Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Implicit solvent sample-based quantum diagonalization

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sample-based quantum diagonalization can be extended to molecules in solution, reproducing complete-active-space solvated energies to within 0.05–0.35 kcal/mol on real quantum hardware.

desk verdict First SQD+IEF-PCM integration with real hardware, but the unstated orbital-basis question could undermine the headline agreement. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10189 v1 pith:MJTBYKLT submitted 2025-02-14 quant-ph

Danil Kaliakin , Akhil Shajan , Fangchun Liang , Kenneth M. Merz Jr This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V55
keywords sample-basedquantumdiagonalizationIEF-PCMimplicitsolvationLUCJansatzquantum-centricsimulationfreeenergynoisyhardwareCASCIbenchmark
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

Sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) has so far been demonstrated only for gas-phase electronic structure. This paper tries to close that gap by coupling SQD to the integral equation formalism polarizable continuum model (IEF-PCM), a classical continuum description of the solvent that adds a reaction-field term to the molecular Hamiltonian. The authors test the combined SQD/cc-pVDZ IEF-PCM workflow on methanol, methylamine, ethanol, and water in aqueous solution, running the sampling circuits on quantum hardware with 27 to 52 qubits. Their central claim is that, with enough sampled configurations, SQD/IEF-PCM total energies agree with full CASCI/IEF-PCM reference energies to within 0.06, 0.05, 0.35, and 0.13 kcal/mol respectively, and predicted solvation free energies fall within 1 kcal/mol of an experimental benchmark database. If true, this would extend near-term quantum-centric chemistry to solvated and biologically relevant systems without explicitly simulating solvent molecules.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid sampling-and-diagonalization loop: a LUCJ circuit is executed to draw determinant samples from a gas-phase correlated state; S-CORE repairs symmetry violations; each batch of repaired determinants spans a subspace; IEF-PCM enters via an effective electrostatic potential on a molecular cavity, so the subspace Hamiltonian becomes $H_0 + V_{\mathrm{int}}$ and is solved self-consistently. The same machinery that made SQD noise-tolerant in the gas phase now carries solvent effects as a classical post-processing layer.

What would settle it

Run SQD/IEF-PCM on a strongly polar or charge-separated solute whose solvated wavefunction is known to differ qualitatively from the gas-phase one, such as a zwitterion or a charge-transfer pair, using the same gas-phase-derived LUCJ amplitudes; if increasing the sample count does not drive the energy toward the CASCI/IEF-PCM reference within chemical accuracy, the gas-phase sampling assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a working recipe: take a quantum circuit prepared from a local unitary cluster Jastrow ansatz, whose parameters come from gas-phase closed-shell CCSD, sample computational basis states, clean up noise-corrupted samples with S-CORE to restore particle number and spin, form configuration subspaces, and then diagonalize the projected Hamiltonian not in vacuo but with the IEF-PCM solvent operator included at each self-consistent reaction-field step. On four small polar solutes, that recipe reaches the same total energies as CASCI with IEF-PCM, and it does so using sampled subspaces that cover only a fraction of the full Hilbert space. The paper also reports that the SQD solvation free energies reproduce the CASCI values almost exactly (within 0.04 kcal/mol except methanol's smallest sample) and stay within about 1 kcal/mol of an experimental solvation database.

Load-bearing premise

The sampled quantum configurations come from a circuit whose parameters are set by gas-phase coupled-cluster calculations; if the solvent changes which determinants matter, the sample set may miss the configurations that dominate the solvated wavefunction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SQD/IEF-PCM total energies converge systematically toward CASCI/IEF-PCM references as the number of sampled configurations increases, across all four molecules.
  • Solvation free energies from SQD/IEF-PCM match CASCI/IEF-PCM to within about 0.04 kcal/mol and stay within roughly 1 kcal/mol of an experimental benchmark database for these solutes.
  • The workflow runs on real hardware with 27–52 qubits, indicating that implicit-solvent SQD is a practical near-term option rather than a purely simulated protocol.
  • Because the solvent correction is applied at the classical diagonalization stage, SQD retains its noise-mitigation structure while gaining a reaction-field description of the environment.
  • Agreement with CASCI is reached with sampled subspaces that cover only a fraction of the Hilbert space, suggesting the sampled determinants carry most of the solvated correlation weight.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the same classical solvent post-processing could likely be attached to other continuum solvent models beyond IEF-PCM, since the integration happens at the diagonalization interface.
  • If solvent polarization significantly changes the wavefunction character, gas-phase-derived LUCJ amplitudes could miss important determinants; a diagnostic test would be to compare convergence with solvent-adapted or iteratively updated amplitudes, which the paper does not do.
  • A natural stress test is a solute with strong solvent response, such as a zwitterion or a charge-transfer pair, where the difference between gas-phase and solvated wavefunctions is large and would expose whether the gas-phase sampling assumption holds.
  • The near-exact match of SQD and CASCI solvation free energies suggests that, for these systems, the SQD ground state is essentially the CASCI ground state inside the sampled subspace; whether that remains true at larger active spaces is open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) to implicit solvation by coupling the standard SQD workflow with the IEF-PCM continuum model. The LUCJ circuits are parameterized from gas-phase CCSD and sampled on IBM quantum hardware (27, 30, 41, and 52 qubits), and the resulting computational-basis samples define subspaces in which the IEF-PCM Hamiltonian is diagonalized via a modified PySCF CASCI module. The authors report SQD/cc-pVDZ IEF-PCM total energies for methanol, methylamine, ethanol, and water that agree with CASCI/cc-pVDZ IEF-PCM references to within 0.06, 0.05, 0.35, and 0.13 kcal/mol, respectively, at the largest sample sizes, and they compare computed solvation free energies to the MNSol database.

Significance. If the technical claims hold, this is a useful step toward quantum-centric electronic-structure calculations in condensed-phase environments, and it is the first demonstration of SQD with an implicit solvent model. The paper has concrete strengths: it uses genuine quantum hardware up to 52 qubits, reports systematic growth of the sampled subspace, provides an independent physical anchor through the MNSol solvation free energies, and describes implementable modifications to open-source codes (Qiskit Addon: SQD and PySCF). Because SQD diagonalizes the same Hamiltonian in a subspace of the CASCI space, convergence to CASCI is expected by construction in the large-sample limit; the informative content is the rate of convergence and the behavior at realistic sample counts. Those quantitative claims currently rest on a basis-consistency assumption, a downward-biased batch-selection rule, and numerical tables that contain at least one internal inconsistency, so the paper needs revision before the headline agreement numbers can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (7)-(9); Section 3] The sampled bitstrings are defined in the gas-phase MO basis: Eq. (7) is a LUCJ state whose parametrization "is derived from a classical gas-phase restricted closed-shell CCSD calculations," while the benchmark CASCI IEF-PCM reference uses RHF IEF-PCM orbitals in PySCF. The manuscript never states which MO coefficients are used to build the projected IEF-PCM Hamiltonian in Eq. (8). If the gas-phase bitstrings are reinterpreted against the solvated MO basis, the same bitstring labels different Slater determinants and the subspace is not, in fact, a subspace of the Hamiltonian being diagonalized; if the gas-phase MOs are retained for the Hamiltonian, the CASCI IEF-PCM reference must be recomputed in that same one-particle basis. This ambiguity directly affects the central agreement numbers (0.06, 0.05, 0.35, 0.13 kcal/mol), so it must be resolved by specifying the basis convention and, ideally, by reporting results in both conventions.
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 4; text after Eq. (10)] All reported SQD total energies are min_b E(b) over K=10 batches. The minimum of a set of noisy subspace diagonalizations is a downward-biased estimator, so the convergence curves in Fig. 4 partly reflect the number of random batches rather than only the quality of the sampled subspace. The absence of a noiseless simulator baseline and of any error bars means the reported 0.06/0.05/0.35/0.13 kcal/mol deviations cannot be separated from shot noise, device noise, and selection bias. Please report the median and spread across batches and, if possible, a noiseless SQD run with the same LUCJ circuits and S-CORE protocol; this is needed to support the stated convergence toward CASCI IEF-PCM.
  3. [Table 2, Fig. 4(D)] The Hilbert-space coverage percentages in the water discussion do not match Table 2. With d=155.078x10^5 and DAS=784.110x10^5, the lowest water sample covers 19.8% of the Hilbert space, not the stated ~13%; the highest sample covers ~44.9%, consistent with the stated ~45%. Please correct the percentages or the table entries, and apply the same arithmetic check to all coverage claims in Section 4.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The operators V'_int and V''_int appear in Eq. (3) without being defined; please state explicitly that they denote the solute-solvent interaction potential at the current SCRF step and its differential change, respectively.
  2. [Table 3 and Section 4] The MNSol solvation free energies include non-electrostatic contributions that are absent from IEF-PCM, as the paper itself notes in Section 2; the statement that deviations below 1 kcal/mol "confirm the accuracy" of the SQD IEF-PCM approach should be softened or qualified accordingly.
  3. [Abstract and Figure captions] The device names "ibm_cleveland", "ibm_kyiv", and "ibm_marrakesh" are typeset inconsistently in the abstract; please use the official device names throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SQD-to-CASCI agreement is a same-Hamiltonian subspace benchmark, and the MNSol comparison provides independent external grounding.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular in the prohibited sense. SQD builds a subspace from bitstrings sampled from a LUCJ ansatz parametrized by gas-phase CCSD, projects the IEF-PCM Hamiltonian onto that subspace (Eq. 8), and diagonalizes it; CASCI IEF-PCM is the full diagonalization of the same Hamiltonian in the same active space. The observed convergence of SQD to CASCI as the subspace grows is therefore a Rayleigh-Ritz property, and the quoted 0.06/0.05/0.35/0.13 kcal/mol deviations are finite-sample results that are not forced by construction. The comparison to CASCI is best viewed as a consistency check of subspace coverage rather than an independent physical prediction; however, the paper also compares solvation free energies to the MNSol database, which is an external, parameter-free benchmark, and no parameters are fitted to any of the target results. The self-citations to prior SQD work (refs. 42 and 46) are methodological and not load-bearing: the LUCJ parametrization procedure is described in the text and its numerical consequences are evaluated independently. One reproducibility caveat, relevant to correctness rather than circularity, is that the paper does not explicitly state whether the LUCJ bitstrings are expressed in the gas-phase MO basis or in the IEF-PCM RHF MO basis; if the former, the subspace may not be a subspace of the solvated Hamiltonian as represented in the PySCF CASCI module. This gap does not make the derivation circular, but it should be clarified for the central comparison to be fully well-defined.

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

No free parameters are fit in this paper, and no new entities are introduced. The central claim relies on standard QM and continuum machinery and, crucially, on the untested assumption that gas-phase LUCJ samples cover the solvated wavefunction.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption IEF-PCM with PySCF default parameters provides an adequate model of aqueous solvation for these molecules.
    The paper uses Eq. (6) and the PySCF solvent module without validating the cavity parameters against experiment for these specific systems; the MNSol comparison is a check, not a derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Gas-phase CCSD-parametrized LUCJ circuit samples are representative of the solvated ground-state wavefunction.
    Introduced around Eq. (7); no solvent response enters the ansatz, and this is the weakest load-bearing premise.
  • domain assumption S-CORE with 3 iterations and the initial np sigma from correctly measured samples converges to a representative set of valid configurations.
    Inherited from prior SQD work (ref 42), not analyzed here for the solvated case.
  • standard math Davidson diagonalization and Jordan-Wigner mapping are exact for the projected Hamiltonian.
    Standard background used in Eq. (8) and the JW mapping sentence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implicit solvent sample-based quantum diagonalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJTBYKLT

@misc{pith2026250210189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implicit solvent sample-based quantum diagonalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJTBYKLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10189}
}
read the original abstract

The sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD) method shows great promise in quantum-centric simulations of ground state energies in molecular systems. Inclusion of solute-solvent interactions in simulations of electronic structure is critical for biochemical and medical applications. However, all of the previous applications of the SQD method were shown for gas-phase simulations of the electronic structure. The present work aims to bridge this gap by introducing the integral equation formalism polarizable continuum model (IEF-PCM) of solvent into the SQD calculations. We perform SQD/cc-pVDZ IEF-PCM simulations of methanol, methylamine, ethanol, and water in aqueous solution using quantum hardware and compare our results to CASCI/cc-pVDZ IEF-PCM simulations. Our simulations on ibm_cleveland, ibm_kyiv, and ibm_marrakesh quantum devices are performed with 27, 30, 41, and 52 qubits demonstrating the scalability of SQD IEF-PCM simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow of the SQD IEF-PCM method. The blue box signifies the part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qubit layouts of LUCJ circuits. (A) (14e,12o) simulations of methanol using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scaling of qubits and quantum gate operations. Number of qubits, 2-qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total energy of solvated molecules as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C.; Giesen, D

    Chambers, C. C.; Giesen, D. J.; Hawkins, G. D.; Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G.; Vaes, W. H. Modeling the effect of solvation on structure, reactivity, and partitioning of organic solutes: Utility in drug design. Rational Drug Design 1999, 51--72

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    E.; Lightstone, F

    Wong, S. E.; Lightstone, F. C. Accounting for water molecules in drug design. Expert opinion on drug discovery 2011, 6, 65--74

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Role of solvation in drug design as revealed by the statistical mechanics integral equation theory of liquids

    Yoshida, N. Role of solvation in drug design as revealed by the statistical mechanics integral equation theory of liquids. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2017, 57, 2646--2656

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    L.; Pardo, L

    Gonz \'a lez, A.; Murcia, M.; Benham \'u , B.; Campillo, M.; Lopez-Rodriguez, M. L.; Pardo, L. The importance of solvation in the design of ligands targeting membrane proteins. Medchemcomm 2011, 2, 160--164

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    L.; Haran, G

    England, J. L.; Haran, G. Role of solvation effects in protein denaturation: from thermodynamics to single molecules and back. Annual review of physical chemistry 2011, 62, 257--277

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    M.; Gruebele, M.; Sukenik, S

    Davis, C. M.; Gruebele, M.; Sukenik, S. How does solvation in the cell affect protein folding and binding? Current opinion in structural biology 2018, 48, 23--29

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    M.; Feig, M

    Makarov, V.; Pettitt, B. M.; Feig, M. Solvation and hydration of proteins and nucleic acids: a theoretical view of simulation and experiment. Accounts of chemical research 2002, 35, 376--384

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    A.; Dickens, C

    Gauthier, J. A.; Dickens, C. F.; Chen, L. D.; Doyle, A. D.; N rskov, J. K. Solvation effects for oxygen evolution reaction catalysis on IrO2 (110). The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2017, 121, 11455--11463

    work page 2017

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    The catalytic diversity of zeolites: confinement and solvation effects within voids of molecular dimensions

    Gounder, R.; Iglesia, E. The catalytic diversity of zeolites: confinement and solvation effects within voids of molecular dimensions. Chemical Communications 2013, 49, 3491--3509

    2013

  2. [10]

    J.; Carr, R

    Gounder, R.; Jones, A. J.; Carr, R. T.; Iglesia, E. Solvation and acid strength effects on catalysis by faujasite zeolites. Journal of Catalysis 2012, 286, 214--223

    2012

  3. [11]

    O.; Stell, G

    Ben-Amotz, D.; Raineri, F. O.; Stell, G. Solvation thermodynamics: theory and applications. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2005, 109, 6866--6878

    2005

  4. [12]

    L.; Palmer, D

    Ratkova, E. L.; Palmer, D. S.; Fedorov, M. V. Solvation thermodynamics of organic molecules by the molecular integral equation theory: approaching chemical accuracy. Chemical reviews 2015, 115, 6312--6356

    2015

  5. [13]

    Chang, T.-M.; Dang, L. X. Recent advances in molecular simulations of ion solvation at liquid interfaces. Chemical Reviews 2006, 106, 1305--1322

    2006

  6. [14]

    J.; Truhlar, D

    Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G. A universal approach to solvation modeling. Accounts of chemical research 2008, 41, 760--768

    2008

  7. [15]

    J.; Truhlar, D

    Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G.; others Implicit solvation models: equilibria, structure, spectra, and dynamics. Chemical Reviews 1999, 99, 2161--2200

    1999

  8. [16]

    The IEF version of the PCM solvation method: an overview of a new method addressed to study molecular solutes at the QM ab initio level

    Tomasi, J.; Mennucci, B.; Canc \`e s, E. The IEF version of the PCM solvation method: an overview of a new method addressed to study molecular solutes at the QM ab initio level. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM 1999, 464, 211--226

    1999

  9. [17]

    Quantum mechanical continuum solvation models

    Tomasi, J.; Mennucci, B.; Cammi, R. Quantum mechanical continuum solvation models. Chemical reviews 2005, 105, 2999--3094

    2005

  10. [18]

    Mennucci, B.; Cances, E.; Tomasi, J. Evaluation of solvent effects in isotropic and anisotropic dielectrics and in ionic solutions with a unified integral equation method: theoretical bases, computational implementation, and numerical applications. The Journal of Physical Chem...

    1997

  11. [19]

    Continuum solvation models in chemical physics: from theory to applications; John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    Mennucci, B.; Cammi, R. Continuum solvation models in chemical physics: from theory to applications; John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Comparison of implicit and explicit solvent models for the calculation of solvation free energy in organic solvents

    Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Wu, T.; Wang, Q.; Van Der Spoel, D. Comparison of implicit and explicit solvent models for the calculation of solvation free energy in organic solvents. Journal of chemical theory and computation 2017, 13, 1034--1043

    2017

  13. [21]

    Implicit and explicit solvent models for the simulation of dilute polymer solutions

    Reddy, G.; Yethiraj, A. Implicit and explicit solvent models for the simulation of dilute polymer solutions. Macromolecules 2006, 39, 8536--8542

    2006

  14. [22]

    P.; Cramer, C

    Kelly, C. P.; Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G. Adding explicit solvent molecules to continuum solvent calculations for the calculation of aqueous acid dissociation constants. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2006, 110, 2493--2499

    2006

  15. [23]

    Y.; Gallicchio, E.; Friesner, R

    Zhang, L. Y.; Gallicchio, E.; Friesner, R. A.; Levy, R. M. Solvent models for protein--ligand binding: Comparison of implicit solvent Poisson and surface generalized Born models with explicit solvent simulations. Journal of Computational Chemistry 2001, 22, 591--607

    2001

  16. [24]

    Shen, M.-y.; Freed, K. F. Long time dynamics of met-enkephalin: comparison of explicit and implicit solvent models. Biophysical Journal 2002, 82, 1791--1808

    2002

  17. [25]

    New applications of integral equations methods for solvation continuum models: ionic solutions and liquid crystals

    Canc \`e s, E.; Mennucci, B. New applications of integral equations methods for solvation continuum models: ionic solutions and liquid crystals. Journal of mathematical chemistry 1998, 23, 309--326

    1998

  18. [26]

    Herbert, J. M. Dielectric continuum methods for quantum chemistry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 2021, 11, e1519

    2021

  19. [27]

    Coupled cluster theory with the polarizable continuum model of solvation

    Caricato, M. Coupled cluster theory with the polarizable continuum model of solvation. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 2019, 119, e25710

    2019

  20. [28]

    W.; Frisch, M

    Caricato, M.; Scalmani, G.; Trucks, G. W.; Frisch, M. J. Coupled cluster calculations in solution with the polarizable continuum model of solvation. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2010, 1, 2369--2373

    2010

  21. [29]

    Coupled-cluster theories for the polarizable continuum model

    Cammi, R. Coupled-cluster theories for the polarizable continuum model. II. Analytical gradients for excited states of molecular solutes by the equation of motion coupled-cluster method. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 2010, 110, 3040--3052

    2010

  22. [30]

    S.; Hohenstein, E

    Seritan, S.; Bannwarth, C.; Fales, B. S.; Hohenstein, E. G.; Isborn, C. M.; Kokkila-Schumacher, S. I.; Li, X.; Liu, F.; Luehr, N.; Snyder Jr, J. W.; others TeraChem: A graphical processing unit-accelerated electronic structure package for large-scale ab initio molecular dynami...

    2021

  23. [31]

    H.; Reiher, M

    Boguslawski, K.; Marti, K. H.; Reiher, M. Construction of CASCI-type wave functions for very large active spaces. The Journal of chemical physics 2011, 134

    2011

  24. [32]

    G.; Durden, A

    Levine, B. G.; Durden, A. S.; Esch, M. P.; Liang, F.; Shu, Y. CAS without SCF—Why to use CASCI and where to get the orbitals. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 154

    2021

  25. [33]

    A.; Peng, B.; Govind, N.; Alexeev, Y

    Fedorov, D. A.; Peng, B.; Govind, N.; Alexeev, Y. VQE method: a short survey and recent developments. Materials Theory 2022, 6, 2

    2022

  26. [34]

    Layer VQE: A variational approach for combinatorial optimization on noisy quantum computers

    Liu, X.; Angone, A.; Shaydulin, R.; Safro, I.; Alexeev, Y.; Cincio, L. Layer VQE: A variational approach for combinatorial optimization on noisy quantum computers. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 2022, 3, 1--20

    2022

  27. [35]

    L.; Shkolnikov, V.; Barron, G

    Tang, H. L.; Shkolnikov, V.; Barron, G. S.; Grimsley, H. R.; Mayhall, N. J.; Barnes, E.; Economou, S. E. qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans \"a tze on a quantum processor. PRX Quantum 2021, 2, 020310

    2021

  28. [36]

    H.; others The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices

    Tilly, J.; Chen, H.; Cao, S.; Picozzi, D.; Setia, K.; Li, Y.; Grant, E.; Wossnig, L.; Rungger, I.; Booth, G. H.; others The variational quantum eigensolver: a review of methods and best practices. Physics Reports 2022, 986, 1--128

    2022

  29. [37]

    B.; Joseph, I

    Parker, J. B.; Joseph, I. Quantum phase estimation for a class of generalized eigenvalue problems. Physical Review A 2020, 102, 022422

    2020

  30. [38]

    Quantum chemistry beyond Born--Oppenheimer approximation on a quantum computer: A simulated phase estimation study

    Veis, L.; Vi s n \'a k, J.; Nishizawa, H.; Nakai, H.; Pittner, J. Quantum chemistry beyond Born--Oppenheimer approximation on a quantum computer: A simulated phase estimation study. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 2016, 116, 1328--1336

    2016

  31. [39]

    E.; Tarasinski, B.; Terhal, B

    O’Brien, T. E.; Tarasinski, B.; Terhal, B. M. Quantum phase estimation of multiple eigenvalues for small-scale (noisy) experiments. New Journal of Physics 2019, 21, 023022

    2019

  32. [40]

    Kanno, K.; Kohda, M.; Imai, R.; Koh, S.; Mitarai, K.; Mizukami, W.; Nakagawa, Y. O. Quantum-selected configuration interaction: Classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers. arXiv:2302.11320 2023, Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.11320

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    O.; Kamoshita, M.; Mizukami, W.; Sudo, S.; Ohnishi, Y.-y

    Nakagawa, Y. O.; Kamoshita, M.; Mizukami, W.; Sudo, S.; Ohnishi, Y.-y. ADAPT-QSCI: Adaptive Construction of Input State for Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction. arXiv:2311.01105 2023, Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01105

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Robledo-Moreno, J. et al. Chemistry beyond exact solutions on a quantum-centric supercomputer. arXiv:2405.05068 2024, Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05068

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R.; Motta, M

    Barison, S.; Moreno, J. R.; Motta, M. Quantum-centric computation of molecular excited states with extended sample-based quantum diagonalization. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00468

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Quantum simulation of molecules in solution

    Castaldo, D.; Jahangiri, S.; Delgado, A.; Corni, S. Quantum simulation of molecules in solution. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2022, 18, 7457--7469

    2022

  37. [45]

    R.; Reinholdt, P.; Fitzpatrick, A.; Talarico, W

    Kjellgren, E. R.; Reinholdt, P.; Fitzpatrick, A.; Talarico, W. N.; Jensen, P. W.; Sauer, S.; Coriani, S.; Knecht, S.; Kongsted, J. The variational quantum eigensolver self-consistent field method within a polarizable embedded framework. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160

    2024

  38. [46]

    R.; Li, Z.; Mitra, A.; Motta, M.; Johnson, C.; Saki, A

    Kaliakin, D.; Shajan, A.; Moreno, J. R.; Li, Z.; Mitra, A.; Motta, M.; Johnson, C.; Saki, A. A.; Das, S.; Sitdikov, I.; others Accurate quantum-centric simulations of supramolecular interactions. arXiv:2410.09209 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    D.; Robledo-Moreno, J.; Job, J

    Liepuoniute, I.; Doney, K. D.; Robledo-Moreno, J.; Job, J. A.; Friend, W. S.; Jones, G. O. Quantum-Centric Study of Methylene Singlet and Triplet States. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04827 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    V.; Cramer, C

    Marenich, A. V.; Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G. Universal solvation model based on solute electron density and on a continuum model of the solvent defined by the bulk dielectric constant and atomic surface tensions. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2009, 113, 6378--6396

    2009

  41. [49]

    Simulating fermions on a quantum computer

    Ortiz, G.; Gubernatis, J.; Knill, E.; Laflamme, R. Simulating fermions on a quantum computer. Comp. Phys. Comm 2002, 146, 302--316

    2002

  42. [50]

    E.; Knill, E.; Laflamme, R

    Somma, R.; Ortiz, G.; Gubernatis, J. E.; Knill, E.; Laflamme, R. Simulating physical phenomena by quantum networks. Phys. Rev. A 2002, 65, 042323

    2002

  43. [51]

    Somma, R. D. Quantum computation, complexity, and many-body physics. Ph.D.\ thesis, Instituto Balseiro, S.C. de Bariloche, Argentina and Los Alamos National Labo- ratory, Los Alamos, USA, 2005; arXiv:quant-ph/0512209

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J.; Whaley, K

    Motta, M.; Sung, K. J.; Whaley, K. B.; Head-Gordon, M.; Shee, J. Bridging physical intuition and hardware efficiency for correlated electronic states: the local unitary cluster Jastrow ansatz for electronic structure. Chem. Sci 2023, 14, 11213--11227

    2023

  45. [53]

    J.; McClean, J

    Huggins, W. J.; McClean, J. R.; Rubin, N. C.; Jiang, Z.; Wiebe, N.; Whaley, K. B.; Babbush, R. Efficient and noise resilient measurements for quantum chemistry on near-term quantum computers. npj Quantum Inf 2021, 7, 23

    2021

  46. [54]

    S.; Bogdanov, N

    Sun, Q.; Zhang, X.; Banerjee, S.; Bao, P.; Barbry, M.; Blunt, N. S.; Bogdanov, N. A.; Booth, G. H.; Chen, J.; Cui, Z.-H. Recent developments in the PySCF program package. J. Chem. Phys 2020, 153, 024109

    2020

  47. [55]

    C.; Blunt, N

    Sun, Q.; Berkelbach, T. C.; Blunt, N. S.; Booth, G. H.; Guo, S.; Li, Z.; Liu, J.; McClain, J. D.; Sayfutyarova, E. R.; Sharma, S. PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci 2018, 8, e1340

    2018

  48. [56]

    Libcint: An efficient general integral library for Gaussian basis functions

    Sun, Q. Libcint: An efficient general integral library for Gaussian basis functions. J. Comp. Chem 2015, 36, 1664--1671

    2015

  49. [57]

    Geometry optimization made simple with translation and rotation coordinates

    Wang, L.-P.; Song, C. Geometry optimization made simple with translation and rotation coordinates. The Journal of chemical physics 2016, 144

    2016

  50. [58]

    V.; Kelly, C

    Marenich, A. V.; Kelly, C. P.; Thompson, J. D.; Hawkins, G. D.; Chambers, C. C.; Giesen, D. J.; Winget, P.; Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G. Minnesota solvation database (MNSOL) version 2012. 2020

    2012

  51. [59]

    R.; Sun, Q.; Chan, G

    Sayfutyarova, E. R.; Sun, Q.; Chan, G. K.-L.; Knizia, G. Automated Construction of Molecular Active Spaces from Atomic Valence Orbitals. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2017, 13, 4063--4078

    2017

  52. [60]

    A.; Barison, S.; Fuller, B.; Garrison, J

    Saki, A. A.; Barison, S.; Fuller, B.; Garrison, J. R.; Glick, J. R.; Johnson, C.; Mezzacapo, A.; Robledo-Moreno, J.; Rossmannek, M.; Schweigert, P.; Sitdikov, I.; Sung, K. J. Qiskit addon: sample-based quantum diagonalization. 2024; https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit-addon-sqd, ...

    2024

  53. [61]

    S.; Bogdanov, N

    ASun, Q.; Zhang, X.; Banerjee, S.; Bao, P.; Barbry, M.; Blunt, N. S.; Bogdanov, N. A.; Booth, G. H.; Chen, J.; Cui, Z.-H. PySCF: Python-based Simulations of Chemistry Framework. 2025; https://github.com/pyscf/pyscf, Accessed: 2025-1-1

    2025

  54. [62]

    https://github.com/qiskit-community/ffsim, 2024; Accessed: 2024-09-01

    ffsims developers ffsim: Faster simulations of fermionic quantum circuits. https://github.com/qiskit-community/ffsim, 2024; Accessed: 2024-09-01

    2024

  55. [63]

    Aleksandrowicz, G. et al. Qiskit: An Open-source Framework for Quantum Computing. 2019

    2019

  56. [64]

    J.; Lishman, J.; Gacon, J.; Martiel, S.; Nation, P

    Javadi-Abhari, A.; Treinish, M.; Krsulich, K.; Wood, C. J.; Lishman, J.; Gacon, J.; Martiel, S.; Nation, P. D.; Bishop, L. S.; Cross, A. W. Quantum computing with Qiskit. arXiv:2405.08810 2024, Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08810

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J.; Emerson, J

    Wallman, J. J.; Emerson, J. Noise tailoring for scalable quantum computation via randomized compiling. Phys. Rev. A 2016, 94, 052325

    2016

  58. [66]

    Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems

    Viola, L.; Lloyd, S. Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A 1998, 58, 2733

    1998

  59. [67]

    Universal dynamical control of quantum mechanical decay: modulation of the coupling to the continuum

    Kofman, A.; Kurizki, G. Universal dynamical control of quantum mechanical decay: modulation of the coupling to the continuum. Phys. Rev. Lett 2001, 87, 270405

    2001

  60. [68]

    J.; Uys, H.; VanDevender, A

    Biercuk, M. J.; Uys, H.; VanDevender, A. P.; Shiga, N.; Itano, W. M.; Bollinger, J. J. Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory. Nature 2009, 458, 996--1000

    2009

  61. [69]

    Effects of dynamical decoupling and pulse-level optimizations on IBM quantum computers

    Niu, S.; Todri-Sanial, A. Effects of dynamical decoupling and pulse-level optimizations on IBM quantum computers. IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng 2022, 3, 1--10

    2022

  62. [70]

    J. Chem. Phys

    Moritz, P.; Nishihara, R.; Wang, S.; Tumanov, A.; Liaw, R.; Liang, E.; Elibol, M.; Yang, Z.; Paul, W.; Jordan, M. I. Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05889 2017, Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05889 mcitethebibliogra...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.