Quick Navigation
Topics
Trapped Ion Quantum Computing
Quantum Chemistry
Efficient Auxiliary-Field Quantum Monte Carlo using Isometric Tensor Hypercontraction
arXiv
Authors: Maxine Luo, Victor Chen, Yu Wang, Christian B. Mendl
Year
2026
Paper ID
38866
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
141
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Auxiliary Field Quantum Monte Carlo (AFQMC) has emerged as a powerful framework for treating strongly correlated electronic systems, offering a favorable balance between computational cost and accuracy. In this paper, we present a novel AFQMC method that uses the isometric tensor hypercontraction (ITHC) technique to diagonalize the two-body Coulomb interaction of molecular electronic Hamiltonians by introducing additional fictitious fermionic modes. Our method shows reduced theoretical complexity and better practical performance for both propagation and local energy evaluation compared to the standard AFQMC method. We demonstrate the efficacy of this approach by computing the ground-state energies of a linear $\ce{H10}$-chain and the benzene molecule. Our results show that the extended-basis AFQMC recovers many-body correlations with a precision comparable to that of high-level wavefunction methods such as Coupled Clusters (CC) or Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG), while offering significantly improved scaling.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.