments in the general atomic and molecular elec- tronic structure system.J. Chem. Phys.2020,152, 154102. (41) Nakano, T.; Kaminuma, T.; Sato, T.; Akiyama, Y.; Uebayasi, M.; Kitaura, K. Fragment molecular orbital method: application to molecular dynamics simulation of proteins. Chem. Phys. Lett.2000,318, 614–618. (4...

2020

Show all 10 references

[3007]

L.; Shkolnikov, V

(22) Tang, H. L.; Shkolnikov, V . O.; Barron, G. S.; Grimsley, H. R.; Mayhall, N. J.; Barnes, E.; Economou, S. E. Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An Adaptive Algorithm for Con- structing Hardware-Efficient Ans¨atze on a Quantum Processor.PRX Quantum2021, 2, 020310. (23) Fitzpatrick, A.; Nyk ...

2025 arXiv
[4213]

¨Uber das Paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 1928,47, 631–651

(14) Jordan, P .; Wigner, E. ¨Uber das Paulische ¨Aquivalenzverbot.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 1928,47, 631–651. (15) Reinholdt, P .; Ziems, K. M.; Kjellgren, E. R.; Coriani, S.; Sauer, S. P . A.; Kongsted, J. Critical Limitations in Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction Met...

1928

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

(48) Cadi Tazi, L.; Thom, A. J. Folded spectrum vqe: A quantum computing method for the calculation of molecular excited states.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2024,20, 2491–2504. (49) Ollitrault, P . J.; Kandala, A.; Chen, C.-F.; Barkoutsos, P . K.; Mezzacapo, A.; Pistoia, M.; Sheldon, S.; Woerner, S.; Gambetta, J. M.; Tavernelli, I. Quantum e...

arXiv 2024

[2] [79]

Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Fewer Qubits

(3) Choi, S.; Jarmolajev, I.; Huh, J. Variational Quantum Eigensolver with Fewer Qubits. 2020, (4) Elfving, V . E.; Broer, B. W.; Webber, M.; Gavartin, J.; Halls, M. D.; Lorton, K. P .; Bochevarov, A. How Will Quantum Computers Provide an Industrially Relevant Computational Advantage in Quantum Chemistry?2020, (5) Kitaev, A. Y. Quantum measurements and th...

arXiv 2020

[3] [703]

M.; Mezzacapo, A.; Temme, K

(19) Bravyi, S.; Gambetta, J. M.; Mezzacapo, A.; Temme, K. Tapering off qubits to simulate fermionic Hamiltonians. 2017;https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08213. 45 (20) Bravyi, S. B.; Kitaev, A. Y. Fermionic Quantum Computation.Annals of Physics2002, 298, 210–226. (21) Grimsley, H. R.; Economou, S. E.; Barnes, E.; Mayhall, N. J. An Adaptive Variational Algorithm...

arXiv 2017

[4] [774]

(71) Li, Y.; Benjamin, S. C. Efficient variational quantum simulator incorporating active error minimisation.Physical Review X2017,7, 021050. (72) Temme, K.; Bravyi, S.; Gambetta, J. M. Error mitigation for short-depth quantum circuits.Physical Review Letters2017,119, 180509. (73) Muller, M.; Zanner, M.; others Towards a Digital Twin of Noisy Quantum Comp...

arXiv

[5] [2010]

M.; Wecker, D.; Troyer, M

(8) Reiher, M.; Wiebe, N.; Svore, K. M.; Wecker, D.; Troyer, M. Elucidating reaction mech- anisms on quantum computers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2017, 114, 7555–7560. (9) Aharonov, D.; Ben-Or, M. Fault Tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Er- ror.1996, (10) Dob ˇs´ıˇcek, M.; Johansson, G.; Shumeiko, V .; Wendin, G. Arbitrary Acc...

arXiv 1996

[6] [2024]

(55) Bayraktar, H.; Charara, A.; Clark, D.; Cohen, S.; Costa, T.; Fang, Y.-L

2024; pp 579–589. (55) Bayraktar, H.; Charara, A.; Clark, D.; Cohen, S.; Costa, T.; Fang, Y.-L. L.; Gao, Y.; Guan, J.; Gunnels, J.; Haidar, A.; others cuquantum sdk: A high-performance library for accelerating quantum science. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE). 2023; pp 1050–1061. (56) Developers, C.Cirq; Zenodo,

2024

[7] [2025]

A.; collaborators qsim

(57) team, Q. A.; collaborators qsim. 2020;https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4023103. (58) Jones, T.; Brown, A.; Bush, I.; Benjamin, S. C. QuEST and high performance simula- tion of quantum computers.Scientific reports2019,9, 10736. (59) Suzuki, Y.; Kawase, Y.; Masumura, Y.; Hiraga, Y.; Nakadai, M.; Chen, J.; Nakan- ishi, K. M.; Mitarai, K.; Imai, R.; Tamiya...

arXiv 2020

[8] [2422]

(40) Barca, G. M. J. et al. Recent developments in the general atomic and molecular elec- tronic structure system.J. Chem. Phys.2020,152, 154102. (41) Nakano, T.; Kaminuma, T.; Sato, T.; Akiyama, Y.; Uebayasi, M.; Kitaura, K. Fragment molecular orbital method: application to molecular dynamics simulation of proteins. Chem. Phys. Lett.2000,318, 614–618. (4...

2020