Arxiv:2006.02488V1 [Quant-Ph] 3 Jun 2020

arXiv:2006.02488v1 [quant-ph] 3 Jun 2020 sn o e uis[ qubits few in- associate too errors classically using for b small, correct followed to perform computer post-processing quantum classical to the ex- is on being calculations approach currently tractable, One are resources quantum plored. fewer with sults resources. quantum for red demand while their accuracy sim- desired ing quantum the to returning approaches of th realize capable clear to ulation becomes made be func- it must qubits basis effort logical of an to thousands, translated not When if calcula tions. hundreds, ES contain classical may routine signifi tions Today require may resources. scale quantum at cant remain simulations fact to, quantum the continue useful insights, and that have, and spaces benchmarks active important small provide mini and on sets based simulations basis While mal spaces electrons. active and to orbitals restricted few being a or core describing only) orbitals (i.e. sets valence reporte basis minimal simulations employing ES t date quantum to most spin-orbitals in of resulted mappings has qubits, one-to-one popular classical of and limitations the ulators with combined fact, imma- This are ture. platforms computation quantum modern gorithms, otn plcto o unu optr[ computer quantum a for application portant orlto ucin o oeue opiigfis n se and [ elements first row comprising ond ground-sta molecules and for ener energies functions potential excited-state correlation of and calculation ground- the curves, in results promising ered molecul atoms, eigenstates materials. for low-lying and Schrödinger equation or pro electronic ground the (ES) the of structure for electronic solving the namely is lem, exam- application key such a of science, materials ple and chemistry quantum of text w eea prahst ecigmr uniaiere- quantitative more reaching to approaches general Two al- and hardware quantum of development rapid the Despite h iuaino unu aybd ytm sa im- an is systems many-body quantum of simulation The nrcn er,avreyo unu loihshsdeliv- has algorithms quantum of variety a years, recent In unu iuaino lcrncsrcuewt transcorr with structure electronic of simulation Quantum rncreaineffects correlation tron n h ubro uisb atro three. of factor a by qubits of number number the the reduces and Hamiltonians transcorrelated en of correlated use explicitly The demonstrat produce results e bases, Our variational compact (q-UCCSD). extremely quantum doubles the and of singles cost with computational f solvers the quantum and general racy for requirements investiga resource To reduce He singularities. electron-electron are of they free operator; are a unitary by two-body cost, correlated polynomial plicitly at classically, constructed ficiently unu iuain feetoi tutr ihtransfor with structure electronic of simulations Quantum 8 ai Motta, Mario .INTRODUCTION I. – 15 3 16 oehA Latone, A. Joseph ecdsBn eerhadDvlpetNrhAeia Sun America, North Development and Research Mercedes-Benz ]. bsssterr) h eodis second The errors). set (basis ] nraigacrc ihu xr unu resources quantum extra without accuracy increasing 1 B unu lae,60HryRa,SnJs,C 52,USA 95120, CA Jose, San Road, Harry 650 Almaden, – Quantum IBM 2 eateto hmsr,Vrii eh lcsug A240 VA Blacksburg, Tech, Virginia Chemistry, of Department 1 av .Gujarati, P. Tanvi priori a 1 r eosrtd h rncreae aitnasue i used Hamiltonians transcorrelated The demonstrated. are uso Lee, Eunseok 1 – 7 .I h con- the In ]. 1 ui .Rice, E. Julia with d sim- fa of 3 uc- es, nd gy b- dadF Valeev, F. Edward c- at te y o d s - - - ewehrteueo uhtasomdHmloin can Hamiltonians transformed such of use the whether te prxmt iiaiytasomto iha ex- an with transformation similarity approximate n ain fsalssessnetepoern oko Hyller of [ work 1929 pioneering in the compu- aas since precision systems high small of for tations commonplace been has functions al nrdcdb osadHny[ Handy and Boys ori by approach introduced Hamiltonian nally transcorrelated the of extension fYniadSizk o aoia rncreae 1 (CT F12 [ transcorrelated Hamiltonian canonical F12) for Shiozaki and r Yanai the of following includ effects correlation that electron dynamical Hamiltonian the similarity-transformed a defining edneo h aefnto nteitreetoi dis- such inter-electronic of the use on the Although function wave d tances. parametric the explicit of require or- pendence and by efficiently expansions approximated product be bital cannot cusps These trons. i e ie ueosipoeet vrteyas[ years the over improvements ba the Numerous to size. respect electronic set with sis properties the molecular of other convergence and energy the meth “R12”) improve as dramatically known ods (originally F12 correlated explicitly sets basis large of use the requires complete and the limit to (CBS) convergence dy- set slow basis of to treatment leads inefficient correlation The namic accuracy. chemical necessa is achieve which efficiently, correlation notoriously, dynamic treat but, not correlation, wa electronic efficient co static and (or natural address determinants a offers Slater functions) single state of figuration superposition a as tion approach. latter the on focus quantum we and paper, qubits this accurate of In more number gates). for the in required (measured resources calculations quantum the reduce to yTnn [ Ten-no by ro- and black-box quite calculations [ F12 bust the made now have ehd omlclshsbcm osbeol u othe [ Kutzelnigg to by due proposed only ideas possible the become of development has molecules to methods up [ cusps neato,teshort-range the interaction, mta,icueu otopril neatos and interactions, two-particle to up include rmitian, riscmaal otoefo uhlre bases. larger much from those to comparable ergies med 1 rteSh¨dne qain eepoeteaccu- the explore we Schrödinger equation, the or nti ok ecnie h s fepii orlto for correlation explicit of use the consider we work, this In h ovninldsrpino h aybd aefunc- wave many-body the of description conventional The ned u oteCuobsnuaiyo h electronic the of singularity Coulomb the to due Indeed, fCO ae yu otoodr fmagnitude, of orders two to up by gates CNOT of suohKumar, Ashutosh gnovr ae nteuiayculdcluster coupled unitary the on based igensolver, httasorltdHmloin,pie with paired Hamiltonians, transcorrelated that e 30 binitio ab 17 – 32 – 19 ]. 35 2 20 ttepit fcaecnebtentoelec- two between coalescence of points the at ] n ye .Takeshita Y. Tyler and aitnasta nld oeelec- some include that Hamiltonians n u [ Luo and ] ], yae A905 USA 94085, CA nyvale, efficient 33 2 .TeC-1 hoycnb ena an as seen be can theory CT-F12 The ]. ltdHamiltonian: elated 1 USA 61, onrMasteran, Conner 36 plcto fepiil correlated explicitly of application yaia correlation dynamical ,weesnuaiyfe Hamil- singularity-free where ], hswr r ef- are work this n xlctycorrelated explicitly 3 34 n ae improved later and ] 2 introduces 21 22 tdoes it .The ]. ecipe wave yto ry – to y 29 gies n- e- . - ] - - - 2 tonians are constructed from the similarity transformation of tion II, results are presented in section III and conclusions are the original Hamiltonian through a geminal correlation oper- drawn in section IV. ator Aˆ,

ˆ ˆ Hˆ → Hˆ ′ = e−AHeˆ A . (1) II. METHODS

What makes the CT-F12 method robust and simpler to A. Canonical transcorrelated F12 Hamiltonian use, compared to the earlier transcorrelated Hamiltonian for- malisms, is the choice of the unitary operator in the similarity In the CT-F12 method, two main approximations are em- Aˆ ˆ ˆ† transformation (e , where A = −A ), thereby ensuring that ployed on top of the approximate BCH expansion of Eq. (2): the effective Hamiltonian remains Hermitian, and in the trun- (a) the expansionhas been truncated to only includeup to dou- cation of the approximate BakerCampbellHausdorff (BCH) ble commutators and (b) in the double commutator term, the expansion of Eq. (1) to include only 1 and 2-body effective full Hamiltonian Hˆ has been replaced by its effective 1-body Hamiltonian elements, following the ideas from the canonical constituent, the Fock operator Fˆ, transformation (CT) method [37, 38], 1 ˆ ′ −Aˆ ˆ Aˆ Hˆ ′ ≈ Hˆ + [H,ˆ Aˆ] + [[F,ˆ Aˆ] , Aˆ] . (3) H = e He 1,2 2 1,2 1,2 1 (2) ≈ Hˆ + [H,ˆ Aˆ] + [[H,ˆ Aˆ] , Aˆ] + .... These approximations are consistent with the ones employed 1,2 2 1,2 1,2 in some approximate CT-F12 theories [53] and ensure that the where, [..]1,2 refers to the retention of only 1 and 2-body effective Hamiltionian is correct through the second-order in elements of the given commutator. Specifically, the opera- the perturbation (in the Møller-Plesset sense). tor Aˆ is defined using the Slater-type geminal, Fˆ12(r12) = Figure 1 refers to the notation of orbital indices used from −γ−1 e−γr12 , where the inverse length scale γ is commen- [33]. The molecular Hamiltonian in spin-free form is written surate with the correlation length scale of the valence elec- as trons and in practice is tuned for a given orbital basis set [39]. 1 Only the pure two-body (de)excitation component (relative to Hˆ = hµEˆν + gµλEˆνκ , (4) ν µ 2 νκ µλ a zeroth-order reference) is included in Aˆ, and the geminal is scaled by {1/2,1/4} when acting on {singlet,triplet} electron where indices κ, λ, µ, ν label formal basis in the (complete) µ µλ pairs in accordance with the spin dependence of the electron- 1-particle Hilbert space, hν and gνκ are matrix elements of electron cusp [18] (this is the so-called SP Ansatz of Ten-no the one- and two-body parts of the Hamiltonian, [40, 41]). Thus, the exact form of the operator is known a priori, albeit the operator introduces a dependence on the par- µ ˆ hν = hν| H1 |µi , (5) ticular reference and the geminal length scale. (Ideas for how µλ ˆ to eliminate the reference specificity will be explored in future gνκ = hνκ| H2 |µλi . (6) work). In the present work the CT-F12 Hamiltonian is used in Operators conjunction with the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) ˆν † ˆνκ † † method [42–45]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the Eµ = cˆνσcˆµσ , Eµλ = cˆνσcˆκτ cˆλτ cˆµσ , (7) σ=↑↓ στ=↑↓ first study to combine explicitly correlated techniques with X X quantum algorithms, to achieve higher accuracy simulations are the spin-summed transition operators composed of the tra- of chemical systems without increasing quantum resources ditional creators/annihilators † . In all the equations, Ein- such as the number of qubits needed to represent the Hamil- cˆp/cˆq stein summation convention is implied. The Fock operator is tonian. written as We study several chemical species comprising hydrogen + (H2,H3 ) and closed-shell, first-row hydrides (LiH, BH, HF) µ ν µ µ κ µλ 1 µλ using Pople [46, 47] and correlation-consistent [48] basis sets, Fˆ = f Eˆ , f = h + ρ g − g , (8) ν µ ν ν λ νκ 2 νκ while adopting the well-established unitary coupled cluster with singles and doubles (q-UCCSD) Ansatz [49–52]. where ρ is the one-body density matrix at the Hartree-Fock In published literature, CT-F12 methods have been used to level. The orbital basis (OBS) p,q,r,s,t,u is divided into oc- extrapolate from reasonably sized basis sets to much larger cupied i,j,k,l and unoccupied a,b parts. The orbitals of the basis sets [33]. In this work, motivated by the desire to fit the complete basis set (CBS) are represented by µ,ν,λ,κ with the budget of contemporary quantum hardware, we investigated unoccupied ones denoted by α,β,γ. Finally the complemen- extrapolation from small basis sets (e.g. 6-31G) to somewhat tary auxiliary orbital basis set (CABS) [26], is denoted by x,y. larger basis sets. Note that this is not a direct translation from As mentioned before, Aˆ is an anti-hermitian operator, the classical CT-F12 algorithms. The remainder of the present work is structured as follows. 1 Aˆ = Gαβ Eˆαβ − Eîj , (9) The VQE and CT-F12 methods are briefly reviewed in sec- 2 ij ij αβ 3

*-)*-*2(&&.,/+(2( Molecule 6-31G cc-pVDZ %$1*1& 3# 4# 2# 1 ! H2 0.7 0.7 + H3 0.7 0.7 &.,/+(,(-2$05 3-.&&3/*('&.0%*2$+1& LiH 0.6 0.6 $34*+*$05&.0%*2$+&%$1*1& .# /# 0 BH 0.7 0.7 6!5 #7 ,#- HF 1.3 1.3

TABLE I. Optimized values of the correlation factor γ for each molecule and basis set. 3-.&&3/*('&.0%*2$+1& *-&" #& # ! .0%*2$+&%$1*1&1(2& approach C of reference [54] is used to compute the gemi- 6" #7 nal matrix element of the Fock operator, but this cost can be &#'#(#)#*#+ .&&3/*('&.0%*2$+1& robustly lowered further to linear [55]. Note that the Hamilto- "# ## $# % nian Hˆ ′ is Hermitian, only contains one- and two- body terms, and its two-body part is not multiplicative, hence it has lower pr ps symmetry than the original Hamiltonian (e.g., gqs 6= gqr whereas gpr = gps). Due to technical limitations, Yanai and FIG. 1. Schematic notation of orbital indices in the CT-F12 method, qs qr Shiozaki symmetrized the 2-body part of the transcorrelated from [33]. pr ps pr Hamiltonian [(gqs + gqr)/2 → gqs ] to possess the same symmetry as the original Hamiltonian [33], however no such sym- where metrization was performed here. In other computational details, cc-pVDZ-F12-OptRI basis αβ 3 1 set [56] was used as our CABS basis set utilizing the CABS+ G = hαβ|Qˆ12Fˆ12|iji + hαβ|Qˆ12Fˆ12|jii, (10) ij 8 8 approach [26] in all the reported calculations. Finally, evalua- tion of the CT-F12 Hamiltonian was implemented through the is deﬁned in terms of a geminal (2-body correlator) “plugout” feature of the C++ based MPQC4 software package [57] i.e. the MPQC4 toolkit was imported as a library in an e−γr12 Fˆ12(r12)= − , (11) external C++ program. γ and a projector ensuring orthogonality to the unoccupied orbital products |abi, B. The variational quantum eigensolver

Qˆ12 =1 − Vˆ1Vˆ2 , (12) A class of quantum algorithms that have been conjectured to be particularly amenable to near-term quantum devices are ˆ where Vi projects the i-th particle state onto the unoccupied variational quantum state preparation algorithms. In close orbitals represented in the orbital basis set. Since our work analogy with classical variational approaches, one choosesa deals with the unitary coupled cluster method with a Hartree- class of Ansatz states approximating the ground state of the Fock reference, the strong orthogonality (i.e. pure 2-body Hamiltonian of interest. In general, such an ansatz is defined character) of the geminal is automatically ensured by the form by an initial state |Ψ0i and a unitary circuit Uˆ(θ) parametrized of the operator Aˆ in Eq. (9). by a set of classical variational parameters θ ∈ Θ, leading to a The coefficients 3/8 and 1/8 in Eq. (10) arise from the spin- family |Ψ(θ)i = Uˆ(θ)|Ψ0i of wavefunctions. For each state dependent cusp condition coefficients. [40, 41] Since opti- |Ψ(θ)i, the energy E(θ)= hΨ(θ)|Hˆ |Ψ(θ)i provides an upper mized values of the correlation factor are available in the γ bound to the ground-state energy, and the parameters θ can be literature only for standard medium and large sized basis sets optimized to lower the energy of the state |Ψ(θ)i relying on [39], we chose those values of γ which for a given molecule a classical optimization algorithm. This procedure defines the and basis set, gave the lowest CT-F12/CCSD energies at the variational quantum eigensolver or VQE method [42]. equilibrium geometry. Table I lists the values of γ used for The choice of the variational family {|Ψ(θ)i} is motivated the 6-31G and cc-pVDZ basis sets for different molecules. θ by a combination of factors. On the one hand, it is impor- Finally, the transformed Hamiltonian takes the form tant to produce an accurate approximation to the true ground state of the system, to offer chemically meaningful results. ˆ ′ p ˆq 1 pr ˆqs H = hq Ep + gqs Epr , (13) Secondly, the optimization problem of minimizing as a 2 E(θ) function of the parameters θ has to be well-behaved, to give where the explicit formulasfor one and two body elements are the ability of finding energy minimums. Finally, it is impor- shown in [33]. The overall complexity of computing the trans- tant to have a class of circuits that can be executed on con- formed Hamiltonian for the Hartree-Fock reference is O(N 6); temporary quantum computers, to fit their budget of available the cost grows quadratically with the CABS basis rank when gates, qubit connectivity and coherence times. 4

The diversity of problems investigated in quantum simula- Having selected a set of single-electron orbitals for each of tion and the ever-changing capabilities of quantum hardware the studied species, VQE computations were performed with have motivated a large variety of proposals in recent years, see quantum simulators. We used IBM’s open-source library for for example [9, 11, 58–60], making the design and benchmark quantum computing, Qiskit [66]. Qiskit Aqua contains im- of variational quantum Ansätze an active area of research. plementations of techniques to map the fermionic Fock space onto the Hilbert space of a register of qubits, and an imple- mentation of the VQE algorithm. Here we use the tapering- C. Unitary coupled cluster with singles and doubles off technique [67, 68] to account for molecular point group symmetries and reduce the number of qubits required for a An important example of a variational family suggested for simulation. In analogy with conventional symmetry-adapted applications in quantum chemistry is the unitary coupled clus- quantum chemistry calculations, this reduction does not inter (UCC) Ansatz [49–52, 61], troduce additional approximations in the calculations. In the VQE simulations, we used the quantum circuit defined in [63] Tˆ−Tˆ† |ΨUCC(θ)i = e |Ψ0i , to implement the q-UCCSDAnsatz. d We then minimized the expectation value of the Hamil- a1...ak † † (14) ˆ 1 tonian with respect to the parameters in the circuit. The T = θi1...ik câ1 ... câk cî ... cîk , k=1 i1...ik minimization was carried out using the classical optimization X a1X...ak method, L-BFGS-B [69, 70]. We ran our experiments on the where |Ψ0i denotes the Hartree-Fock state, d denotes the max- statevector simulator of Qiskit. imum order of excitations in the UCC wavefunction, and the For the CT-F12 Hamiltonian, q-UCCSD correlation ener- cluster amplitude tensors a1...ak are antisymmetric in the in- gies were computed as differences between total CT-F12/q- θi1...ik dices a1 ...ak and i1 ...ik. In particular, d = 2 in Eq. (14) UCCSD energies and RHF energies with regular Hamilto- for unitary coupled cluster with single and double excitations nian. For comparison with the F12 results, restricted, regular (UCCSD). coupled cluster with singles and doubles (CCSD) calculations This choice of Ansatz is very natural in situations where were performed using PySCF. mean-field theory is successful, which suggests that excita- In addition to that, we list the energies of a composite (or tions relative to the mean-field state |Ψ0i in the actual ground mixed) method, where the Hartree-Fock energy is calculated state wavefunction should be small, or equivalently that dy- with a very large basis set (namely, cc-pVTZ) using the regu- namical correlation dominates the problem. lar Hamiltonian, and added to the CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G Tˆ Standard coupled cluster Ansatz e |Ψ0i is widely used in correlation energies (namely determined using the CT-F12 classical quantum chemistry but is challenging to implement Hamiltonian and a smaller basis set, e.g. 6-31G). This es- ˆ on a quantum device due to the non-unitarity of eT , whereas sentially removes the effect of basis set incompleteness at the the converse is true for UCC. Understanding the relationship Hartree-Fock level, so that any remaining error arises from the between standard and unitary coupled cluster Ansatzëis an treatment of dynamic correlation energy. active area of research [52, 62], of value to both chemistry Such a mixed method is well suited for a hybrid classical/quantum methodology. The Hartree-Fock procedure, and quantum information science. To be able to implement 4 the UCCSD ansatz on the quantum computer, a Trotter de- which in its canonical formulation scales at most as N , is appropriate for the classical hardware, whereas the calcula- composition step as explained in Section IIID is used. As per N the nomenclature adopted in previous literature [12, 63], we tion of the correlation energy, which can cost as much as 2 , refer to this Ansatz as q-UCCSD. is best mapped to the quantum computer. For the sake of compactness, we adopt the following notation: standard calculations are denoted by method/basis III. RESULTS (e.g. q-UCCSD/6-31G), explicitly correlated methods by CT-F12/method/basis (e.g. CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G), and The calculations performed in this work involved initial composite methods by RHF/basis + correlated method (e.g. pre-processing by classical quantum chemistry codes (in this HF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G). case MPQC4 and PySCF) [57, 64, 65]) on conventional computers, to generate optimized mean-field orbitals and matrix elements of the regular and explicitly correlated Hamiltonian A. Hydrogen molecule prior to performing computations with quantum simulators. The restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF) singlet state was chosen as In Figure 2 we compute the potential energy surface of the the initial state for all of the calculations described here. All hydrogen molecule using RHF, CCSD, q-UCCSD, and CT- correlated calculations used the frozen core approximation. It F12-q-UCCSD with the 6-31G and cc-pVDZ basis sets. Note is worth observing that the frozen core approximationnot only that CCSD, q-UCCSD, and CT-F12-q-UCCSD energies are economizes simulations by removing orbitals and electrons, both equivalent to full CI for H2, since the system has two but is also justified by the nature of the basis sets used in the electrons. present work, since they are constructed for valence-only cor- As seen, the difference between the q-UCCSD and CT-F12- related calculations. q-UCCSD energies is more pronounced when the underlying 5

RHF q-UCCSD CCSD/cc-pVTZ CT-F12/q-UCCSD mixed

-0.9 6-31G cc-pVDZ -0.9

-1.0 -1.0

-1.1 -1.1 E(R)[Ha] E(R)[Ha]

-1.2 -1.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 R[A]˚ R[A]˚

6-31G 6-31++G cc-pVDZ cc-pVQZ 6-31G** 6-31++G** cc-pVTZ cc-pV5Z

0.02 0.010 (R)[Ha] (R)[Ha] 0.01 0.005 F12 F12 − pVDZ 31G − − − CT 6 CT cc C 0.00 0.000 C − −

-0.01 -0.005 C(R) C(R) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 R[A]˚ R[A]˚

FIG. 2. Top: RHF and q-UCCSD potential energy curves for H2, using the 6-31G (left) and cc-pVDZ (right) bases with regular and CT-F12 Hamiltonians. Bottom left: comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G correlation energies and CCSD/6-31G, CCSD/6-31++G, CCSD/6- 31G∗∗ and CCSD/6-31++G∗∗ correlation energies. Bottom right: comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ correlation energies and CCSD/cc-pVxZ (x=D,T,Q,5) correlation energies. Lines are a guide for the eye, and gray bands represent the range of RHF and q-UCCSD equilibrium bond lengths.

−1 ∗∗ method basis type Req[A˚ ] ω[cm ] energies against CCSD/6-31G, CCSD/6-31G , CCSD/6- ∗∗ RHF 6-31G regular 0.7312(6) 4660(42) 31++G and CCSD/6-31++G correlation energies. Note that the positive (or close to zero) correlation energy differences q-UCCSD 6-31G regular 0.7468(5) 4386(25) seen for the larger basis sets reflect that CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6- q-UCCSD 6-31G CT-F12 0.7397(6) 4462(29) 31G correlation energies have quality better than (or compa- RHF cc-pVDZ regular 0.7488(7) 4617(34) rable to) the corresponding regular correlation energies. q-UCCSD cc-pVDZ regular 0.7613(6) 4414(22) CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G correlation energies have quality q-UCCSD cc-pVDZ CT-F12 0.7572(6) 4432(24) comparable to regular CCSD/6-31++G∗∗ correlation energies CCSD cc-pVTZ regular 0.7473(9) 4319(20) suggesting that, for split-valence basis sets [46, 72], explicit {RHF,q-UCCSD} {cc-pVTZ,6-31G} mixed 0.7480(8) 4314(44) correlation accounts for the combined effect of polarization {RHF,q-UCCSD} {cc-pVTZ,cc-pVDZ} mixed 0.7471(8) 4332(35) and diffusefunctions. For this molecule, the effect of polarization functions on the correlation energy is more pronounced TABLE II. RHF, CCSD and q-UCCSD equilibrium bond lengths and than the effect of diffuse functions. vibrational frequencies for H2, using 6-31G and cc-pVDZ basis sets Comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ and reg- and regular and CT-F12 Hamiltonians. Numbers in round brackets ular CCSD/cc-pVxZ (x=D,T,Q,5) correlation energies [48] denote uncertainties from the fitting procedure. Experimental values suggests that explicit correlation yields correlation energies ˚ −1 are Req = 0.741 A and ω = 4401 cm respectively [71]. The of quality comparable with the next basis set in the series, cc- word ”mixed” refer to the composite RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q- pVTZ. In this case, the composite RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q- UCCSD/6-31G and RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ methods. UCCSD/cc-pVDZ and the regular CCSD/cc-pVTZ method were also plotted. Equilibrium bond lengths and vibrational frequencies, obtained by fitting the computed potential energy surfaces basis is 6-31G. In the lower portion of Figure 2, we compared around the minimum to a Morse potential, are listed in Ta- q-UCCSD/6-31G and CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G correlation ble II. Both q-UCCSD and CT-F12/q-UCCSD predict longer 6

RHF/6-31G q-UCCSD/6-31G CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G

-600

-650 θ R mol]

/ -700 R R0 -750

E(R)[kcal -800

-850 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 R[A]˚ θ[rad] R[A]˚

6-31G 6-31G** 6-31++G 6-31++G**

15 mol] / 10 (R)[kcal 5 F12 − 31G − 6 CT

C 0 −

-5 C(R) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 R[A]˚ θ[rad] R[A]˚

+ FIG. 3. Top: RHF and q-UCCSD potential energy curves for H3 , using the 6-31G basis with regular and CT-F12 Hamiltonians. Bottom: Comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G, CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G∗∗, CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31++G and CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31++G∗∗ correlation energies. Results are shown as a function of R for the stretching of a triangular (left) and a linear (right) molecule, and for the variation in θ from the triangular to the linear conformer (middle). Lines are a guide for the eye, gray bands represents the range of RHF and q-UCCSD equilibrium bond lengths, and sketches in the panels illustrate the meaning of the coordinates R and θ with R0 = 0.81A.˚ equilibrium bond lengths and lower vibrational frequencies As seen in the lower portion of Figure 3, CT-F12/q- than RHF, a reﬂection of the known deﬁciency of RHF to UCCSD/6-31G correlation energies have quality superior incorrectly describe the potential energy surface around the to the CCSD/6-31G, CCSD/6-31++G, CCSD/6-31G∗∗ and equilibrium geometry. As expected, we observe that incor- CCSD/6-31++G∗∗ correlation energies. In Figure 4, CT- porating explicit correlation slightly increases the value of F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ correlation energies have quality the equilibrium bond length. We observe that the compos- comparable to CCSD/cc-pVTZ correlation energies, as seen ite RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and RHF/cc- above for H2. pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ energies lead to equilibrium geometries and vibrational frequencies in good agreement with CCSD/cc-pVTZ.

B. Tri-hydrogen cation In Table III, we compute equilibrium bond lengths for the In Figures 3 and 4 we compute potential energy surfaces for linear and equilateral triangle conformers, and the energy dif- the tri-hydrogen cation, using the 6-31G and cc-pVDZ bases, ference between them. We observe that both q-UCCSD and respectively. More speciﬁcally, we considered three conform- CT-F12/q-UCCSD predict similar equilibrium bond lengths ers: (i) an equilateral triangle with variable bond length R, and conformational barriers. As in the case of H2, composite (ii) a linear geometry with variable bond length R, and (iii) RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ energies leads an isosceles triangle with ﬁxed bond length R0 = 0.81A˚ and to equilibrium geometries and energy differences in agree- variable angle θ. ment with a CCSD/cc-pVTZ. 7

RHF/cc-pVDZ q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ

-600

-650 θ R mol]

/ -700 R R0 -750

E(R)[kcal -800

-850 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 R[A]˚ θ[rad] R[A]˚

cc-pVDZ cc-pVTZ cc-pVQZ cc-pV5Z

9 mol] / 6 (R)[kcal 3 F12 pVDZ − − cc CT

C 0 −

-3 C(R) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 R[A]˚ θ[rad] R[A]˚

+ FIG. 4. Top: RHF and q-UCCSD potential energy curves for H3 , using the cc-pVDZ basis with regular and CT-F12 Hamiltonians. Bottom: Comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVDZ and CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pVxZ (x=D,T,Q,5) correlation energies. Results are shown as a function of R for the stretching of a triangular (left) and a linear (right) molecule, and for the variation in θ from the triangular to the linear conformer (middle). Lines are a guide for the eye, gray bands represents the range of RHF and q-UCCSD equilibrium bond lengths, and sketches in the panels illustrate the meaning of the coordinates R and θ with R0 = 0.81A.˚

tri ˚ lin ˚ kcal method basis type Req [A] Req [A] ∆E mol RHF 6-31G regular 0.8447(3) 0.8004(5) 33.92(7) q-UCCSD 6-31G regular 0.8556(3) 0.8109(4) 31.40(6) q-UCCSD 6-31G CT-F12 0.8499(5) 0.8079(5) 30.82(7) RHF cc-pVDZ regular 0.8890(6) 0.8217(6) 45.06(7) q-UCCSD cc-pVDZ regular 0.9003(5) 0.8399(7) 39.71(6) q-UCCSD cc-pVDZ CT-F12 0.8955(6) 0.8353(7) 40.55(7) CCSD cc-pVTZ regular 0.874(2) 0.819(2) 40.77(37) {RHF,q-UCCSD} {cc-pVTZ,6-31G} mixed 0.874(2) 0.813(2) 39.64(44) {RHF,q-UCCSD} {cc-pVTZ,cc-pVDZ} mixed 0.875(2) 0.820(2) 39.74(49)

+ TABLE III. Equilibrium bond lengths for equilateral triangle and linear H3 , and energy difference, in kcal/mol, between equilateral triangle and linear conformers. The listed quantities were obtained by locally ﬁtting the computed potential energy surface to a Morse potential. Energy barriers were obtained as differences between the lowest energy on the equilateral triangle potential energy surface and that on the linear potential energy surfaces. 8

basis ∆E basis ∆E RHF/6-31G CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G 6-31G 32.98(6) cc-pVDZ 39.71(6) q-UCCSD/6-31G 6-31G** 31.40(5) cc-pVTZ 40.33(6) -7.86 6-31++G 31.51(9) cc-pVQZ 40.59(7) 6-31++G** 31.57(5) cc-pV5Z 40.84(7) -7.90 -7.94 TABLE IV. Energy differences, in kcal/mol, between the linear and + triangular conformer of H3 as a function of basis set using CCSD E(R)[Ha] -7.98 with regular Hamiltonian and cc-pVxZ (x=D,T,Q,5) bases. -8.02 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 R[A]˚

C. First-row hydrides 6-31G 6-31++G 6-31G** 6-31++G**

In Sections IIIA and IIIB we explored hydrogen com- 0.02 pounds. Here, we considered three closed-shell ﬁrst-row hy- (R)[Ha] drides: LiH, BH and HF. We use RHF, q-UCCSD,and CT- 0.01 F12 − F12/q-UCCSD with a 6-31G basis. The composite RHF/cc- 31G − CT 6

pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G potential energy curves are C 0.00 also plotted for BH and HF, see Figures 6 and 7. − -0.01

Results for LiH, BH and HF are reported in Figures 5, 6 and C(R) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 7, respectively. The trends seen for H2 are again similar. CT- F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G correlation energies have quality supe- R[A]˚ rior to CCSD/6-31++G∗∗ and CCSD/cc-pVDZ correlation en- cc-pVDZ cc-pVQZ ergies, as shown in the middle and bottom panels respectively. cc-pVTZ cc-pV5Z In particular, for hydrogen ﬂuoride, CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G correlation energies are of comparable quality with CCSD/cc- 0.010 pVTZ correlation energies. (R)[Ha] 0.005 F12 −

In tables V, VI and VII, we list the results for equilibrium 31G − bond lengths and vibrational frequencies of LiH, BH and HF, 6 CT

C 0.000 respectively. − For all the hydrides considered here, CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6- -0.005 31G geometries and frequencies are closer to experimental C(R) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 and CCSD/cc-pVTZ values than q-UCCSD/6-31G. For LiH R[A]˚ and BH, vibrational frequencies further improve when the surface is described by the composite RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT- F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G energies. A similar effect is seen, in all FIG. 5. Top: Potential energy curves for LiH using RHF, q-UCCSD and CT-F12/q-UCCSD with 6-31G basis. Middle: Comparison be- species, for the equilibrium geometry. tween CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and CCSD/6-31G, CCSD/6-31G∗∗, CCSD/6-31++G, CCSD/6-31++G∗∗ correlation energies. Bottom: Comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and CCSD/cc-pVxZ −1 (x=D,T,Q,5) correlation energies. Lines are a guide for the eye, and method basis type Req [A˚ ] ω [cm ] gray bands represents the range of RHF and q-UCCSD equilibrium RHF 6-31G regular 1.6369(1) 1414(8) bond lengths. q-UCCSD 6-31G regular 1.6691(1) 1287(8) q-UCCSD 6-31G CT-F12 1.6477(1) 1353(7) {RHF,q-UCCSD} {cc-pVTZ,6-31G} mixed 1.615(1) 1385(5) CCSD cc-pVTZ regular 1.607(1) 1406(5)

TABLE V. Equilibrium bond length and vibrational frequencies for LiH, extracted from a Morse ﬁt of potential energy curves at 6-31G −1 level. Experimental values are Req = 1.595 A˚ and ω = 1405 cm , respectively [71]. The label “mixed” refers to the composite RHF/cc- pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G method. 9

RHF/6-31G CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G RHF/6-31G CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G q-UCCSD/6-31G mixed q-UCCSD/6-31G mixed CCSD/cc-pVTZ CCSD/cc-pVTZ

-25.02 -99.5

-25.07 -99.7

-25.12 -99.9 E(R)[Ha] -25.17 E(R)[Ha] -100.1

-25.22 -100.3 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 R[A]˚ R[A]˚

6-31G 6-31++G 6-31G 6-31++G 6-31G** 6-31++G** 6-31G** 6-31++G**

0.04 0.20 0.15 (R)[Ha] (R)[Ha] 0.02 F12 F12 0.10 − − 31G 31G − − 6 CT 6 CT 0.05 C 0.00 C − − 0.00 -0.02 -0.05 C(R) 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 C(R) 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 R[A]˚ R[A]˚

cc-pVDZ cc-pVQZ cc-pVDZ cc-pVQZ cc-pVTZ cc-pV5Z cc-pVTZ cc-pV5Z

0.02 0.20 0.15 (R)[Ha] (R)[Ha] 0.01 F12 F12 0.10 − − 31G 31G − − 6 CT 6 CT 0.05 C 0.00 C − − 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 C(R) 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 C(R) 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 R[A]˚ R[A]˚

FIG. 6. Top: Potential energy curves for BH using RHF, q- FIG. 7. Top: Potential energy curves for HF using RHF, q- UCCSD and CT-F12/q-UCCSD with 6-31G basis. For compar- UCCSD and CT-F12/q-UCCSD with 6-31G basis. For comparison, CCSD/cc-PVTZ and composite RHF/cc-PVTZ + CT-F12/q- ison, CCSD/cc-PVTZ and composite RHF/cc-PVTZ + CT-F12/q- UCCSD/6-31G energies are listed. Middle: Comparison be- UCCSD/6-31G energies are listed. Middle: Comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and CCSD/6-31G, CCSD/6-31G∗∗, tween CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and CCSD/6-31G, CCSD/6-31G∗∗, CCSD/6-31++G, CCSD/6-31++G∗∗ correlation energies. Bottom: CCSD/6-31++G, CCSD/6-31++G∗∗ correlation energies. Bottom: Comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and CCSD/cc-pVxZ Comparison between CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G and CCSD/cc-pVxZ (x=D,T,Q,5) correlation energies. Lines are a guide for the eye, and (x=D,T,Q,5) correlation energies. Lines are a guide for the eye, and gray bands represents the range of RHF and q-UCCSD equilibrium gray bands represents the range of RHF and q-UCCSD equilibrium bond lengths. bond lengths.

D. Estimate of quantum resources quantum resources needed to perform regular and explicitly correlated calculations for the chemical species considered in In the previous sections, we explored energies, equilibrium this work. geometries and vibrational properties of a collection of small The necessary quantum resources stem from the structure molecules, assessing the accuracy of the CT-F12/q-UCCSD of the Hamiltonian operator and the VQE q-UCCSD cir- level of theory. In this section, we estimate and compare the cuit. Standard quantum encodings map the Fock space FM 10

−1 method basis type Req [A˚ ] ω [cm ] the Hamiltonian symmetry group, it can be proved [67, 68] ˆ RHF 6-31G regular 1.2328(7) 2433(11) that there exists a Clifford transformation U, computable at q-UCCSD 6-31G regular 1.2671(5) 2186(5) polynomial cost on a conventional computer, such that

q-UCCSD 6-31G CT-F12 1.2487(6) 2287(7) † † UÊτîE Uˆ = Xi . (18) CCSD cc-pVTZ regular 1.234(1) 2374(7) {RHF,q-UCCSD} {cc-pVTZ,6-31G} mixed 1.238(1) 2364(7) The simulation can thus be restricted to an irreducible representation of the Z2 symmetry under consideration by freezing TABLE VI. Equilibrium bond length and vibrational frequencies for qubit i into an eigenvector of Xi. BH, extracted from a Morse fit of potential energy curves at 6-31G In combination with the parity encoding [73, 74], conser- ˚ −1 level. Experimental values are Req = 1.232 A and ω = 2367 cm , vation of spin-up and spin-down particle numbers reduces the respectively [71]. The label “mixed” refers to the composite RHF/cc- pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G method. numberof qubitsby 2, and tapering off techniquescan be used to bring the number of qubits to Nq ≤ 2M − 2. Under the chosen encoding, and in presence of tapering ˚ −1 method basis type Req [A] ω [cm ] techniques, the Hamiltonian takes the form RHF 6-31G regular 0.920(2) 4234(39) q-UCCSD 6-31G regular 0.945(2) 3836(33) Np ˆ ˆ q-UCCSD 6-31G CT-F12 0.935(2) 3972(33) H = ciPi , (19) i=1 CCSD cc-pVTZ regular 0.915(1) 4279(29) X {RHF,q-UCCSD} {cc-pVTZ,6-31G} mixed 0.910(1) 4320(26) where Pî is a tensor product of Nq Pauli operators,

TABLE VII. Equilibrium bond length and vibrational frequencies Nq Pˆ = σ 1 ⊗···⊗ σ ∈{I,X,Y,Z} , (20) for HF, extracted from a Morse ﬁt of potential energy curves at 6-31G i i iNq −1 level. Experimental values are Req = 0.917 A˚ and ω = 4138 cm , 1 respectively [71]. The label “mixed” refers to the composite RHF/cc- where X,Y,Z denote the spin- 2 Pauli operators. Naturally, pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G method. the number Np of terms in Eq. (19) is an important quantum resource, because it affects the number of measurements needed to estimate the expectation value of Hˆ . of a molecular systems comprising 2M spin-orbitals onto the The VQE q-UCCSD and CT-F12/q-UCCSD circuits can be Hilbert space of 2M qubits, implemented by a Trotter decomposition,

2 ⊗2M C Ns E : FM → , E|xi = |Axi , (15) ab θa θ i cˆ† cˆ −cˆ†cˆ ij cˆ† cˆ†cˆ cˆ −cˆ†cˆ†cˆ cˆ Uˆ(θ) ≃ e Ns ( a i i a) e Ns ( a b j i i j b a) where x ∈{0, 1}2Mis a binary string encodinga determinant,   ia ijab often with the convention that the block of spin-up orbitals Y Y (21) precedes the block of spin-down orbitals. A is an invertible   where N is the number of slices in a Trotter implementa- 2M × 2M binary matrix. The standard Jordan-Wigner trans- s tion of the q-UCCSD or CT-F12/q-UCCSD operator. Un- formation is obtained by choosing as the identity matrix. A Tˆ−Tˆ† The parity encoding instead uses like e , each of the exponentials in the right-hand side of Eq. (21) can be mapped onto a circuit comprising a number of 1 0 single-qubit and CNOT gates that scale at most linearly with A0 =1 , A1 = , the number of qubits N . Of course, the explicit structure 1 1 q ! of the circuit depends on the chosen quantum encoding and 1000 (16) qubit reduction techniques. The latter also affect the number 1100 of non-redundant parameters θ. A2 =   ... To characterize the computational cost of a VQE q-UCCSD 1110   or CT-F12/q-UCCSD simulation, it is important to know  1111    the number of parameters θ to be optimized, the number   As a result, for the parity encoding one has of quantum operations (one- and two-qubit gates) and especially CNOT gates comprising the circuit Uˆ(θ), and the cir- ˆ ˆ ˆ N↑ † N↑+N↓ † cuit depth, correspondingto the number of groups of quantum E(−1) E = ZM , E(−1) E = Z2M , (17) gates that cannot be executed in parallel. Of course, circuits where Zi denotes the Pauli Z operator acting on qubit i. comprising more gates, especially CNOT gates, and featuring Conservation of spin-up and spin-down particle numbers higher depth, are more expensive and more sensitive to deco- modulo 2 can be enforced by freezing qubits M and 2M herence phenomena and imperfect implementations of quan- in eigenvectors of ZM and Z2M with suitable eigenvalues, tum gates in actual hardware simulations. thereby reducing the number of qubits by 2. We list all these parameters in Table VIII. To reduce the A similar reduction of qubits can be achieved in presence number of qubits, we used Z2 symmetries that conserve the of point-group Z2 symmetries. Denoting τˆi the generators of number of spin-up and spin-down particles. An important and 11

system basis type orbitals qubits Paulis(a) parameters operations CNOTs depth

H2 6-31G regular 4 6 159 15 741 476 604

H2 cc-pVDZ regular 10 18 2,951 99 2,393 1,864 2,106

H2 6-31G CT-F12 4 6 235 15 741 476 604

H2 cc-pVDZ CT-F12 10 18 4,191 99 2,393 1,864 2,106 + H3 , triangular 6-31G regular 6 10 1,403 35 2,667 1,916 2,268 + H3 , triangular cc-pVDZ regular 15 28 34,486 224 39,252 33,344 36,090 + H3 , triangular 6-31G CT-F12 6 10 1,083 35 2,667 1,916 2,268 + H3 , triangular cc-pVDZ CT-F12 15 28 22,522 224 39,252 33,344 36,090 LiH 6-31G regular 10 18 5,851 99 12,087 9,644 10,780 LiH 6-31G CT-F12 10 18 8,527 99 12,087 9,644 10,780 BH 6-31G regular 10 18 5,851 344 44,087 35,180 37,241 BH 6-31G CT-F12 10 18 9,271 344 44,087 35,180 37,241 HF 6-31G regular 10 18 5,851 804 104,027 82,628 86,120 HF 6-31G CT-F12 10 18 9,439 804 104,027 82,628 86,120

TABLE VIII. Columns 4-6: number of spatial orbitals, qubits and Pauli operators in the Hamiltonian for molecular species investigated in this work, at various levels of theory. Columns 7-10: total number of parameters, quantum gates, CNOT gates and circuit depth in the VQE − q-UCCSD and CT-F12/q-UCCSD circuits. (a) matrix elements of the Hamiltonian smaller in absolute value than 10 8 Ha are truncated.

system basis orbitals qubits parameters operations CNOTs depth

H2 6-31G 4 8 15 1,478 768 979

H2 cc-pVDZ 10 20 99 20,630 14,616 16,435

H2 cc-pVTZ 28 56 783 394,310 341,280 357,427 + H3 6-31G 6 12 35 4,822 2,920 3,491 + H3 cc-pVDZ 15 30 224 65,410 51,016 55,385 + H3 cc-pVTZ 42 84 1,763 1,285,270 1,163,416 1,200,563 LiH 6-31G 10 20 99 20,630 14,616 16,435 LiH cc-pVDZ 18 36 323 110,230 89,080 95,507 LiH cc-pVTZ 43 86 1,848 1,376,930 1,249,080 1,288,057 BH 6-31G 10 20 344 72,964 50,176 54,529 BH cc-pVDZ 18 36 1,328 434,692 343,040 354,817 BH cc-pVTZ 43 86 8,528 5,771,492 5,167,640 5,132,217 HF 6-31G 10 20 804 171,656 116,736 125,185 HF cc-pVDZ 18 36 4,340 1,396,872 1,091,328 1,111,041 HF cc-pVTZ 43 86 33,540 21,831,272 19,435,728 18,975,841

TABLE IX. Number of orbitals, qubits and number of parameters, operations, CNOTs and depth of the VQE q-UCCSD and CT-F12/q-UCCSD circuits for various systems, for the species studied in this work. The Jordan-Wigner mapping and frozen core approximation (for Li, B, F) were used, without truncations of small terms or circuit transpilation. encouraging observation is that the cost of an explicitly cor- properties to consider before performing q-UCCSD/(6-31G, related calculation with underlying basis B, for example, CT- cc-pVDZ, cc-pVTZ) calculations for the systems considered F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G, is essentially identical to that of a reg- in this work. The numbers quoted in Table IX provide an esti- ular simulation with underlying basis B, q-UCCSD/6-31G. mate of the quantum resources needed to carry out such sim- The only difference is represented by the higher number of ulations, rather than their precise requirements. This is meant Pauli operators in the Hamiltonian, which in turn is due to the to help appreciate how CT-F12 economizes q-UCCSD simu- loss of 8-fold symmetry in favor of 4-fold symmetry. lations. For example, the qubits required by a cc-pVTZ simulations is roughly 4 times that required by a 6-31G simula- On the other hand, a CT-F12/q-UCCSD/B calculation (here tion. Similarly, the number of CNOT gates in a q-UCCSD/cc- B denotes the underlying basis) yields results of accuracy ′ ′ pVTZ circuit is roughly 2 orders of magnitude higher than the comparable with those from a q-UCCSD/B with B larger corresponding one with a 6-31G basis set. than B, which can result in a quantum simulation several orders of magnitude more expensive. Table IX lists a number of It is reasonable to assume that CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G 12 provide correlation energies comparable to q-UCCSD/cc- geometries and vibrational frequencies, measured in terms of pVTZ correlation energies, since composite methods yield their agreement with CCSD/cc-pVTZ or experimental results. potential energy curves of quality near to CCSD/cc-pVTZ. The improvement in the accuracy of correlation energies For example, see Figures 2, 6 and 7, where the composite that comes with the use of CT-F12/q-UCCSD determines a RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G (RHF/cc-pVTZ + very modest increase in the necessary quantum resources, CT-F12/q-UCCSD/cc-pvDZ for H2) curves lie almost on top when compared to regular q-UCCSD with the same basis of CCSD/cc-pVTZ curves. set. In particular, the increase is limited to the number of Pauli operators in the qubit representation of the Hamiltonian. However, taking into consideration the accuracy gains and the quantum resources necessary to achieve such a level of accu- IV. CONCLUSIONS racy, CT-F12/q-UCCSD offers an overall signiﬁcant reduction in quantum resources. Other favorable traits of the CT-F12 To increase the accuracy of quantum simulations of chem- Hamiltonian include its hermiticity, absence of two-electron ical systems by quantum algorithms, we explored the use of singularities, and inclusion of one- and two-body operators. ab initio Hamiltonians similarity-transformed to incorporate Further research into how to avoid the state-speciﬁc character a priori dynamical electron correlation effects for quantum of CT-F12 Hamiltonian is underway. simulation with the VQE q-UCCSD method. Our results indi- cate that the use of explicitly correlated (canonically transcorrelated) CT-F12 Hamiltonian produces CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6- V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 31G and CT-F12/q-UCCSD/6-31G/cc-pVDZ correlation energies with quality approaching or exceeding that of CCSD/6- TG, JL, MM and JER acknowledgethe IBM Research Cog- 31++G∗∗ and CCSD/cc-pVTZ respectively. To further re- nitive Computing Cluster service for providing resources that duce basis set incompleteness effects, we generated compos- have contributed to the research results reported within this ite RHF/cc-pVTZ + CT-F12/q-UCCSD//6-31G (or cc-pVDZ) paper. The work of AK, CM, and EFV was supported by correlation energies, elaborating a simple mixed procedure the U.S. National Science Foundation (awards 1550456 and that, in most cases, further improved the quality of equilibrium 1800348)

[1] R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys 21, 467 (1982). [16] T. Takeshita, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, E. Lee, R. Babbush, and [2] S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996). J. R. McClean, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011004 (2020). [3] R. Somma, G. Ortiz, E. Knill, and J. Gubernatis, Int. J. Quant. [17] T. Kato, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 10, 151 (1957). Inf. 1, 189 (2003). [18] R. T. Pack and W. Byers Brown, J. Chem. Phys. 45, 556 (1966). [4] I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, [19] W. Kutzelnigg and J. D. Morgan, J. Chem. Phys. 96, 4484 153 (2014). (1992). [5] D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. [20] E. A. Hylleraas, Z. Physik 54, 347 (1929). Somma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015). [21] W. Kutzelnigg, Theor. Chim. Acta 68, 445 (1985). [6] G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Quantum 3, 163 (2019). [22] W. Klopper and C. C. Samson, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 6397 [7] A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Proc. (2002). Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 9456 (2018). [23] F. R. Manby, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 4607 (2003). [8] P. J. OMalley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. [24] S. Ten-no, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 117 (2004). McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, [25] S. Ten-no, Chem. Phys. Lett. 398, 56 (2004). et al., Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016). [26] E. F. Valeev, Chem. Phys. Lett. 395, 190 (2004). [9] A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, [27] H. Fliegl, W. Klopper, and C. Hättig, J. Chem. Phys. (2005). J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 549, 242 (2017). [28] H. J. Werner, T. B. Adler, and F. R. Manby, J. Chem. Phys. 126, [10] Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, 164102 (2007). M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. D. [29] E. F. Valeev, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10, 106 (2008). Sawaya, S. Sim, L. Veis, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Chem. Rev. [30] L. Kong, F. A. Bischoff, and E. F. Valeev, Chem. Rev. 112, 75 119, 10856 (2019). (2012). [11] H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, [31] C. Hättig, W. Klopper, A. Köhn, and D. P. Tew, Chem. Rev. Nat. Commun. 10, 1 (2019). 112, 4 (2012). [12] J. E. Rice, T. P. Gujarati, T. Y. Takeshita, J. Latone, M. Motta, [32] S. Ten-no and J. Noga, WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2, 114 (2012). A. Hintennach, and J. M. Garcia, arXiv:2001.01120 (2020). [33] T. Yanai and T. Shiozaki, J. Chem. Phys. 136, 084107 (2012). [13] R. M. Parrish, E. G. Hohenstein, P. L. McMahon, and T. J. [34] S. F. Boys and N. C. Handy, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, Math. Mart´ınez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 230401 (2019). Phys. Sci. 310, 43 (1969). [14] N. H. Stair, R. Huang, and F. A. Evangelista, J. Chem. Theory [35] S. Ten-no, Chem. Phys. Lett. 330, 169 (2000). Comput. 16, 2236 (2020). [36] H. Luo, W. Hackbusch, and H.-J. Flad, Mol. Phys. 108, 425 [15] W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, U. Baek, B. O’Gorman, and K. B. Wha- (2010). ley, New J. Phys. (2020). [37] T. Yanai and G. K.-L. Chan, J. Chem. Phys. 124, 194106 (2006). 13

[38] T. Yanai, Y. Kurashige, E. Neuscamman, and G. K.-L. Chan, J. [71] R. D. Johnson III, NIST 101. Computational chemistry compar- Chem. Phys. 132, 024105 (2010). ison and benchmark database, Tech. Rep. (National Institute of [39] D. P. Tew and W. Klopper, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 074101 (2005). Standards and Technology, 2019). [40] S. Ten-no, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 117 (2004). [72] E. R. Davidson and D. Feller, Chem. Rev. 86, 681 (1986). [41] J. Zhang and E. F. Valeev, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 8, 3175 [73] J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, J. Chem. Phys. 137, (2012). 224109 (2012). [42] A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, [74] A. Tranter, P. J. Love, F. Mintert, and P. V. Coveney, J. Chem. P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nat. Commun. Theory Comput. 14, 5617 (2018). 5, 4213 (2014). [43] J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016). [44] D. Wang, O. Higgott, and S. Brierley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140504 (2019). [45] B. Bauer, S. Bravyi, M. Motta, and G. K. Chan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.03685 (2020). [46] R. Ditchfield, W. J. Hehre, and J. A. Pople, J. Chem. Phys. 54, 724 (1971). [47] P. C. Hariharan and J. A. Pople, Theor. Chim. Acta 28, 213 (1973). [48] T. H. Dunning Jr, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989). [49] W. Kutzelnigg, J. Chem. Phys. 77, 3081 (1982). [50] W. Kutzelnigg and S. Koch, J. Chem. Phys. 79, 4315 (1983). [51] W. Kutzelnigg, J. Chem. Phys. 82, 4166 (1985). [52] B. Cooper and P. J. Knowles, J. Chem. Phys. 133, 234102 (2010). [53] A. Khn and D. P. Tew, J. Chem. Phys. 133, 174117 (2010). [54] S. Kedˇzuch, M. Milko, and J. Noga, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 105, 929 (2005). [55] F. Pavoˇsević, P. Pinski, C. Riplinger, F. Neese, and E. F. Valeev, J. Chem. Phys. 144, 144109 (2016). [56] J. G. Hill, S. Mazumder, and K. A. Peterson, J. Chem. Phys. 132, 054108 (2010). [57] http://github.com/ValeevGroup/mpqc (2020). [58] I. H. Kim and B. Swingle, arXiv:1711.07500 (2017). [59] J.-G. Liu, Y.-H. Zhang, Y. Wan, and L. Wang, Phys. Rev. Re- search 1, 023025 (2019). [60] C. Schön, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110503 (2005). [61] J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Quant. Sci. Tech. 4, 014008 (2018). [62] I. Sokolov, P. K. Barkoutsos, P. J. Ollitrault, D. Greenberg, J. Rice, M. Pistoia, and I. Tavernelli, arXiv:1911.10864 (2019). [63] P. K. Barkoutsos, J. F. Gonthier, I. Sokolov, N. Moll, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, M. Ganzhorn, D. J. Egger, M. Troyer, A. Mezzacapo, S. Filipp, and I. Tavernelli, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022322 (2018). [64] Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. D. McClain, E. R. Sayfutyarova, S. Sharma, et al., WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci 8, e1340 (2018). [65] Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, et al., arXiv:2002.12531 (2020). [66] G. Aleksandrowicz, T. Alexander, P. Barkoutsos, L. Bello, Y. Ben-Haim, D. Bucher, F. Cabrera-Hernández, J. Carballo- Franquis, A. Chen, C. Chen, et al., Zenodo 16 (2019). [67] S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, A. Mezzacapo, and K. Temme, arXiv:1701.08213 (2017). [68] K. Setia, R. Chen, J. E. Rice, A. Mezzacapo, M. Pistoia, and J. Whitfield, arXiv:1910.14644 (2019). [69] C. Zhu, R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, and J. Nocedal, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 23, 550560 (1997). [70] J. L. Morales and J. Nocedal, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 38, 7 (2011).