Accuracy and resource advantages of quantum eigenvalue estimation with non-Hermitian transcorrelated electronic Hamiltonians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In electronic structure calculations, the transcorrelated method consists in transforming the Hamiltonian so as to remove the Coulomb cusp in its eigenfunctions. As a result, the wavefunction can be described more accurately without increasing the size of the basis set. However, the transcorrelated Hamiltonian is non-Hermitian and non-normal, which makes many common quantum algorithms inapplicable. Recently, a quantum eigenvalue estimation algorithm (QEVE) was proposed for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra [FOCS 65, 1051 (2024)]. Although the asymptotic scaling of this algorithm with the desired accuracy is shown to be optimal, the constant factor in its complexity scaling has not been analyzed. Here we investigate the cost of QEVE applied to transcorrelated electronic Hamiltonians of second-row atoms and compare it to the cost of applying standard qubitization to non-transcorrelated Hamiltonians. We find that, with the xTC approximation, the T gate count of QEVE in the minimal STO-6G basis is between those of standard qubitization in the cc-pVTZ and cc-pVQZ bases. The accuracy of the transcorrelated energy differs between systems: for Li and Be, it is more accurate than the cc-pVQZ energy, while for larger atoms, the error gradually increases, exceeding the cc-pVDZ level for O, F, and Ne.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".