The Trotter step size required for accurate quantum simulation of quantum chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The simulation of molecules is a widely anticipated application of quantum computers. However, recent studies [1, 2] have cast a shadow on this hope by revealing that the complexity in gate count of such simulations increases with the number of spin orbitals N as N8 , which becomes prohibitive even for molecules of modest size N ∼ 100. This study was partly based on a scaling analysis of the Trotter step required for an ensemble of random artificial molecules. Here, we revisit this analysis and find instead that the scaling is closer to N6 in worst case for real model molecules we have studied, indicating that the random ensemble fails to accurately capture the statistical properties of real world molecules. Actual scaling may be significantly better than this due to averaging effects. We then present an alternative simulation scheme and show that it can sometimes outperform existing schemes, but that this possibility depends crucially on the details of the simulated molecule. We obtain further improvements using a version of the coalescing scheme of [1]; this scheme is based on using different Trotter steps for different terms. The method we use to bound the complexity of simulating a given molecule is efficient, in contrast to the approach of [1, 2] which relied on exponentially costly classical exact simulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".