Probing Quantum Efficiency: Exploring System Hardness in Electronic Ground State Energy Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the question of how correlated the system hardness is between classical algorithms of electronic structure theory in ground state estimation and quantum algorithms. To define the system hardness for classical algorithms, we employ empirical criterion based on the deviation of electronic energies produced by coupled cluster and configuration interaction methods from the exact ones along multiple bonds dissociation in a set of molecular systems. For quantum algorithms, we have selected the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) and Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) methods. As characteristics of the system hardness for quantum methods, we analyzed circuit depths for the state preparation, the number of quantum measurements needed for the energy expectation value, and various cost characteristics for the Hamiltonian encodings via Trotter approximation and linear combination of unitaries (LCU). Our results show that the quantum resource requirements are mostly unaffected by classical hardness, with the only exception being the state preparation part, which contributes to both VQE and QPE algorithm costs. However, there are clear indications that constructing the initial state with a significant overlap with the true ground state is easier than obtaining the state with an energy expectation value within chemical precision. These results support optimism regarding the identification of a molecular system where a quantum algorithm excels over its classical counterpart, as quantum methods can maintain efficiency in classically challenging systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".