Beyond MP2 initialization for unitary coupled cluster quantum circuits
Abstract
The unitary coupled cluster (UCC) ansatz is a promising tool for achieving high-precision results using the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) algorithm in the NISQ era. However, results on quantum hardware are thus far very limited and simulations have only accessed small system sizes. We advance the state of the art of UCC simulations by utilizing an efficient sparse wavefunction circuit solver and studying systems up to 64 qubits. Here we report results obtained using this solver that demonstrate the power of the UCC ansatz and address pressing questions about optimal initial parameterizations and circuit construction, among others. Our approach enables meaningful benchmarking of the UCC ansatz, a crucial step in assessing the utility of VQE for achieving quantum advantage.
Introduction.— Simulating many-body fermionic systems is a promising future application of quantum computing [1, 2, 3]. While it is not yet clear that quantum advantage can generically be achieved in this area [4], it is believed that phase estimation can solve ground state problems for molecular systems that are beyond the reach of classical computers. However, it remains an open question whether or not other approaches can achieve quantum advantage with fewer resources [5, 6, 7, 8]. Phase estimation and other algorithms benefit from, or even require, significant overlap between the trial quantum state and the true solution. Single Slater determinants, such as Hartree-Fock states [9], are often used as the trial state when solving for ground states, as they are assumed to produce a sufficiently large overlap with the ground state wavefunction in many cases [10, 11, 12]. Yet such single determinant states may not be sufficient for arbitrarily large system sizes [13, 14, 10]. Improving quantum state preparation techniques is a key step toward advancing quantum computing for quantum chemistry and other Hamiltonian simulation applications.
Noise and decoherence present another central difficulty of achieving quantum advantage in the current noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era of quantum hardware [15]. The variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) is a quantum-classical hybrid algorithm that is particularly well-suited for NISQ devices and has a wide range of applicability [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. While VQE does not provide exact ground state solutions like quantum phase estimation, the approximate wavefunctions produced by VQE are often sufficiently accurate to provide meaningful physical insights. Furthermore, these approximate solutions are well-suited for quantum state preparation for use in more accurate algorithms.
Despite its current popularity, VQE possesses a number of drawbacks. In particular, the classical optimization of circuit parameters presents many challenges, including barren plateaus (i.e., exponentially vanishing gradients in high dimensions), local minima, and saddle points [51, 52, 53, 54, 55]. Many approaches exist for minimizing the computational burden of classical optimization for VQE, with some proposals eschewing optimization entirely [56, 57, 50, 58, 59]. The crux of several of these strategies is a focus on choosing high-quality initial parameters, shifting some of the computational burden from optimization to initialization. While taking this idea to the limit, in which classical computation can produce a circuit that generates a wave function beyond what we can simulate classically seems unlikely with current technologies, pushing this limit as far as can be done with high performance computing resources is likely to be a fruitful strategy for near term and fault tolerant eras. In this work we compare the utility of different initialization strategies for a particular VQE ansatz that is often employed in quantum chemistry problems, the unitary coupled cluster (UCC) ansatz [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65].
There are several proposed strategies for generating the initial parameters for the UCC ansatz [66, 67, 64, 68, 69], including applications in which no optimization is performed on quantum hardware [58]. The most widely employed strategy generates parameters using classical Møller–Plesset perturbation theory of the second order (MP2) [66, 67, 64, 68]. Another less thoroughly studied approach is the use of the coupled cluster singles and doubles (CCSD) classical simulation method to generate initial parameters [70, 71]. The CCSD technique generally produces more accurate ground state energies than MP2 calculations and is not prohibitively more computationally burdensome for all but the largest of problems. However, CCSD has not been previously explored as a method to initialize VQE circuits, partly because the sparse wave function simulators in which it can be tested were only recently developed, and partly because it often produces non-variational energies for strongly correlated molecules. This raises the question: Which technique produces superior initial parameters for UCC ansatzes, MP2 or CCSD?
In this paper, we provide the first numerical study (to our knowledge) comparing the performance of UCC ansatzes prepared using parameters generated via MP2 and via CCSD. We employ an algorithm for the factorized form of UCC implemented using our state-of-the-art sparse wavefunction circuit solver, enabling us to study problems of up to 64 qubits [72, 73]. By calculating the ground state energy of a wide range of molecules using both MP2 and CCSD parameters in the UCC ansatz, we show conclusively that CCSD parameters outperform MP2, generating significantly more accurate ground state energies. Importantly, we find that CCSD parameters outperform MP2 even in the case that the CCSD calculation fails to produce a physical energy. We also compare the subsequent optimization of circuits initialized with MP2 and CCSD parameters, finding that CCSD circuits generally requires far fewer optimization steps to obtain the same accuracy as MP2 circuits.
Technique.— The UCC ansatz is an exponential operator acting on the Hartree–Fock reference wavefunction defined as
(1) |
where the coupled cluster operator is
(2) |
The and operators are the second-quantized creation and annihilation operators, respectively, acting on the occupied molecular orbitals in the reference wavefunction indexed by or the virtual orbitals indexed by . The parameters of the UCC ansatz are indicated by . We employ the factorized form of the UCC ansatz, which is given by
(3) |
where the individual UCC exponential factors are defined as
(4) |
We only include single excitations () and double excitations () in the ansatz, along with the conjugate deexcitation operators and . This approximation to the full UCC ansatz is known as the unitary coupled cluster singles and doubles (UCCSD) ansatz. Different qubit to fermion mappings can be used to realize these operators in circuit form, but they do not affect our results or change the ansatz expressivity.
We utilize a specific representation of the UCCSD ansatz that exploits the fact that each UCC factor can be expressed in terms of sines and cosines of the parameters that can be efficiently computed on classical hardware [72]. The order of the individual UCCSD factors is not strictly defined [74, 75], and we chose to order them based on the magnitude of the parameter values (), placing the factor that contains the largest parameter to the right in Equation (3). We refer to this as the “magnitude” ordering 111The parameters produced by MP2 and CCSD are between and for all molecules we study, so the periodicity of does not cause any ambiguity in the “magnitude” ordering..
We generate the conventional MP2 and CCSD UCCSD parameters using the PySCF implementation of the techniques described in [67], and note that the MP2 parameterization does not include any single excitation operators [77]. We use a computationally efficient sparse wavefunction approach, limiting the number of determinants included in the wavefunction after each UCC factor is applied [73]. We do this by checking the number of determinants in the wavefunction after applying each UCC factor. If is greater than the desired number of determinants, , we sort the amplitudes by magnitude and discard the determinants with the smallest amplitudes such that only determinants remain in the wavefunction.
Results.— We report the correlation energies obtained from UCCSD circuits parameterized using MP2 and CCSD parameters for a wide range of molecules. All orbitals used for both the classical and circuit calulcations come from Hartree-Fock simulations. For the molecules LiH, HF, , , , , , and we use experimental geometries from the CCCBDB database and employ the cc-pCVDZ basis set [78]. We also study the linear hydrogen chains , , , and , for which we use an interatomic distance of 1 Å, and a stretched geometry of with an interatomic distance of 1.5 Å. We employ the STO-6G basis set for all hydrogen chains. Our sparse wavefunction circuit solver is limited to 64 qubits, so we include only the 32 lowest-energy molecular orbitals in each molecule 222This limitation of our solver is not algorithmic and future implementations can be expanded beyond 64 qubits.. We also limit the total number of doubles operators in the UCC circuits for these molecules to 15,000. This significantly reduces the computational cost of the calculations but still greatly exceeds the number of operators required to converge the energy produced by the circuits. Our approach has similar scaling to a time-dependent selected configuration interaction approach, which some of us have applied to larger systems in other contexts [56, 57].
Because we limit the number of determinants retained in the wavefunction to , we must study the dependence of the correlation energies on and extrapolate to the large- limit to obtain a converged result. Specifically, we calculate the correlation energy as a function of up to 100,000 for each molecule, as shown in Fig. 1a for . We extrapolate to the large- limit via a quadratic fitting of the data as a function of ,
(5) |
as shown in Fig. 1b. The -intercept of the quadratic fit is the extrapolated correlation energy that would be obtained if we pruned no determinants during the calculation. Thus this is a prediction of the energy that would be produced on perfect quantum hardware. We refer to these extrapolated energies as the UCC (MP2) and UCC (CCSD) correlation energies, depending on the initial parameters used in the circuit. The fit accounts for the twenty data points at the largest values of , those with greater than 18,000, which produces extrapolated energies with insignificant errors of at most 0.1 mHar.
The choice of fitting only the twenty largest values of is arbitrary, so in Fig. 2 we study the dependence of the extrapolated energy of on the choice of the fitting window. We calculate the extrapolated energy using fitting windows containing a range of smallest values of that are greater than a particular minimum value, . For each value of , we perform a secondary extrapolation of the UCC (MP2) and UCC (CCSD) energies to the infinite- limit, marked by the dashed lines. Both the secondary extrapolated energies and the values obtained at the maximum value of vary by less than 1.6 mHa between the different values of , indicating that varying the energy window produces extrapolated energies that are consistent within chemical accuracy. Further study is required to confirm that this holds in general and to determine the best practice for extrapolating energies to the infinite- limit. However, we find the conservative energies predicted by our chosen fitting window to be sufficiently accurate for the context of this work.
We report the CCSD(T), CCSD, UCC (MP2), UCC (CCSD), and full configuration interaction (FCI) correlation energies for the hydrogen chains and LiH in Table 1. Calculating the FCI energy for the remaining molecules is impractical, so we instead report the adaptive sampling configuration interaction (ASCI) correlation energies 333We use determinants for all ASCI calculations, at which the energies are converged. for these molecules in Table 2, along with the CCSD(T), CCSD, UCC (MP2), and UCC (CCSD) correlation energies [81]. We also plot these energies as fractions of the best reference energy, either FCI or ASCI, for each molecule in Fig. 3. The UCC (CCSD) energy outperforms the UCC (MP2) energy by a wide margin in all cases, with a difference of approximately 15% of the reference energy for the hydrogen chains (including stretched ) and differences ranging from 1.3% to 9.6% for the remaining molecules.
Mol | FCI | CCSD(T) | CCSD |
|
MP2 |
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LiH |
Mol | ASCI | CCSD(T) | CCSD |
|
MP2 |
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HF | ||||||||||
Because the individual terms in the factorized form of the UCCSD ansatz do not necessarily commute, the ordering of the operators can have a significant impact on the accuracy of the ansatz [74]. To address this concern, we calculate the correlation energy of the molecules we study in this work using 100 random orderings of the UCCSD factors. We find that the standard deviation of the correlation energy is at most 0.1 mHa for molecules with equilibrium geometries, with the exception of which produced a standard deviation of 0.4 mHa. Only the strongly correlated stretched geometry of has a significant standard deviation of 2.4 mHa. We set to 10,000 for these calculations to reduce the computational burden, which likely artificially inflates the standard deviations. We conclude that factor ordering is significant only for strongly correlated molecules, in agreement with previous studies [74]. Importantly, we find that the magnitude ordering obtains energies close to the minimum energy produced by random orderings for all molecules besides , for which the magnitude ordering produced an energy approximately 0.15 mHa above the minimum.
The UCC (CCSD) energy closely matches the CCSD energy for all molecules studied, with the exception of stretched , but the MP2 and UCC (MP2) energies do not exhibit any such close agreement. Excluding the results for stretched , the differences between the CCSD and UCC (CCSD) energies range between 0.0% and 2.1% with an average of 0.4% for the molecules we study, while for MP2 and UCC (MP2) they range between 0.4% and 19.7% with an average of 9.2%. These statistics show a clear advantage for UCC (CCSD). Furthermore, the UCC (CCSD) energies for HF, , and are lower than the corresponding CCSD energies. As such, the CCSD parameterization is likely better suited than MP2 for use in recent proposals for no-optimization strategies to obtain quantum advantage [58]. It is plausible that the better performance of the CCSD initialization could arise solely from the fact that the MP2 parameterization does not include any singles operators. To determine whether or not this is the case, we repeated our analysis for a subset of the molecules studied above, now excluding the singles operators from the CCSD-initialized UCC circuits, and plot the results in Fig. 4. While the resulting extrapolated energies do not achieve the same level of accuracy as standard UCC (CCSD), they still outperform the MP2-initialized circuits, indicating that the advantage is not simply due to the inclusion of singles operators.
It is well-known that traditional (projected) classical coupled cluster techniques can, in some situations, obtain energies that are not variational (dropping below the FCI results) or, even worse, energies that diverge from the physical ground state result. One such failure scenario is the chemistry of bond breaking, which we investigate here using the molecule with a stretched interatomic distance of 1.5 Å. The CCSD and CCSD(T) energies of this molecule are lower than the FCI energy, an example of coupled cluster techniques producing non-variational results. Despite the failure of CCSD to produce an accurate energy for this molecule, the UCC circuit parameterized with CCSD produces a variational energy, as it must because the VQE approach is variational. The UCC (CCSD) energy for stretched is 12.2% higher than the FCI energy, compared to 1.7% higher for the equilibrium geometry. These results show that the UCC ansatz parameterized with CCSD is robust to failures of the classical theory, but with some loss of accuracy. Regardless, our results show a close correspondence between UCC (CCSD) and CCSD theories and further study of this will provide insight into the power of coupled cluster approaches on quantum hardware.
Finally, we briefly compare classical optimization of the UCC ansatz initialized with MP2 and CCSD parameters. As test cases we study LiH, , HF, and stretched , again using experimental geometries [78]. We consider both equilibrium and stretched geometries for LiH and , stretched by factors of 1.5 and 2.0 respectively, and the same stretched geometry of as above. We use the cc-pCVDZ basis for LiH, the cc-pVDZ basis and the frozen core approximation for and HF, and the STO-6G basis for stretched . We note that although the MP2 initialization sets for all singles operators, the circuits still contain these operators and their angles are included in the optimization. For each calculation we use and do not attempt to extrapolate energies to the infinite- limit. Since the molecules in this study all have singlet spin states and geometries with symmetry, we can reduce the number of variational parameters that need to be optimized in the UCCSD ansatz in two ways. First, we use spin-complemented single- and double-excitation operators which combines parameters that are necessarily the same for these electronic states [75]. Second, we use point group symmetry arguments to eliminate parameters associated with operators that do not retain the symmetry of the initial Hartree-Fock SCF solution [82]. This reduces the number of parameters by a factor of approximately the order of the point group. For example, these symmetry considerations reduce the number of parameters in the LiH circuit from 2268 to 408. We use the BFGS method as implemented in SciPy to optimize the circuit parameters, setting the tolerance to , except for HF for which we set it to due to limited computational resources [83]. We plot the errors as a function of optimization step in Fig. 5.
For the weakly correlated systems (equilibrium LiH, equilibrium , and stretched LiH), we find that the optimizer fails to significantly reduce the error produced by the CCSD-initialized circuit, indicating that these parameters are near optimal. The remaining, more strongly correlated systems exhibit significant reduction of the error with optimization of the CCSD-initialized circuits. The MP2- and CCSD-initialized circuits obtain approximately the same final error after optimization, but the MP2 circuits consistently require many more optimization steps to achieve this minimum error. Considering current difficulty of classical optimization of VQE circuits implemented on NISQ-era hardware, we posit that initializing the UCC ansatz with CCSD parameters rather than MP2 parameters can significantly reduce the challenge of achieving quantum advantage in VQE. We also note that the final error obtained by the MP2 circuit for stretched is significantly lower than the CCSD circuit. This indicates that the MP2 circuit lays in a basin of attraction around a better local minimum than the CCSD circuit, despite having a larger initial error. This result indicates the relationship between initial energy and the nearest local minima of the energy landscape for the UCC ansatz is deserving of further study. Regardless, even in this case, the CCSD circuit reaches the minimum of its basin of attraction in significantly fewer optimization steps than the MP2 circuit takes to reach its own basin.
Discussion.— In this paper we demonstrated through extensive calculations that CCSD parameterizations of the UCC ansatz consistently outperform their MP2 counterparts. As such, it is important to compare the computational costs of obtaining the CCSD and MP2 parameterizations. Although MP2 is faster and, in fact, often used as a starting point for coupled cluster simulations, CCSD nevertheless requires reasonable classical computation resources for even moderately sized systems. For example, the CCSD calculations presented in this work and others run in minutes or less on a laptop [58, 69].
MP2 and CCSD runtimes scale as O() and O(), respectively, making these prohibitively expensive algorithms in the large- qubit limit, but it is unlikely that NISQ era quantum computers will exceed classically-accessible simulations of CCSD in the near future. Classical coupled cluster simulations can be accelerated in various ways [84, 85], indicating that simulations involving hundreds of qubits to parameterize circuits is in reach. Considering this, as well as the small prefactors of these runtime scalings and the efficiency of modern implementations of these techniques, CCSD is poised to remain an accessible and highly accurate method of UCC parameterization for the forseeable future of the NISQ era. As such, our results suggest that CCSD should replace MP2 as the standard approach to classically parameterizing UCC circuits.
In our investigation we found that circuits initialized with CCSD parameters produce drastically lower energies than those initialized with MP2 parameters. In fact, for weakly correlated molecules the CCSD-initialized circuits often obtain nearly all of the correlation energy. Furthermore, we showed that the energies produced by circuits for strongly correlated molecules converge in far fewer optimization steps when initialized with CCSD rather than MP2 parameters. Despite differences in convergence rate, we found in all cases but one that the MP2- and CCSD-initialized circuits obtain similar energies after optimizations. In one case, BeH2, the MP2-initialized circuit obtained a significantly lower energy after optimization than the CCSD-initialized circuit, indicating that the two initial circuits lie in the different basins of attraction, an interesting result about local minima deserving of further investigation.
Our results also display the power of our sparse wavefunction circuit solver, which enables us to perform UCC simulations at system sizes that have not been previously explored. Because our solver is capable of handling up to 64 qubit problems with its current implementation, we are able to access a regime in which it is possible to meaningfully test and differentiate VQE results. In this case, the ability to access large systems sizes enabled us to explore a widely used parameterization for UCC circuits and challenge conventional knowledge about it.
Testing our approach with higher order coupled cluster techniques on both the classical [81] and quantum side [69] is an important topic of future research. The correspondence we identified between CCSD and UCC (CCSD) is weakened when classical CCSD breaks down, as seen in for strongly correlated molecules like stretched . These results motivate the study of more advanced classical approaches to parameterize UCC-type circuits. Establishing the correspondence between higher order classical coupled cluster theories and the UCC analogues of them, such as a UCC (CCSDT) circuit [69], would elucidate the full potential of the UCC ansatz.
Acknowledgements.— We thank Diptarka Hait for assisting our calculations. We are grateful for support from NASA Ames Research Center. We acknowledge funding from the NASA ARMD Transformational Tools and Technology (TTT) Project. Part of this work is funded by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, National Quantum Information Science Research Centers, Co-Design Center for Quantum Advantage under Contract No. DE-SC0012704. Calculations were performed as part of the XSEDE computational Project No. TG-MCA93S030 on Bridges-2 at the Pittsburgh supercomputer center. M.R.H. and D.C. were supported by NASA Academic Mission Services, Contract No. NNA16BD14C. M.R.H. and D.C. participated in the Feynman Quantum Academy internship program.
References
- Feynman [1982] R. P. Feynman, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 467 (1982).
- Abrams and Lloyd [1997] D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2586 (1997).
- Ortiz et al. [2001] G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022319 (2001).
- Lee et al. [2023] S. Lee, J. Lee, H. Zhai, Y. Tong, A. M. Dalzell, A. Kumar, P. Helms, J. Gray, Z.-H. Cui, W. Liu, et al., Nature communications 14, 1952 (2023).
- Kitaev [1995] A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the abelian stabilizer problem (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026 [quant-ph] .
- Abrams and Lloyd [1999] D. S. Abrams and S. Lloyd, Physical Review Letters 83, 5162 (1999).
- Aspuru-Guzik et al. [2005] A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. D. Dutoi, P. J. Love, and M. Head-Gordon, Science 309, 1704 (2005).
- McArdle et al. [2020] S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020).
- Szabo and Ostlund [2012] A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund, Modern quantum chemistry: introduction to advanced electronic structure theory (Courier Corporation, 2012).
- Tubman et al. [2018] N. M. Tubman, C. Mejuto-Zaera, J. M. Epstein, D. Hait, D. S. Levine, W. Huggins, Z. Jiang, J. R. McClean, R. Babbush, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, Postponing the orthogonality catastrophe: efficient state preparation for electronic structure simulations on quantum devices (2018), arXiv:1809.05523 [quant-ph] .
- O’Brien et al. [2019] T. E. O’Brien, B. Tarasinski, and B. M. Terhal, New Journal of Physics 21, 023022 (2019).
- O’Malley et al. [2016] P. J. J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, P. V. Coveney, P. J. Love, H. Neven, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016).
- van Vleck [1936] J. H. van Vleck, Phys. Rev. 49, 232 (1936).
- McClean et al. [2014] J. R. McClean, R. Babbush, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 5, 4368 (2014).
- Preskill [2018] J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
- Stavenger et al. [2022] T. J. Stavenger, E. Crane, K. C. Smith, C. T. Kang, S. M. Girvin, and N. Wiebe, in 2022 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC) (2022) pp. 1–8.
- Bassman Oftelie et al. [2022] L. Bassman Oftelie, C. Powers, and W. A. De Jong, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 3, 1 (2022).
- Magann et al. [2023] A. B. Magann, S. E. Economou, and C. Arenz, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033227 (2023).
- Harrow and Napp [2021] A. W. Harrow and J. C. Napp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 140502 (2021).
- Anastasiou et al. [2024] P. G. Anastasiou, Y. Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013254 (2024).
- Carrasquilla et al. [2021] J. Carrasquilla, D. Luo, F. Pérez, A. Milsted, B. K. Clark, M. Volkovs, and L. Aolita, Physical Review A 104, 032610 (2021).
- Martyn et al. [2023] J. M. Martyn, K. Najafi, and D. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 081601 (2023).
- Burton et al. [2022] H. G. A. Burton, D. Marti-Dafcik, D. P. Tew, and D. J. Wales, Exact electronic states with shallow quantum circuits through global optimisation (2022), arXiv:2207.00085 [quant-ph] .
- Claudino et al. [2020] D. Claudino, J. Wright, A. J. McCaskey, and T. S. Humble, Frontiers in Chemistry 8, 606863 (2020).
- Tang et al. [2021] H. L. Tang, V. Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021).
- Chamaki et al. [2022a] D. Chamaki, M. Metcalf, and W. A. de Jong, Compact molecular simulation on quantum computers via combinatorial mapping and variational state preparation (2022a), arXiv:2205.11742 [quant-ph] .
- Ayral et al. [2023] T. Ayral, T. Louvet, Y. Zhou, C. Lambert, E. M. Stoudenmire, and X. Waintal, PRX Quantum 4, 020304 (2023).
- Cerezo et al. [2021] M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021).
- Luo et al. [2023] D. Luo, J. Shen, R. Dangovski, and M. Soljačić, Quack: Accelerating gradient-based quantum optimization with koopman operator learning (2023), arXiv:2211.01365 [quant-ph] .
- Guerreschi et al. [2020] G. G. Guerreschi, J. Hogaboam, F. Baruffa, and N. P. D. Sawaya, Quantum Science and Technology 5, 034007 (2020).
- Smelyanskiy et al. [2016] M. Smelyanskiy, N. P. D. Sawaya, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, qhipster: The quantum high performance software testing environment (2016), arXiv:1601.07195 [quant-ph] .
- Cao et al. [2019] Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chemical Reviews 119, 10856 (2019).
- Smith et al. [2023] K. C. Smith, E. Crane, N. Wiebe, and S. Girvin, PRX Quantum 4, 020315 (2023).
- Lu et al. [2022] T.-C. Lu, L. A. Lessa, I. H. Kim, and T. H. Hsieh, PRX Quantum 3, 040337 (2022).
- Zhao et al. [2020] A. Zhao, A. Tranter, W. M. Kirby, S. F. Ung, A. Miyake, and P. J. Love, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062322 (2020).
- Pathak et al. [2023] S. Pathak, A. E. Russo, S. K. Seritan, and A. D. Baczewski, Phys. Rev. A 107, L040601 (2023).
- Kandala et al. [2017] A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, nature 549, 242 (2017).
- Chamaki et al. [2022b] D. B. Chamaki, S. Hadfield, K. Klymko, B. O’Gorman, and N. M. Tubman, Self-consistent quantum iteratively sparsified hamiltonian method (squish): A new algorithm for efficient hamiltonian simulation and compression (2022b), arXiv:2211.16522 [quant-ph] .
- Lin and Tong [2020] L. Lin and Y. Tong, Quantum 4, 372 (2020).
- Unmuth-Yockey [2022] J. F. Unmuth-Yockey, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034515 (2022).
- Sherbert et al. [2021] K. Sherbert, F. Cerasoli, and M. B. Nardelli, RSC advances 11, 39438 (2021).
- Sherbert and Nardelli [2022] K. Sherbert and M. B. Nardelli, Orthogonal-ansatz vqe: Locating excited states without modifying a cost-function (2022), arXiv:2204.04361 [quant-ph] .
- Anschuetz and Kiani [2022] E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Nature Communications 13, 7760 (2022).
- Chivilikhin et al. [2020] D. Chivilikhin, A. Samarin, V. Ulyantsev, I. Iorsh, A. R. Oganov, and O. Kyriienko, Mog-vqe: Multiobjective genetic variational quantum eigensolver (2020), arXiv:2007.04424 [quant-ph] .
- Urbanek et al. [2020] M. Urbanek, D. Camps, R. Van Beeumen, and W. A. de Jong, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 5425 (2020).
- Kirby and Love [2021] W. M. Kirby and P. J. Love, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 110503 (2021).
- Kirby and Love [2019] W. M. Kirby and P. J. Love, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 200501 (2019).
- Li et al. [2023] A. C. Y. Li, M. S. Alam, T. Iadecola, A. Jahin, J. Job, D. M. Kurkcuoglu, R. Li, P. P. Orth, A. B. i. e. i. f. m. c. Özgüler, G. N. Perdue, and N. M. Tubman, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033071 (2023).
- Jahin et al. [2022] A. Jahin, A. C. Y. Li, T. Iadecola, P. P. Orth, G. N. Perdue, A. Macridin, M. S. Alam, and N. M. Tubman, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022434 (2022).
- Huggins et al. [2020] W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, U. Baek, B. O’Gorman, and K. B. Whaley, New Journal of Physics 22, 073009 (2020).
- Huembeli and Dauphin [2021] P. Huembeli and A. Dauphin, Quantum Science and Technology 6, 025011 (2021).
- McClean et al. [2018] J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Nature communications 9, 4812 (2018).
- Bittel and Kliesch [2021] L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120502 (2021).
- Uvarov et al. [2020] A. Uvarov, J. D. Biamonte, and D. Yudin, Phys. Rev. B 102, 075104 (2020).
- Arrasmith et al. [2021] A. Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, P. Czarnik, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Quantum 5, 558 (2021).
- Kremenetski et al. [2021a] V. Kremenetski, C. Mejuto-Zaera, S. J. Cotton, and N. M. Tubman, The Journal of Chemical Physics 155, 234106 (2021a).
- Kremenetski et al. [2021b] V. Kremenetski, T. Hogg, S. Hadfield, S. J. Cotton, and N. M. Tubman, Quantum alternating operator ansatz (qaoa) phase diagrams and applications for quantum chemistry (2021b), arXiv:2108.13056 [quant-ph] .
- Baek et al. [2023] U. Baek, D. Hait, J. Shee, O. Leimkuhler, W. J. Huggins, T. F. Stetina, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, PRX Quantum 4, 030307 (2023).
- Ravi et al. [2022] G. S. Ravi, P. Gokhale, Y. Ding, W. Kirby, K. Smith, J. M. Baker, P. J. Love, H. Hoffmann, K. R. Brown, and F. T. Chong, in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1, ASPLOS 2023 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022) p. 15–29.
- Hoffmann and Simons [1988] M. R. Hoffmann and J. Simons, The Journal of chemical physics 88, 993 (1988).
- Bartlett et al. [1989] R. J. Bartlett, S. A. Kucharski, and J. Noga, Chemical Physics Letters 155, 133 (1989).
- Peruzzo et al. [2014] A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’brien, Nature communications 5, 4213 (2014).
- Yung et al. [2014] M.-H. Yung, J. Casanova, A. Mezzacapo, J. McClean, L. Lamata, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and E. Solano, Scientific Reports 4, 3589 (2014).
- Romero et al. [2018] J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quantum Science and Technology 4, 014008 (2018).
- Anand et al. [2022] A. Anand, P. Schleich, S. Alperin-Lea, P. W. K. Jensen, S. Sim, M. Dí az-Tinoco, J. S. Kottmann, M. Degroote, A. F. Izmaylov, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chemical Society Reviews 51, 1659 (2022).
- Møller and Plesset [1934] C. Møller and M. S. Plesset, Phys. Rev. 46, 618 (1934).
- McClean et al. [2016] J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 (2016).
- Tilly et al. [2022] J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, Physics Reports 986, 1 (2022).
- Fedorov et al. [2022] D. A. Fedorov, Y. Alexeev, S. K. Gray, and M. Otten, Quantum 6, 703 (2022).
- Coester and Kümmel [1960] F. Coester and H. Kümmel, Nuclear Physics 17, 477 (1960).
- Bartlett and Musiał [2007] R. J. Bartlett and M. Musiał, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 291 (2007).
- Chen et al. [2021] J. Chen, H.-P. Cheng, and J. K. Freericks, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 17, 841 (2021).
- Mullinax and Tubman [2023] J. W. Mullinax and N. M. Tubman, Large-scale sparse wavefunction circuit simulator for applications with the variational quantum eigensolver (2023), arXiv:2301.05726 [quant-ph] .
- Grimsley et al. [2020] H. R. Grimsley, D. Claudino, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 1 (2020).
- Grimsley et al. [2019] H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, Nature Communications 10, 3007 (2019).
- Note [1] The parameters produced by MP2 and CCSD are between and for all molecules we study, so the periodicity of does not cause any ambiguity in the “magnitude” ordering.
- Sun et al. [2020] Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, J. J. Eriksen, Y. Gao, S. Guo, J. Hermann, M. R. Hermes, K. Koh, P. Koval, S. Lehtola, Z. Li, J. Liu, N. Mardirossian, J. D. McClain, M. Motta, B. Mussard, H. Q. Pham, A. Pulkin, W. Purwanto, P. J. Robinson, E. Ronca, E. R. Sayfutyarova, M. Scheurer, H. F. Schurkus, J. E. T. Smith, C. Sun, S.-N. Sun, S. Upadhyay, L. K. Wagner, X. Wang, A. White, J. D. Whitfield, M. J. Williamson, S. Wouters, J. Yang, J. M. Yu, T. Zhu, T. C. Berkelbach, S. Sharma, A. Y. Sokolov, and G. K.-L. Chan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 024109 (2020).
- CCC [2022] Nist computational chemistry comparison and benchmark database, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 101 (2022).
- Note [2] This limitation of our solver is not algorithmic and future implementations can be expanded beyond 64 qubits.
- Note [3] We use determinants for all ASCI calculations, at which the energies are converged.
- Tubman et al. [2020] N. M. Tubman, C. D. Freeman, D. S. Levine, D. Hait, M. Head-Gordon, and K. B. Whaley, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 16, 2139 (2020).
- Cao et al. [2022] C. Cao, J. Hu, W. Zhang, X. Xu, D. Chen, F. Yu, J. Li, H.-S. Hu, D. Lv, and M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev. A 105, 062452 (2022).
- Virtanen et al. [2020] P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, İ. Polat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henriksen, E. A. Quintero, C. R. Harris, A. M. Archibald, A. H. Ribeiro, F. Pedregosa, P. van Mulbregt, and SciPy 1.0 Contributors, Nature Methods 17, 261 (2020).
- Riplinger and Neese [2013] C. Riplinger and F. Neese, The Journal of Chemical Physics 138, 034106 (2013).
- Kaliman and Krylov [2017] I. A. Kaliman and A. I. Krylov, Journal of Computational Chemistry 38, 842 (2017).