Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 105 references

jQMC: A JAX-based ab initio quantum Monte Carlo package designed for GPU-accelerated computing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A GPU-first, automatically differentiated Python quantum Monte Carlo package reaches an order-of-magnitude wall-time speedup for variational Monte Carlo while matching a mature Fortran code's algorithms and wave functions.

desk verdict A real JAX-QMC software contribution with a plausible but under-documented GPU speedup claim over TurboRVB, plus an abstract/body inconsistency in the headline ethanol force number. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13781 v1 pith:LIEIGAL6 submitted 2026-07-15 physics.chem-ph physics.comp-ph

Kousuke Nakano , Michele Casula This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords quantumMonteCarlovariationallattice-regularizeddiffusionGPUaccelerationautomaticdifferentiationatomicforcesJastrowfactorstochasticreconfiguration
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 presents jQMC, a Python package that implements Variational Monte Carlo and lattice-regularized Diffusion Monte Carlo for ab initio molecular simulations, built on automatic differentiation and just-in-time compilation so the numerical kernels run on GPUs. The central claim is that this GPU-first design makes production QMC practical: for water clusters up to 160 electrons, the package reaches a target statistical error in total energy up to ten times faster in wall-clock time than a long-optimized Fortran code implementing the same algorithms and wave functions, with a more moderate gain for lattice-regularized DMC. The package also computes atomic forces by differentiating through the Monte Carlo estimator, and the authors benchmark LRDMC forces against all-electron coupled-cluster results: agreement within about 1.5 kcal/mol/Å mean absolute error for ethanol, but a roughly 5 kcal/mol/Å discrepancy for malonaldehyde that they leave unexplained. A reader should care because this is evidence that the core of ab initio QMC can be re-expressed in a GPU-first, automatically differentiated programming model without losing accuracy, and because the force results directly inform an open debate about QMC versus coupled-cluster forces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a numerical programming model that keeps the QMC inner loop on the GPU: vectorization over walkers at the top level, just-in-time compilation of the electron-move kernels, and automatic differentiation of the local energy with respect to wave-function parameters and nuclear coordinates. Around this core, the implementation uses the matrix-determinant lemma and its companion rank-one inverse update for fast single-electron wave-function ratios, mixed single/double precision to exploit GPU arithmetic units, a reweighting scheme that keeps force estimators finite near the nodal surface, and a load-balanced branching scheme for LRDMC that coordinates walker replicat

What would settle it

Measure, for the same trial wave function and system, the integrated autocorrelation time and local-energy variance in mixed-precision Cartesian-orbital sampling versus full-precision spherical-orbital sampling; if the mixed-precision runs have materially larger variance per accepted step or longer autocorrelation, the tenfold wall-time gain would not translate into a tenfold gain in statistical efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a quantum Monte Carlo code written from scratch around just-in-time compilation, walker-level vectorization, and automatic differentiation can match the functionality of an established Fortran90 QMC code — the same VMC and lattice-regularized DMC algorithms and the same Jastrow-plus-geminal wave functions — while delivering an order-of-magnitude wall-time speedup for VMC and a factor-of-three speedup for LRDMC on modern GPUs for systems with up to 160 electrons. The speedups are measured as node-hours to reach a 1 kcal/mol statistical error in the total energy, and the paper verifies that energies and variances agree with the reference code within

Load-bearing premise

The headline speedup assumes that the two codes' different numerical settings — reduced precision, orbital format, and walker counts — produce the same statistical accuracy per accepted Monte Carlo step, so that faster wall time means faster science.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GPU-first QMC can be a production tool: total energies for water clusters up to 160 electrons reach a 1 kcal/mol statistical error an order of magnitude faster in wall time than a mature CPU-based Fortran implementation for the same ansatz.
  • Atomic forces are obtainable without hand-derived analytical gradients: automatic differentiation supplies VMC and LRDMC forces, and the ethanol LRDMC forces agree with all-electron CCSD(T) to about 1.5 kcal/mol/Å mean absolute error.
  • The load-balanced LRDMC variant keeps near-ideal weak scaling up to about 1000 GPUs (102,400 walkers), so the GPU speedup is not confined to a single device.
  • The malonaldehyde result — roughly 5 kcal/mol/Å mean absolute error between LRDMC and CCSD(T) forces — implies the disagreement persists after VMC-level nodal optimization and needs further study from both sides.
  • Mixed precision changes total energies by less than the combined error bars for water clusters up to 160 electrons, supporting the use of mixed precision in production runs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the wall-time comparison holds under matched precision and basis settings, the practical cost of QMC force evaluations could drop enough to make routine geometry optimization and phonon calculations on molecules with 100 or more electrons feasible on GPU clusters — an extension the paper motivates but does not perform.
  • Beyond the paper: because automatic differentiation makes new derivatives of observables nearly free to implement, the same machinery should transfer to Hessians, dipole derivatives, and other response properties, though the paper only computes forces.
  • Beyond the paper: the malonaldehyde discrepancy leaves open the possibility that fixed-node LRDMC forces, the CCSD(T) reference, or both are less accurate than assumed for intramolecular hydrogen-bonded systems; a direct test would compare against multideterminant trial wave functions and complete-basis extrapolated coupled-cluster forces.
  • Beyond the paper: the roofline analysis identifies the atomic-orbital kernel as limited by L1 load/store wavefront throughput rather than memory bandwidth, suggesting that data-layout or orbital-screening changes could yield further speedups beyond those benchmarked.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents jQMC, a JAX-based ab initio quantum Monte Carlo package implementing VMC and lattice-regularized DMC (LRDMC) with Jastrow–AGP/Jastrow–Slater wave functions, stochastic reconfiguration and linear-method optimization, automatic-differentiation forces, mixed-precision support, and GPU/CPU portability with MPI and JAX sharding. The authors benchmark jQMC on NVIDIA A100/H100 systems, report a head-to-head wall-time comparison with TurboRVB on small water clusters, validate total energies against other DMC codes for methane/water/methane–water, and demonstrate VMC/LRDMC atomic forces for ethanol and malonaldehyde versus CCSD(T). The central claims are that jQMC on GPUs is up to ~10x faster than TurboRVB for VMC and ~3x for LRDMC, and that LRDMC forces reach ~1.5 kcal/mol/Å MAE versus all-electron CCSD(T) for ethanol, while malonaldehyde shows a much larger discrepancy.

Significance. If the performance and force claims hold, jQMC is a valuable open, GPU-oriented QMC package with functionality closely matching TurboRVB, plus modern software engineering. The paper's strengths include: public code and data repositories; intra-software production/debug consistency tests; inter-software validation against CASINO, QMCPACK, CMQMC, and TurboRVB on total energies and binding energies; careful attention to benchmark setup (same Jastrow ansatz, matched proposal/observable parameters, energy and variance cross-checks); and a useful roofline/Nsight analysis of the GPU kernels. The force-analysis section also correctly accounts for the noise floor in MAE comparisons. However, the headline quantitative results are not fully supported as written: there is a direct abstract/body discrepancy in the ethanol LRDMC MAE, and the wall-time speedup claim relies on a time-to-target formula whose statistical-efficiency input is not reported or verified across the compared configurations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. XIV, Fig. 11] The abstract states that LRDMC forces for ethanol achieve ~1.5 kcal/mol/Å MAE versus all-electron CCSD(T), while Sec. XIV and Fig. 11 report an MAE of 2.1 kcal/mol/Å for this quantity, and the text notes that this is close to the 2.0 value of Ref. 82. This is a direct quantitative inconsistency in a headline result. The abstract must be corrected to match the body, or the body/Fig. 11 must be reconciled if a different metric is intended.
  2. [Sec. XI, Fig. 8] The central performance claim—jQMC on GPUs is ~10x (MCMC) and ~3x (LRDMC) faster than TurboRVB—uses t_target=(σ_run/σ_target)^2·t_net. This formula is valid only if σ_run is the reblocked/jackknife standard error of the mean, which automatically incorporates autocorrelation. The manuscript does not state which σ_run is used, and it does not report integrated autocorrelation times or effective sample sizes for the jQMC and TurboRVB benchmark runs. Cross-checks of total energies and variances do not establish equal statistical efficiency per wall-time step. Please report reblocked standard errors, autocorrelation times, or a time-to-target-error comparison based on effective independent samples per second.
  3. [Sec. XI, Table IV, Fig. 8; Sec. VIII] The speedup comparison simultaneously varies hardware (GPU vs CPU), precision (mixed vs full), and GTO representation (Cartesian vs spherical). The paper argues that total energies and variances agree, but this does not control for autocorrelation or for possible LRDMC-specific statistical-efficiency differences. In addition, Sec. VIII states that mixed precision is 'approximately twice as fast' as full precision, while Table II reports speedups of only 1.22–1.46x. The smaller actual gain should be stated, and the benchmark section should clarify whether the 10x/3x ratios would survive a same-precision, same-representation control.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VIII, Table II] The text says FP32/FP64 calculations are 'approximately twice as fast' as FP64, but Table II lists speedups of 1.22x–1.46x. Please correct the text or qualify the claim.
  2. [Sec. XIV] Typographical errors: 'repectively' (paragraph on malonaldehyde MAE floor) and 'instaibility' (Sec. VI B). Also, the force heat map caption should state explicitly which LRDMC estimator (Reynolds approximation with Pathak–Wagner regularization) is used for the displayed values.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (7)] The notation T(x→x') is clear in context, but labeling the conditional proposal density as T(x'|x) would avoid ambiguity with the reverse transition in Eq. (8).
  4. [Sec. XIII, Table V] The jQMC conventional and load-balanced LRDMC methane energies differ by 3x10^-5 Ha; this is presumably statistical, but a footnote stating the values are within error bars would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: algorithms are externally sourced and benchmarks are empirical comparisons, not derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

This is a software/benchmark paper rather than a formal derivation. The QMC methods (VMC, LRDMC), the JAGP ansatz, SR/LM optimization, and the force estimators are presented as implementations of previously published external methods (e.g., Refs. 3, 4, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 60) and are checked in Sec. XIII against CASINO, QMCPACK, CMQMC, and TurboRVB energy results. The central performance claim in Sec. XI is an empirical wall-time comparison; the extrapolation t_target = (sigma_run/sigma_target)^2 * t_net is a standard statistical scaling relation, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The speedup claim is not obtained by citing the present authors' prior work. Refs. 18, 49, 74, and 85 do involve the present authors, but are not used as unverified load-bearing premises: TurboRVB is an independent community baseline; the load-balanced LRDMC algorithm (Ref. 49) is re-benchmarked directly in Fig. 9; and the malonaldehyde force discrepancy from Ref. 85 is reproduced here with new wave functions and openly left unresolved, with the paper stating the reason 'is not yet fully understood.' The main caveats (mixed precision/Cartesian GTOs for jQMC vs full precision/spherical GTOs for TurboRVB, and the absence of reported integrated autocorrelation times) affect the confidence of the empirical speedup, but they are correctness/validation concerns, not circular reductions. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a discovery, and no uniqueness or ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks in the relevant sense, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

jQMC introduces no new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The central methodological inputs are standard QMC algorithms and wave functions, so the axiom ledger is dominated by domain assumptions about the fixed-node approximation, the ansatz, and lattice convergence, plus tuning hyperparameters for MCMC and force regularization.

free parameters (5)
  • epsilon_AS = chosen manually so that <W> ≈ 0.8
    AS reweighting floor in Sec II A; selected by hand to control the average reweighting factor.
  • theta_R = 3/8
    Exponent in the AS guiding function, Sec II A, described as an empirically chosen value.
  • LRDMC lattice spacing a = a = 0.3 Bohr in benchmarks; not reported for force calculations
    Discretization parameter in LRDMC; energies are extrapolated to a→0, but the force calculations in Sec XIV do not state a or the extrapolation.
  • Pathak-Wagner regularization length eta = not reported
    Controls the distance from the nodal surface within which LRDMC force estimators are regularized, Sec V C; no value or sensitivity study is given.
  • MCMC proposal scale Delta_t = input hyperparameter
    Global step-size hyperparameter in the Metropolis proposal, Sec II A; affects MCMC efficiency.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fixed-node approximation is sufficient for fermionic ground-state projection
    LRDMC relies on the fixed-node approximation to avoid the sign problem, Sec II B.
  • domain assumption JAGP ansatz is expressive enough for the systems studied and contains the single Slater determinant as a special case
    The wave function ansatz in Sec III is assumed to represent the relevant electronic states; the paper validates energies but not the ansatz's completeness.
  • domain assumption The lattice-regularized Hamiltonian converges to the continuum Hamiltonian as a→0 with unbiased extrapolation
    LRDMC is defined through a finite-difference Laplacian and the potential chosen to match the local energy, Sec II B.
  • standard math Metropolis-Hastings sampling and reweighting estimators are unbiased with finite variance under the AS scheme
    The MCMC machinery in Sec II A relies on detailed balance and the AS reweighting to render force estimators finite-variance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of jQMC: A JAX-based ab initio quantum Monte Carlo package designed for GPU-accelerated computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LIEIGAL6

@misc{pith2026260713781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: jQMC: A JAX-based ab initio quantum Monte Carlo package designed for GPU-accelerated computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LIEIGAL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13781}
}
read the original abstract

We present jQMC, a Python-based computational package for {\it ab initio} Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations, designed for modern GPU-accelerated computing environments. jQMC implements two well-established QMC algorithms: Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) and the lattice-regularized variant of Diffusion Monte Carlo (LRDMC). The employed wave function is a Jastrow factor combined with the antisymmetrized geminal power with spin-singlet and spin-triplet pairings, which contains the single Slater determinant as its special lowest-rank case. The wave function can be initialized from external Hartree-Fock/Density Functional Theory calculations through the TREX-IO library (a common wave-function format across electronic-structure packages) and optimized by stochastic reconfiguration and linear-method energy minimization. One of the prominent features of jQMC is its use of JAX, which enables automatic differentiation for wave function optimization and atomic force calculations, and allows the main QMC algorithms to be Just-In-Time (JIT) compiled and portable across CPU and GPU. jQMC is vectorized over walkers at the top level of the QMC algorithms, providing efficient intra-GPU~(CPU) vectorization. The multi-GPU~(CPU) parallelization is also supported through MPI and JAX sharding. To assess the practical performance of this implementation, we benchmarked jQMC performance on NVIDIA GPUs (A100 and H100) and analyzed CUDA kernels. For the test cases analyzed here, with system sizes up to 160 electrons, the current version of jQMC is faster than TurboRVB, a Fortran90 code implementing the same algorithms and wave functions, once jQMC is run on GPUs. In terms of wall-time, the gain can reach an order of magnitude for VMC, while it is more moderate for LRDMC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13781 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The diagram of the main jQMC data classes. Each box represents a data class. The solid arrows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A typical workflow of jQMC to perform VMC, MCMC and LRDMC calculations starting from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The MCMC throughput as a function of the number of walkers per GPU. The vertical axis represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The LRDMC throughput as a function of the number of walkers per GPU. The vertical axis rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Hierarchical roofline of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Achieved fraction of peak for the dominant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Roofline plot of the CUDA kernels involved in the discretized kinetic-energy computation, executed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Wall-clock time (nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Weak-scaling benchmark. Elapsed time per (a) VMC step (MCMC sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The total energy of Methane, Water, and Methane-Water dimer, and the binding energy. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Pairwise MAEs of atomic forces (kcal mol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The monte carlo method , author=. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. , volume=. 1949 , publisher=

    1949

  2. [2]

    and Rosenbluth, Marshall N

    Metropolis, Nicholas and Rosenbluth, Arianna W. and Rosenbluth, Marshall N. and Teller, Augusta H. and Teller, Edward , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , year =

  3. [3]

    On the eigenfunctions of many-particle systems in quantum mechanics , Volume =

    Kato, Tosio , Journal =. On the eigenfunctions of many-particle systems in quantum mechanics , Volume =. 1957 , doi =

    1957

  4. [4]

    Hastings, W. K. , title =. Biometrika , year =

  5. [5]

    Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects , author =. Phys. Rev. , volume =. 1965 , month =

    1965

  6. [6]

    Ground State of the Electron Gas by a Stochastic Method , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 1980 , month =

    1980

  7. [7]

    SIAM Review , volume =

    On deriving the inverse of a sum of matrices , author =. SIAM Review , volume =. 1981 , doi =

    1981

  8. [8]

    The statistical error of green's function Monte Carlo , Volume =

    Ceperley, DM , Journal =. The statistical error of green's function Monte Carlo , Volume =. 1986 , doi =

    1986

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    Two aspects of quantum Monte Carlo: determination of accurate wavefunctions and determination of potential energy surfaces of molecules , author=. Int. J. Quantum Chem , volume=. 1989 , publisher=

    1989

  2. [10]

    Nonlocal pseudopotentials and diffusion Monte Carlo , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 1991 , publisher=

    1991

  3. [11]

    Phys. Rev. B , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.51.13039 , issn =

    doi

  4. [13]

    Phys. Rev. B , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.57.11446 , issn =

    doi

  5. [14]

    Green function Monte Carlo with stochastic reconfiguration , Volume =

    Sorella, Sandro , Journal =. Green function Monte Carlo with stochastic reconfiguration , Volume =. 1998 , doi =

    1998

  6. [15]

    Neural Comput

    Natural gradient works efficiently in learning , author=. Neural Comput. , volume=. 1998 , publisher=

    1998

  7. [16]

    Sorella, Sandro and Capriotti, Luca , doi =. Phys. Rev. B , number =

  8. [17]

    Geminal wave functions with Jastrow correlation: A first application to atoms , Volume =

    Casula, Michele and Sorella, Sandro , Journal =. Geminal wave functions with Jastrow correlation: A first application to atoms , Volume =. 2003 , doi =

    2003

  9. [18]

    2nd edition , author=

    Quantum mechanics: fundamentals. 2nd edition , author=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  10. [19]

    2005 , doi =

    Casula, Michele and Filippi, Claudia and Sorella, Sandro , journal =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  11. [20]

    Beyond the locality approximation in the standard diffusion Monte Carlo method , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2006 , month =

    2006

  12. [21]

    Continuum variational and diffusion quantum Monte Carlo calculations , journal =

    R J Needs and M D Towler and N D Drummond and P L. Continuum variational and diffusion quantum Monte Carlo calculations , journal =

  13. [22]

    Jeongnim Kim and Andrew D Baczewski and Todd D Beaudet and Anouar Benali and M Chandler Bennett and Mark A Berrill and Nick S Blunt and Edgar Josu. J. Phys. Condens. Matter , doi =

  14. [23]

    Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 1996 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 , url =

    1996 doi

  15. [24]

    Adamo, Carlo and Barone, Vincenzo , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , year =

  16. [25]

    AIP Conf

    Jacob’s ladder of density functional approximations for the exchange-correlation energy , author=. AIP Conf. Proc. , volume=. 2001 , organization=

    2001

  17. [26]

    Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids , Volume =

    Foulkes, WMC and Mitas, L and Needs, RJ and Rajagopal, G , Journal =. Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids , Volume =. 2001 , doi =

    2001

  18. [27]

    , isbn =

    Martin, Richard M. , isbn =

  19. [28]

    Stable liquid hydrogen at high pressure by a novel ab initio molecular-dynamics calculation , author=. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  20. [29]

    2009 , publisher=

    Linear Algebra and Its Applications , author=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  21. [30]

    Algorithmic differentiation and the calculation of forces by quantum Monte Carlo , volume =

    Sandro Sorella and Luca Capriotti , doi =. Algorithmic differentiation and the calculation of forces by quantum Monte Carlo , volume =. J. Chem. Phys. , month =

  22. [31]

    Finite-temperature electronic simulations without the Born-Oppenheimer constraint , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  23. [32]

    K. B. Petersen and M. S. Pedersen , title =. 2012 , month = nov, publisher =

    2012

  24. [33]

    Scemama, Anthony and Caffarel, Michel and Oseret, Emmanuel and Jalby, William , title =. J. Comput. Chem. , year =

  25. [34]

    Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Memory Management , pages =

    Kirk, David , title =. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Memory Management , pages =. 2007 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/1296907.1296909 , abstract =

    2007

  26. [35]

    Euro-Par 2012 Parallel Processing , series =

    Wienke, Sandra and Springer, Paul and Terboven, Christian and an Mey, Dieter , title =. Euro-Par 2012 Parallel Processing , series =. 2012 , publisher =

    2012

  27. [36]

    and Dongarra, Jack and Simon, Horst D

    Strohmaier, Erich and Meuer, Hans W. and Dongarra, Jack and Simon, Horst D. , title =. Computer , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  28. [37]

    Quantum chemistry by quantum monte carlo: Beyond ground-state energy calculations , author=. Int. J. Quantum Chem. , volume=. 1986 , publisher=

    1986

  29. [38]

    Becca, Federico and Sorella, Sandro , isbn =

  30. [39]

    and Bushmarinov, Ivan S

    Medvedev, Michael G. and Bushmarinov, Ivan S. and Sun, Jianwei and Perdew, John P. and Lyssenko, Konstantin A. , title =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  31. [40]

    Npj Comput

    Machine learning in materials informatics: recent applications and prospects , author=. Npj Comput. Mater. , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  32. [41]

    Wiley Interdiscip

    PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework , author=. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  33. [42]

    James Bradbury and Roy Frostig and Peter Hawkins and Matthew James Johnson and Yash Katariya and Chris Leary and Dougal Maclaurin and George Necula and Adam Paszke and Jake Vander

  34. [43]

    C. J. Umrigar and C. Filippi , title =

  35. [44]

    PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library , year =

    Paszke, Adam and Gross, Sam and Massa, Francisco and Lerer, Adam and Bradbury, James and Chanan, Gregory and Killeen, Trevor and Lin, Zeming and Gimelshein, Natalia and Antiga, Luca and Desmaison, Alban and K\". PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning libr...

  36. [45]

    A new scheme for fixed node diffusion quantum Monte Carlo with pseudopotentials: Improving reproducibility and reducing the trial-wave-function bias , journal =

    Zen, Andrea and Brandenburg, Jan Gerit and Michaelides, Angelos and Alf\`. A new scheme for fixed node diffusion quantum Monte Carlo with pseudopotentials: Improving reproducibility and reducing the trial-wave-function bias , journal =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  37. [46]

    Recent developments in the PySCF program package , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  38. [47]

    Variational and diffusion quantum Monte Carlo calculations with the CASINO code , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  39. [48]

    QMCPACK: Advances in the development, efficiency, and application of auxiliary field and real-space variational and diffusion quantum Monte Carlo , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  40. [49]

    TurboRVB: A many-body toolkit for ab initio electronic simulations by quantum Monte Carlo , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  41. [50]

    Space-warp coordinate transformation for efficient ionic force calculations in quantum Monte Carlo , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  42. [51]

    Pfau and J.S

    D. Pfau and J.S. Spencer and A.G. de G. Matthews and W.M.C. Foulkes , journal=. Ab-Initio Solution of the Many-Electron Schr. 2020 , volume=. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033429 , url =

    2020 doi

  43. [52]

    Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schr

    Hermann, Jan and Sch. Deep-neural-network solution of the electronic Schr. Nat. Chem. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  44. [53]

    IEEE Micro , year =

    Sato, Mitsuhisa and Kodama, Yuetsu and Tsuji, Miwako and Odajima, Tetsuya , title =. IEEE Micro , year =

  45. [54]

    2022 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Hierarchical Parallelism for Exascale Computing (HiPar) , pages=

    A high-performance design for hierarchical parallelism in the QMCPACK Monte Carlo code , author=. 2022 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Hierarchical Parallelism for Exascale Computing (HiPar) , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  46. [55]

    Posenitskiy, Evgeny and Chilkuri, Vijay Gopal and Ammar, Abdallah and Hapka, Michał and Pernal, Katarzyna and Shinde, Ravindra and Landinez Borda, Edgar Josué and Filippi, Claudia and Nakano, Kosuke and Kohulák, Otto and Sorella, Sandro and de Oliveira Castro, Pablo and Jalby,...

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    TurboGenius: Python suite for high-throughput calculations of ab initio quantum Monte Carlo methods , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  48. [57]

    JOSS , volume=

    QMCTorch: a PyTorch Implementation of Real-Space Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations of Molecular Systems , author=. JOSS , volume=. 2023 , doi=

    2023

  49. [58]

    PyQMC: An all-Python real-space quantum Monte Carlo module in PySCF , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  50. [59]

    mpi4py.futures: MPI-Based Asynchronous Task Execution for Python , year=

    Rogowski, Marcin and Aseeri, Samar and Keyes, David and Dalcin, Lisandro , journal=. mpi4py.futures: MPI-Based Asynchronous Task Execution for Python , year=

  51. [60]

    A light weight regularization for wave function parameter gradients in quantum Monte Carlo , author=. AIP Adv. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  52. [61]

    2021 , publisher =

    Dion Häfner and Filippo Vicentini , title =. 2021 , publisher =. doi:10.21105/joss.03419 , url =

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    Slootman, Emiel and Chilkuri, Vijay Gopal and Delval, Aurelien and Hoffer, Max and Gorni, Tommaso and Coppens, François and van de Nes, Joris and Panadés-Barrueta, Ramón L. and Posenitskiy, Evgeny and Ammar, Abdallah and Landinez Borda, Edgar Josué and Camus, Kevin and Kohulàk...

    2026

  54. [63]

    A simple linear algebra identity to optimize large-scale neural network quantum states , author=. Commun. Phys. , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  55. [64]

    TOP500.org , title =

  56. [65]

    Nakano, Kousuke and Sorella, Sandro and Casula, Michele , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2025 , month =

    2025

  57. [66]

    Diffusion Monte Carlo: Exponential scaling of computational cost for large systems , author =. Phys. Rev. B , volume =. 2010 , month =

    2010

  58. [67]

    Ground-state correlations of quantum antiferromagnets: A Green-function Monte Carlo study , author=. Phys. Rev. B , volume=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  59. [68]

    2005 , school=

    New QMC approaches for the simulation of electronic systems: a first application to aromatic molecules and transition metal compounds , author=. 2005 , school=

    2005

  60. [69]

    Nakano, Kousuke and Battaglia, Stefano and Hutter, Jürg , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2026 , month =

    2026

  61. [70]

    2020 , month =

    Nakano, Kousuke and Maezono, Ryo and Sorella, Sandro , journal =. 2020 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.101.155106 , issue =

    2020 doi

  62. [71]

    and D’Azevedo, E

    McDaniel, T. and D’Azevedo, E. F. and Li, Y. W. and Wong, K. and Kent, P. R. C. , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2017 , month =

    2017

  63. [72]

    Wave function optimization in the variational monte carlo method , Volume =

    Sorella, Sandro , Journal =. Wave function optimization in the variational monte carlo method , Volume =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  64. [73]

    Alleviation of the Fermion-Sign Problem by Optimization of Many-Body Wave Functions , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2007 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.110201 , url =

    2007 doi

  65. [74]

    Optimization of quantum Monte Carlo wave functions by energy minimization , author=. J. Chem. Phys. , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  66. [75]

    Weak binding between two aromatic rings: Feeling the van der Waals attraction by quantum Monte Carlo methods , Volume =

    Sorella, Sandro and Casula, Michele and Rocca, Dario , Journal =. Weak binding between two aromatic rings: Feeling the van der Waals attraction by quantum Monte Carlo methods , Volume =. 2007 , doi =

    2007

  67. [76]

    and Al-Hamdani, Yasmine S

    Della Pia, Flaviano and Shi, Benjamin X. and Al-Hamdani, Yasmine S. and Alfé, Dario and Anderson, Tyler A. and Barborini, Matteo and Benali, Anouar and Casula, Michele and Drummond, Neil D. and Dubecký, Matúš and Filippi, Claudia and Kent, Paul R. C. and Krogel, Jaron T. and L...

    2025

  68. [77]

    1989 , issn =

    A fifth-order perturbation comparison of electron correlation theories , journal =. 1989 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(89)87395-6 , url =

    1989 doi

  69. [78]

    Al-Hamdani and Péter R

    Yasmine S. Al-Hamdani and Péter R. Nagy and Andrea Zen and Dennis Barton and Mihály Kállay and Jan Gerit Brandenburg and Alexandre Tkatchenko , doi =. Interactions between large molecules pose a puzzle for reference quantum mechanical methods , volume =. Nat. Commun. , month =

  70. [79]

    Fishman, Vladimir and Lesiuk, Michał and Martin, Jan M. L. and Daniel Boese, A. , title =. J. Chem. Theory and Comput. , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  71. [80]

    and Della Pia, Flaviano and Al-Hamdani, Yasmine S

    Shi, Benjamin X. and Della Pia, Flaviano and Al-Hamdani, Yasmine S. and Michaelides, Angelos and Alfè, Dario and Zen, Andrea , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2025 , month =

    2025

  72. [81]

    2026 , eprint=

    Assessing the impact of nodal surface optimization in fixed-node diffusion Monte Carlo on non-covalent interactions , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  73. [82]

    Accurate quantum Monte Carlo forces for machine-learned force fields: Ethanol as a benchmark , author=. J. Chem. Theory Comput. , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  74. [83]

    and von Lilienfeld, O

    Christensen, Anders S. and von Lilienfeld, O. Anatole , title =. 2020 , publisher =

    2020

  75. [84]

    and von Lilienfeld, O

    Christensen, Anders S. and von Lilienfeld, O. Anatole , title =. Mach. learn.: sci. technol. , year =

  76. [85]

    Note on an Approximation Treatment for Many-Electron Systems , author =. Phys. Rev. , volume =. 1934 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.46.618 , url =

    1934 doi

  77. [86]

    , title =

    Purvis, George D., III and Bartlett, Rodney J. , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , year =

  78. [87]

    Weigend, Florian and Ahlrichs, Reinhart , title =. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. , year =

  79. [88]

    Vosko, S. H. and Wilk, L. and Nusair, M. , title =. Can. J. Phys. , year =

  80. [89]

    Mardirossian, Narbe and Head-Gordon, Martin , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , year =

  81. [90]

    Najibi, Asim and Goerigk, Lars , title =. J. Chem. Theory and Comput. , year =

  82. [91]

    Smith, Daniel G. A. and Burns, Lori A. and Simmonett, Andrew C. and Parrish, Robert M. and Schieber, Matthew C. and Galvelis, Raimondas and Kraus, Peter and Kruse, Holger and Di Remigio, Roberto and Alenaizan, Asem and James, Andrew M. and Lehtola, Susi and Misiewicz, Jonathon...

  83. [92]

    Chandler and Melton, Cody A

    Bennett, M. Chandler and Melton, Cody A. and Annaberdiyev, Abdulgani and Wang, Guangming and Shulenburger, Luke and Mitas, Lubos , journal =. doi:10.1063/1.4995643 , publisher =

    doi

  84. [93]

    2026 , eprint=

    The Python Simulations of Chemistry Framework: 10 years of an open-source quantum chemistry project , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  85. [94]

    Stephens, P. J. and Devlin, F. J. and Chabalowski, C. F. and Frisch, M. J. , title =. J. Phys. Chem. , volume =. 1994 , doi =

    1994

  86. [95]

    Carter and Trott, Christian R

    Edwards, H. Carter and Trott, Christian R. and Sunderland, Daniel , title =. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  87. [96]

    and Lebrun-Grandi

    Trott, Christian R. and Lebrun-Grandi. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. , year =

  88. [97]

    Towards the Ground State of Molecules via Diffusion

    Ren, Weiluo and Fu, Weizhong and Wu, Xiaojie and Chen, Ji , year = 2023, month = apr, journal =. Towards the Ground State of Molecules via Diffusion

    2023

  89. [98]

    and Landinez Borda, E

    Shinde, R. and Landinez Borda, E. J. and Shepard, S. and Slootman, E. and Cuzzocrea, A. and Azizi, V. and Lopez-Tarifa, P. and Renaud, N. and Umrigar, C. and Moroni, S. and Filippi, C. , title =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  90. [99]

    Anderson, T. A. and Filippi, C. and Petruziello, F. R. and G. 2024 , note =

    2024

  91. [100]

    Wagner and Michal Bajdich and Lubos Mitas , journal =

    Lucas K. Wagner and Michal Bajdich and Lubos Mitas , journal =. 2009 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.01.017 , keywords =

    2009 doi

  92. [101]

    Barborini, Matteo and Charry, Jorge and Ditte, Matej and Leventis, Andronikos and Kafanas, Georgios and Tkatchenko, Alexandre , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2026 , month =. doi:10.1063/5.0311994 , url =

    2026 doi

  93. [102]

    Dupuy, Nicolas and Bouaouli, Samira and Mauri, Francesco and Sorella, Sandro and Casula, Michele , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2015 , month =

    2015

  94. [103]

    Marchi, Mariapia and Azadi, Sam and Casula, Michele and Sorella, Sandro , title =. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2009 , month =

    2009

  95. [104]

    2026 , month = apr, day =

    Bellentani, Laura and Casula, Michele and Gorni, Tommaso , title =. 2026 , month = apr, day =

    2026

  96. [105]

    Shifting sands of hardware and software in exascale quantum mechanical simulations , author=. Nat. Rev. Phys. , volume =. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  97. [106]

    VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data , author=. J. Appl. Crystallogr. , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.