 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Coupled Cluster Downfolding Theory: towards universal manybody algorithms for dimensionality reduction of composite quantum systems in chemistry and materials science
Materials Theory volume 6, Article number: 17 (2022)
Abstract
The recently introduced coupled cluster (CC) downfolding techniques for reducing the dimensionality of quantum manybody problems recast the CC formalism in the form of the renormalization procedure allowing, for the construction of effective (or downfolded) Hamiltonians in smalldimensionality subspace, usually identified with the socalled active space, of the entire Hilbert space. The resulting downfolded Hamiltonians integrate out the external (outofactivespace) Fermionic degrees of freedom from the internal (intheactivespace) parameters of the wave function, which can be determined as components of the eigenvectors of the downfolded Hamiltonians in the active space. This paper will discuss the extension of nonHermitian (associated with standard CC formulations) and Hermitian (associated with the unitary CC approaches) downfolding formulations to composite quantum systems commonly encountered in materials science and chemistry. The nonHermitian formulation can provide a platform for developing local CC approaches, while the Hermitian one can serve as an ideal foundation for developing various quantum computing applications based on the limited quantum resources. We also discuss the algorithm for extracting the semianalytical form of the interelectron interactions in the active spaces.
Introduction
The coupled cluster (CC) methodology (Coester 1958; Coester and Kummel 1960; Čížek 1966; Paldus et al. 1972; Purvis and Bartlett 1982; Koch and Jørgensen 1990; Paldus and Li 1999; Crawford and Schaefer 2000; Bartlett and Musiał 2007) is a driving engine of highprecision simulations in physics, chemistry, and material sciences. Several properties of CC made it a universal tool for capturing correlation effects in various manybody quantum systems ranging from quantum field theory, (Funke et al. 1987; Kümmel 2001; Hasberg and Kümmel 1986; Bishop et al. 2006; Ligterink et al. 1998) quantum hydrodynamics, (Arponen et al. 1988; Bishop et al. 1989) and nuclear structure theory (Dean and HjorthJensen 2004; Kowalski et al. 2004; Hagen et al. 2008) to quantum chemistry (Scheiner et al. 1987; Sinnokrot et al. 2002; Slipchenko and Krylov 2002; Tajti et al. 2004; Crawford 2006; Parkhill et al. 2009; Riplinger and Neese 2013; Yuwono et al. 2020) and materials science (Stoll 1992; Hirata et al. 2004a; Katagiri 2005; Booth et al. 2013; Degroote et al. 2016; McClain et al. 2017; Wang and Berkelbach 2020; Haugland et al. 2020b). Many appealing features of the singlereference (SR) CC formalism (which will be the main focus of the present discussion) in applications to chemical/material systems originate in the exponential parametrization of the groundstate wave function and closely related linked cluster theorem (Brandow 1967; Lindgren and Morrison 2012; Shavitt and Bartlett 2009). The last feature assures the socalled additive separability of the calculated energies in the noninteracting subsystem limit, which plays a critical role in the proper description of various chemical transformations such as chemical reactions that include bond breaking and bondforming processes. The linked cluster theorem also plays a crucial role in designing formalisms that can provide the chemical accuracy needed for predicting spectroscopic data, reaction rates, and thermochemistry data. The bestknown example of such class of methods is the CCSD(T) formalism (CC with singles, doubles, and perturbative triples),(Raghavachari et al. 1989) which combines the iterative character of the CCSD formalism (Purvis and Bartlett 1982) (CC with single and double excitations) with perturbative techniques for determining CC energy corrections due to connected triple excitations. Over the last few decades, the CCSD(T)type formulations have been refined to provide accurate description of bondbreaking processes. Among several formulations that made it possible were the method of moments of coupled cluster equations and renormalized approaches,(Piecuch and Kowalski; Kowalski and Piecuch 2000a; 2000b; Piecuch and Włoch 2005; Cramer et al. 2006; Włoch et al. 2007; Piecuch et al. 2009; Deustua et al. 2017; Deustua et al. 2018; Bauman et al. 2017) perturbative formulations based on the Λoperator (defining the left eigenvectors of the similarity transformed Hamiltonians) (Stanton 1997; Stanton and Gauss 1995; Crawford and Stanton 1998; Kucharski and Bartlett 1998b; 1998c; Gwaltney and HeadGordon 2000; 2001; Hirata et al. 2001; Bomble et al. 2005) and other techniques (Kucharski and Bartlett 1998a; Meissner and Bartlett 2001; Robinson and Knowles 2013; Bozkaya and Schaefer III 2012). One should also mention the tremendous effort in formulating reducedscaling or local formulations of the CC methods to extend the applicability of the CC formalism across spatial scales (Hampel and Werner 1996; Schütz 2000; Schütz and Werner; 2001; Li et al. 2002; Li et al. 2006; Li et al. 2009; Li and Piecuch 2010; Neese et al. 2009; Neese et al. 2009; Riplinger et al. 2016; Riplinger et al. 2013; Pavosevic et al. 2016). In several cases, the extension of local formulations was possible for linear response CC theory (D’Cunha and Crawford 2020) and excited state CC formulations based on the equationofmotion formalism (Dutta et al. 2016; Peng et al. 2018).
Recently, interesting aspects of SRCC were discussed using the subsystem embedding subalgebras (SES) approach,(Kowalski 2018; 2021) where we demonstrated that the CC energy can be calculated in an alternative way to the standard CC energy formula. Instead of using standard energy expression, one can obtain the same energy by diagonalizing the downfolded/effective Hamiltonian in methodspecific active space(s) generated by appropriate subsystem embedding subalgebras. The SRCC theory provides a rigorous algorithm for how to construct these Hamiltonians using the external, with respect to the active space, class of cluster amplitudes (Kowalski 2018). Shortly after this finding, these results for static SRCC formulations were extended to the time domain (Kowalski and Bauman 2020). Following similar concepts as in the static case and assuming that the external timedependent cluster amplitudes are known or can be effectively approximated, it was shown that the quantum evolution of the entire system can be generated in the active space by timedependent downfolded Hamiltonian. Another interesting aspect of CC SES downfolding is the possibility of integrating several SES CC eigenvalue problems corresponding to various active spaces into a computational flow or quantum flow as discussed in Ref. (Kowalski 2021), where we demonstrated that the flow equations are fully equivalent to the standard approximations given by cluster operators defined by unique internal excitations involved in the activespace problems defining the flow. This feature provides a natural language for expressing the sparsity of the system. In contrast to other local CC approaches, the CC quantum flow equations can effectively embrace the concept of localized orbital pairs at the level of effective Hamiltonian acting in the appropriate active space. The Hermitian downfolding formulations were recently tested in the context of quantum simulations involving planewavebased molecular orbitals (Bylaska et al. 2021), demonstrating their usefulness in simulating systems with periodic boundary conditions.
The SES CC downfolded Hamiltonians are nonHermitian operators, which limits their utilization in quantum computing. Instead, using double unitary CC (DUCC) Ansatz,(Bauman et al. 2019; Bauman et al. 2019; Kowalski and Bauman 2020; Kowalski 2021) one can derive the activespace manybody form of Hermitian downfolded Hamiltonians. In contrast to the SRCC, the DUCCbased effective Hamiltonians are expressed in terms of nonterminating expansions involving antiHermitian cluster operators defined by external type excitations/deexcitations. Several approximate forms of DUCC Hamiltonians have been tested in the context of quantum simulations, showing the potential of DUCC downfolding in reproducing exact groundstate energy in small active spaces (Bauman et al. 2019; Bauman et al. 2020). In particular, the downfolded Hamiltonians have been integrated with various quantum solvers, including Variational Quantum Eigensolvers (VQE) (Peruzzo et al. 2014; McClean et al. 2016; Romero et al. 2018; Shen et al. 2017; Kandala et al. 2017; Kandala et al. 2019; Colless et al. 2018; Huggins et al. 2020; Cao et al. 2019) and Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE),(Kitaev 1997; Nielsen and Chuang 2011; Luis and Peřina 1996; Cleve et al. 1998; Berry et al. 2007; Childs 2010; Seeley et al. 2012; Wecker et al. 2015; Häner et al. 2016; Poulin et al. 2017) to calculate groundstate potential energy surfaces corresponding to breaking a single chemical bond.
In this paper, we will briefly review the current status of the downfolding methods and provide further extension of the CC downfolding methods to multicomponent systems. As a specific example, we choose a composite system defined by Fermions of type A and Fermions of type B. This is a typical situation encountered for certain classes of nonBornOppenheimer dynamics and nuclear structure theory. The extension to systems composed of Fermions and Bosons (for example, electronphonon coupling) can be achieved in an analogous way as for a mixtures represented by two types of Fermions. The discussed formalism can also be easily extended to other types of systems composed of Fermions and Bosons as encountered in the descriptions of polaritonic systems. We believe that these formulations will pave the way for more realistic quantum simulations of multicomponent systems on Noisy IntermediateScale Quantum (NISQ) devices.
CC theory
The SRCC theory, describing correlated electrons in chemical and extended periodic systems, utilizes the exponential representation of the groundstate wave function Ψ〉,
where T and Φ〉 represent the socalled cluster operator and singledeterminantal reference function. The cluster operator can be represented through its manybody components T_{k}
where individual component T_{k} takes the form
where indices i_{1},i_{2},… (a_{1},a_{2},…) refer to occupied (unoccupied) spin orbitals in the reference function Φ〉. The excitation operators \(E^{a_{1}\ldots a_{k}}_{i_{1}\ldots i_{k}}\) are defined through strings of standard creation (\(a_{p}^{\dagger }\)) and annihilation (a_{p}) operators
where creation and annihilation operators satisfy the following anticommutation rules:
When M in the summation in Eq. (2) is equal to the number of correlated electron (N_{e}) then the corresponding CC formalism is equivalent to the FCI method, otherwise for M<N_{e} one deals with the standard approximation schemes. Typical CC formulations such as CCSD, CCSDT (CC with singles, doubles, and triples), and CCSDTQ (CC with singles, doubles, triples, and quadruples) correspond to M=2,M=3, and M=4 cases, respectively.
The equations for cluster amplitudes \(t^{i_{1}\ldots i_{k}}_{a_{1}\ldots a_{k}}\) and groundstate energy E can be obtained by introducing Ansatz (1) into the Schrödinger equation and projecting onto P+Q space, where P and Q are the projection operator onto the reference function and the space of excited Slater determinants obtained by acting with the cluster operator onto the reference function Φ〉, i.e.,
where H represents the electronic Hamiltonian. The above equation is the socalled energydependent form of the CC equations, which corresponds to the eigenvalue problem only in the exact wave function limit when T contains all possible excitations. Approximate CC formulations do not represent the eigenvalue problem. At the solution, the energydependent CC equations are equivalent to the energyindependent or connected form of the CC equations:
Using BakerCampbellHausdorff (BCH) formula and Wick’s theorem one can show that only connected diagrams contribute to Eqs. (8) and (9). For notational convenience, one often uses the similarity transformed Hamiltonian \(\bar {H}\), defined as
The following analysis is valid for both Gaussian and planewave basis sets (for planewave basis set formulation of CC theory see Ref. (Hirata et al. 2004b)).
NonHermitian CC downfolding
The main idea of SRCC nonHermitian downfolding hinges upon the characterization of subsystems of a quantum system of interest in terms of active spaces or commutative subalgebras of excitations that define corresponding active space. This is achieved by introducing subalgebras of algebra \(\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}\) generated by \(E^{a_{l}}_{i_{l}}=a_{a_{l}}^{\dagger } a_{i_{l}}\) operators in the particlehole representation defined with respect to the reference Φ〉. As a consequence of using the particlehole formalism, all generators commute, i.e., \(\left[E_{i_{l}}^{a_{l}}, E_{i_{k}}^{a_{k}}\right]\)=0, and algebra \(\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}\) (along with all subalgebras considered here) is commutative. The CC SES approach utilizes class of subalgebras of commutative \(\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}\) algebra, which contain all possible excitations \(E^{a_{1}\ldots a_{m}}_{i_{1}\ldots i_{m}}\) needed to generate all possible excitations from a subset of active occupied orbitals (denoted as R, {R_{i}, i=1,…,x_{R}}) to a subset of active virtual orbitals (denoted as S, {S_{i}, i=1,…,y_{s}}) defining active space. These subalgebras will be designated as \(\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}(R,S)\). Sometimes it is convenient to use alternative notation \(\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}(x_{R},y_{S})\) where numbers of active orbitals in R and S orbital sets, x_{R} and y_{S}, respectively, are explicitly called out. As discussed in Ref. (Kowalski 2018), configurations generated by elements of \(\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}(x_{R},y_{S})\), along with the reference function, span the complete active space (CAS) referenced to as the CAS(R,S) (or equivalently CAS(\(\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}(x_{R},y_{S})\))).
In Refs. (Kowalski 2018; Kowalski and Bauman 2020; Kowalski 2021), we explored the effect of partitioning of the cluster operator induced by general subalgebra \(\mathfrak {h}=\mathfrak {g}^{(N)}(x_{R},y_{S})\), where the cluster operator T, given by Eq. (2), is represented as
where \(T_{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h})\) belongs to \(\mathfrak {h}\) while \(T_{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) does no belong to \(\mathfrak {h}\). If the expansion \(T_{int}(\mathfrak{h})\)Φ〉 produces all Slater determinants (of the same symmetry as the Φ〉 state) in the active space, we call \(\mathfrak {h}\) the subsystem embedding subalgebra for the CC formulation defined by the T operator. In Ref. (Kowalski 2018), we showed that each standard CC approximation has its own class of SESs.
A direct consequence of existence of the SESs for standard CC approximations is the fact that the corresponding energy can be calculated, in an alternative way to Eq. (9), as an eigenvalue of the activespace nonHermitian eigenproblem
where
and
In Eq.(13) the projection operator \(Q_{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h})\) is a projection operator on a subspace spanned by all Slater determinants generated by \(T_{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h})\) acting onto Φ〉.
Since in the definition of the effective Hamiltonian, Eqs. (13) and (14), only \(T_\mathrm{ext}(\mathfrak {h})\) is involved, one can view the SES CC formalism with the resulting activespace eigenvalue problem, Eq. (12), as a specific form of renormalization procedure where external parameters defining the corresponding wave function are integrated out. One should also mention that calculating the CC energy as an eigenvalue problems, as described by Eq. (12), is valid for any SES for a given CC approximation given by cluster operator T. According to this general result, the standard CC energy expression, shown by Eq. (9), can be reproduced when one uses trivial subalgebra, which contains no excitations (i.e., active space contains Φ〉 only).
The existence of alternative ways of calculating CC energy opens alternative ways of constructing new classes of approximations. For example, if one integrates several eigenvalues problems corresponding to SESs \(\mathfrak {h}_{i},\;(i=1,\ldots,M)\) into a quantum flow equations (QFE) discussed in Ref. (Kowalski 2021), i.e.,
In Ref. (Kowalski 2018) we demonstrated that at the solution, the solution of the QFE is equivalent to the solution of standard CC equations in the form of Eqs. (8) and (9) defined by cluster operator T which is a combination of all unique excitations included in \(T_{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h}_{i}) (i=1,\ldots,M)\) operators. This is can be symbolically expressed as
These two equivalent representations allows one also to form the following important corollary: Corollary (or the equivalence theorm)For certain forms of cluster operator T, the standard connected form of the CC equations given by Eqs. (8) and (9) can be replaced by quantum flow equations composed of nonHermitian eigenvalue problems, Eq. (15).
The above corollary plays an important role in defining reducedscaling formulations. This is a consequence of the fact that each subproblem corresponding to subalgebra \(\mathfrak {h}_{i}\) has the associated form of the effective Hamiltonian \(H^{\text {eff}}(\mathfrak {h}_{i})\), which allows to define one bodydensity matrix for the subsystem and select the subset of the most important cluster amplitudes in the \(T_{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h}_{i})\) operator. For example, when a localized orbital basis set is used, this procedure can be used to define the socalled orbital pairs at the level of the effective Hamiltonian, which is a significant advantage compared to the existing local CC approaches. This procedure can also be extended to other systems driven by different types of interactions such as in nuclear structure theory or quantum lattice models, where the extension of the standard local CC formulations as used in quantum chemistry is not obvious.
Hermitian CC downfolding
In order to employ downfolding methods in quantum computing, one has to find a way to construct Hermitian effective Hamiltonians. This goal can be achieved by employing the double unitary coupled Ansatz,(Kowalski and Bauman 2020) where the groundstate wave function is represented as
where \(\sigma _{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) and \(\sigma _{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h})\) are generaltype antiHermitian operators
In analogy to the SRCC case, all cluster amplitudes defining \(\sigma_{int}(\mathfrak{h})\) cluster operator carry active indices only (or indices of active orbitals defining given \(\mathfrak {h}\)). The external part \(\sigma _{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) is defined by amplitudes carrying at least one inactive orbital index. However, in contrast to the SRCC approach, internal/external parts of antiHermitian cluster operators are not defined in terms of excitations belonging explicitly to a given subalgebra, but rather by indices defining active/inactive orbitals specific to a given \(\mathfrak {h}\). Therefore \(\mathfrak {h}\) will be used here in the context of CAS’s generator. Another difference with the SRCC downfolding lies in the fact that while for the SRCC cases components of cluster operators \(T_\mathrm{int}(\mathfrak {h})\) and \(T_{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) were commuting as a consequence of particlehole formalism employed, in the unitary case, the operators forming \(\sigma _{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h})\) and \(\sigma _\mathrm{ext}(\mathfrak {h})\) are noncommuting.
Employing DUCC Ansatz, Eq. (17), one can show that in analogy to the SRCC case, the energy of the entire system (once the exact form of \(\sigma _{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) operator is known) can be calculated through the diagonalization of the effective/downfolded Hamiltonian in SESgenerated active space, i.e.,
where
and
The above results means that when the external cluster amplitudes are known (or can be effectively approximated), in analogy to singlereference SESCC formalism, the energy (or its approximation) can be calculated by diagonalizing the Hermitian effective/downfolded Hamiltonian, given by Eq. (21), in the active space using various quantum or classical diagonalizers.
The analysis of the manybody structure of the \(\sigma _{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h})\) and \(\sigma _{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) operators (Kowalski and Bauman 2020) shows that they can be approximated in a unitary CC manner:
where \(T_{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h})\) and \(T_{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) are SRCCtype internal and external cluster operators.
To make a practical use of Hermitian downfolded Hamiltonians, Eq. (20), in quantum computing one has to deal with nonterminating expansions of Eq. (22) and determine approximate form of the \(T_\mathrm{ext}(\mathfrak {h})\) operator to approximate its antiHermitian counterpart \(\sigma _{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\) according to Eq. (24). In recent studies, we demonstrated the feasibility of approximations based on the finite commutator expansion. We also demonstrated that \(T_{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\), provided by the CCSD formalism, can efficiently be used in building approximate form of the downfolded Hamiltonians. In particular, in this paper we will consider two approximate representations of the downfolded Hamiltonians (A and B) defined by the following expressions for \(\bar {H}_{\text {ext}}(\mathfrak {h})\):
where F_{N}dependent commutators were introduced to provide perturbative consistency of single (C1) and doublecommutator (C2) expansions (F_{N} stands for the Fock operator).
As a numerical example illustrating the efficiency of approximations C1 and C2 we use the LiF molecule at 1.0R_{e},2.0R_{e}, and 5.0R_{e} LiF distances where R_{e}=1.5639 Å. All calculations were performed using the ccpVTZ basis set (Dunning Jr. 1989) (employing spherical representation of d orbitals). The calculations using downfolded Hamiltonians C1 and C2 were performed employing restricted HartreeFock (RHF) orbitals and active spaces composed of 13 lowestlying orbitals (6 occupied and 7 virtual). The results of the diagonalization of the downfolded Hamiltonians are shown in Table 1. The C1 and C2 energies are compared with the CCSD, CCSDT, and CCSDT(2) _{Q} (Hirata et al. 2004) energies obtained with all orbitals correlated and the CCSDTQ formalism in the active space, which represent nearly exact diagonalization of the electronic Hamiltonian in the active space.
A comparison of the RHF and CCSDTQinactivespace results indicates that the active space used reproduces only a very small part of the total correlation energy approximately represented by the CCSDT(2) _{Q} results. In spite of this deficiency in the active space choice, the C2 DUCC approximation yields 9.99, 19.70, and 4.53 milliHartree of error with respect to the CCSDT(2) _{Q} energies for 1.0R _{e}, 2.0R _{e}, and 5.0R _{e} geometries, respectively. These errors should be collated with the errors of the CCSDTQinactivespace approach of 310.97, 311.20, and 299.49 milliHartree. As seen from Table 1, the inclusion of double commutator (C2 approximation) results in a significant improvements of the energies obtained with the C1 scheme.
In analogy to the equivalence theorem of Section III, similar quantum flow algorithms can also be defined in the case of the Hermitian downfolding (see Ref. (Kowalski 2021)). Although, due to noncommutative character of generators defining antiHermitian \(\sigma _{\text {int}}(\mathfrak {h}_{i})\) and \(\sigma _\mathrm{ext}(\mathfrak {h}_{i})\;\;(i=1,\ldots,M)\), certain approximations has to be used (mainly associated with the use of the Trotter formula), similar flow can be defined for the Hermitian case (see Fig.1). In this flow, we couple Hermitian eigenvalue problems corresponding to various active spaces (defined by subalgebras \(\mathfrak {h}_{i}\) and corresponding effective Hamiltonians \(H^{\text {eff}}(\mathfrak {h}_{i})\;\;(i=1,\ldots,M)\)). The main advantage of this approach is the fact that larger subspaces of the Hilbert space can be sampled by a number of smalldimensionality activespace problems. This feature eliminates certain problems associated with (1) the need of using large qubits registers to represent the whole system, (2) qubit mappings of the basic operators, and (3) assuring antisymmetry of the wave function of the entire system. For example, problem (3) is replaced by procedures that assure the antisymmetry of the wavefunctions of subsystems defined by the active space generated by various \(\mathfrak {h}_{i}\) (D_{i}≪N as shown in Fig.1). This approach is ideal for developing quantum algorithms that take full advantage of the sparsity (or the local character of the correlation effects) of the system and uses only a small fraction of qubits (D_{i}, see Fig. 1) needed to describe the system represented by N spin orbitals.
Multicomponent CC downfolding
The development of computational algorithms for composite quantum systems keeps attracting a lot of attention in the field of quantum computing. Typical examples are related to quantum electrodynamics, nuclear physics, quantum chemistry., and materials science For example, in quantum chemistry, this effort is related to the development of methods for nonperturbative coupling of electronic degrees of freedom with strong external fields (Haugland et al. 2020a; Pavošević and Flick 2021) and formulations going beyond BornOppenheimer approximation (Nakai and Sodeyama 2003; Ellis et al. 2016; Pavošević et al. 2018; Pavošević and HammesSchiffer 2021). Given the current status of quantum computing technology, it is important to provide techniques for compressing the dimensionality of these problems or finding an effective potential experienced by the one type of particles.
For simplicity, in this section we will consider a fictitious system composed of two types of Fermions A and B, defined by two sets of creation/annihilation operators \(\lbrace a_{\alpha }, a_{\alpha }^{\dagger } \rbrace _{\alpha =1}^{N_{A}}\) and \(\lbrace b_{\beta }, b_{\beta }^{\dagger } \rbrace _{\beta =1}^{N_{B}}\) (these operators should not be confused with the notation used in Section II) satisfying typical Fermionic anticommutation relations ([.,.]_{+}) and commuting ([.,.]_{−}) between themselves
We will also assume specific form of the Hamiltonian
where H_{A},H_{B}, and V_{AB} describe subsystems A, B, and interactions between A and B, respectively. We will also assume that the interaction part commutes with the particle number operators n_{A} and n_{B} for systems A and B, i.e.,
This situation is typically encountered in models relevant to nonBornOppenheimer approaches in electronic structure theory (Nakai and Sodeyama 2003; Ellis et al. 2016; Pavošević et al. 2018; Pavošević and HammesSchiffer 2021) and nuclear structure theory (Dean and HjorthJensen 2004).
Let us assume that the correlated groundstate wave function can be represented in the form of single reference CC wave function
where cluster operator contains excitations correlating subsystem A (T_{A}) and subsystem B (T_{B}) as well as collective excitations involving both subsystems (S_{AB}),.i.e.,
The reference function Φ_{AB}〉 is a reference function for the composite system which is assumed to be represented as
where 0〉 represents physical vacuum and Ω_{A} and Ω_{B} are string of \(a^{\dagger }_{\alpha }\)/\(b^{\dagger }_{\beta }\) operators distributing electrons among occupied levels of subsystems A and B, respectively.
The energydependent CC equation for the composite system takes the form
where E_{AB} is the energy of the composite system, P_{AB} is a projection operator onto the reference function Φ_{AB}〉, and projection operator Q_{AB} can be decomposed as follows:
where Q_{A} and Q_{B} are the projection operators onto excited Slater determinants obtained by exciting particles within subsystem A and B from Φ_{AB}〉, respectively, and Z_{AB} corresponds to the projection operator onto subspace spanned by excited Slater determinants where fermion particles of type A and B are excited simultaneously.
By projecting Eq. (35) onto (P_{AB}+Q_{A}) and introducing the resolution of identity \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}e^{T_{B}+S_{AB}}e^{T_{B}S_{AB}}\) one obtains
where
In analogy to analysis in Ref. (Kowalski 2018) the role of \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}e^{T_{B}+S_{AB}}\) in Eq. (37), reduces to the unit operator. This is a consequence of the fact that the operator T_{B}+S_{AB} produces excitations within subsystem B, which are subsequently eliminated by the Q_{A} projection operator. Consequently, Eq. (37) takes the form:
where the downfolded/effective Hamiltonian H^{eff}(A) is defined as
The above result shows that once T_{B} and S_{AB} amplitudes are know (or can be effectively approximated) the energy of the entire system can be calculated performing simulations on the subsystem A using effective Hamiltonian H^{eff}(A).
In addition to the simplest downfolding procedure described above, there are several other possible scenarios how downfolding procedures can be defined for the composite system:

the utilization of second downfolding procedure to the H^{eff}(A) in reducedsize active space for subsystem A,

the utilizaton of the composite active space that is representd by tensor product of active spaces for subsystems A and B.
These techniques are especially interesting for the explicit inclusion of nuclear degrees of freedom (for Fermionic nuclei) in the effective Hamiltonians describing electronic degrees of freedom in the nonBornOppenheimer formulations.
A Hermitian extension of the downfolding procedure can be accomplished by utilizing DUCC Ansatz for the composite system given by the expansion
where σ_{A},σ_{B}, and ρ_{AB} are the antiHermitian operators defined by the cluster amplitudes with indices belonging to subsystems A, B, and amplitudes defined by a mixed indices involving basis functions on A and B, respectively. As in the nonHermitian case of downfolding discussed in this Section, we will focus on the downfolding of the entire subsystem B into the effective Hamiltonians for subsystem A. Since creation/annihilation operators correspond to the subsystems A and B, the exactness of the above expansion can be obtained as a generalization of the procedure based on the elementary Givens rotations discussed in Ref. (Evangelista et al. 2019). For the specific case discussed in this Section (based on the downfolding of the entire B subsystem) one should assume that all basis functions defining subsystem A are defined as active indices (see Ref. (Kowalski and Bauman 2020) for details).
Substituting Eq. (41) into the Schrödinger equations and projecting onto (P_{AB}+Q_{A}), one arrives the following form of the equations
where
and
Again, the energy of the full system can be probed by subsystem A using effective Hamiltonian \(H^{\text {eff}}_{DUCC}(A)\). For example, one can envision the utilization of Eq. (42) in the context of coupling nuclear and electronic degrees of freedom. In this case, subsystem A is represented by electrons while system B corresponds do nuclei obeying Fermi statistic. If σ_{B} and ρ_{AB} can be effectively approximated then the \(H^\mathrm{eff}_{DUCC}(A)\) Hamiltonian describes the behavior of electrons in the presence of "correlated" nuclei. The intensive development of the CC models beyond BornOppenheimer approximations (Nakai and Sodeyama 2003; Pavošević et al. 2018; Pavošević and HammesSchiffer 2021) provides a reference for building approximate, for eaxmple, perturbative, form of σ_{B} and ρ_{AB} according formula analogous to Eq. (24), which requires the knowledge of T_{B} and S_{AB} to approximate σ_{B} and ρ_{AB}, respectively.
Extraction of the analytical form of interactions in manybody systems
In standard formulations of downfolding methods it is assumed (see Refs. (Bauman et al. 2019; Metcalf et al. 2020)) that effective/downfolded DUCC Hamiltonians are dominated by one and twobody effects, i.e., using the language of second quantization H^{eff} can be approximated as (for simplicity, let us assume that only virtual orbitals are downfolded)
where P,Q,R,S indices, \(\chi ^{P}_{Q}\), and \(\chi ^{PQ}_{RS}\) represent active spin orbitals and effective one and twobody interactions, respectively (nonantisymmetrized matrix elements \(\chi ^{PQ}_{RS}\) are employed in (45)). Once the set of \(\lbrace \chi ^{P}_{Q},\chi ^{PQ}_{RS}\rbrace\) is known (at the end of flow procedure) this information can be further used to derive an analytical form of effective interelectron interactions. This can be accomplished by fitting the general form of onebody u and twobody g interactions defined as functions of tobeoptimized parameters γ/ δ as well as r_{1},r_{2},r_{12}=r_{1}−r_{2},∇_{1},∇_{2}, etc. operators:
These effective interactions replace standard one and twobody interactions in nonrelativistic quantum chemistry and are defined to minimize the discrepancies with \(\lbrace \chi ^{P}_{Q},\chi ^{PQ}_{RS}\rbrace\) for a given discrete molecular spinorbital set, i.e.,
where
We believe that the utilization of efficient nonlinear optimizers or machine learning techniques can provide an effective form of the interactions u and g defined in smallsize active spaces. These effective interactions can be utilized in loworder methodologies, including HartreeFock (HF) and density functional theories (DFT). The access to the analytical form of the interelectron interactions can also enable affordable and reliable abinitio dynamics driven by loworder methods.
Conclusions
In this paper, we briefly review the current state of two variants of CC downfolding techniques. While the nonHermitian downfolding and resulting activespace Hamiltonians are not a primary target for quantum computing, the equivalence theorem opens new possibilities regarding forming systematic reducedscaling frameworks based on the quantum flow equations. In contrast to the existing reduced scaling CC formulations, where the notion of electron pair is rather descriptive and is based on the partitioning of the correlation energy with respect to contributions that can be indexed by pairs of the occupied orbitals, the present formalism defines the pair through the corresponding effective Hamiltonian. This fact has a fundamental advantage over ad hoc localization procedures  it allows in a natural way to introduce the pair density matrix. It also allows for a more systematic way of introducing certain classes of higherrank excitations. The double unitary CC Ansatz provides a natural manybody language to introduce Hermitian downfolded representation of manybody Hamiltonians in reduceddimensionality active spaces. To approximate nonterminating commutator expansion of downfolded Hamiltonians, we use finite commutator expansions. On the LiF example, we demonstrated that the inclusion of double commutator terms leads to systematic improvements of the results obtained with single commutator expansion even in a situation when an active space is not providing a good zeroth order approximation of correlation effects. It should be also stressed that the downfolded Hamiltonians based on the double commutator expansion are capable of reducing the error of energies obtained by the diagonalization of the bareHamiltonian in the samesize active space by more than an order of magnitude (in fact, for the 1.0R _{e} and 5.0R _{e} one could witness 30 and 60fold reduction in energy errors with respect to accurate CC results obtained by correlating all molecular orbitals). The outlined downfolding techniques can also be useful in the context of reducing the numerical cost of expensive CC calculations for systems with periodic boundary conditions.
In the second part of the paper, we extended nonHermitian and Hermitian downfolding to multicomponent quantum systems. As an example, we used the model system composed of two types of Fermions, which epitomizes typical situations encountered in nuclear physics and for certain types of nuclei in nonBornOppenheimer electronic structure theory. We have also outlined an approximate procedure to extract the semianalytical form of the one and twobody interelectron interactions in active space based on the minimization procedure utilizing one and twobody interactions defining downfolded Hamiltonians. In the future, we will explore the usefulness of machine learning techniques for this procedure.
In summary, the universal character of the discussed downfolding framework makes it applicable to a broad class of multicomponent quantum systems encountered in nuclear theory, chemistry, and materials sciences.
Availability of data and materials
Code to generate downfolded Hamiltonians can be found in the following GitHub repository: https://nwchemgit.github.io/.
Abbreviations
 BCH:

BakerCampbellHausdorff
 CAS:

Complete active space
 CC:

Coupled cluster
 CCSD:

CC with singles and doubles
 CCSD(T):

CC with singles, doubles, and perturbative triples
 CCSDT:

CC with singles, doubles, and triples
 CCSDT(2)_{Q} :

Quadruple noniterative correcions to the CCSDT energy
 CCSDTQ:

CC with singles, doubles, triples, and quadruples
 DFT:

Density functional theory
 DUCC:

Double unitary CC
 HF:

HartreeFock
 NISQ:

Noisy IntermediateScale Quantum Device
 QFE:

Quantum flow equations
 QPE:

Quantum phase estimation
 RHF:

Restricted HartreeFock
 SES:

Subsystem embedding subalgebras
 SR:

Single reference
 VQE:

Variational quantum eigensolver
References
R. J. Bartlett, M. Musiał, Coupledcluster theory in quantum chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys.79:, 291–352 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.79.291.
N. P. Bauman, J. Shen, P. Piecuch, Combining activespace coupledcluster approaches with moment energy corrections via the cc(p;q) methodology: connected quadruple excitations. Mol. Phys.115(2122), 2860–2891 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2017.1350291.
N. P. Bauman, G. H. Low, K. Kowalski, Quantum simulations of excited states with activespace downfolded hamiltonians. J. Chem. Phys.151(23), 234114 (2019).
D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, B. C. Sanders, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse hamiltonians. Comm. Math. Phys.270(2), 359–371 (2007).
R. F. Bishop, N. Ligterink, N. R. Walet, Towards a coupledcluster treatment of su (n) lattice gauge field theory. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B. 20(30n31), 4992–5007 (2006).
Y. J. Bomble, J. F. Stanton, M. Kallay, J. Gauss, Coupledcluster methods including noniterative corrections for quadruple excitations. J. Chem. Phys.123(5), 054101 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1950567.
G. H. Booth, A. Grüneis, G. Kresse, A. Alavi, Towards an exact description of electronic wavefunctions in real solids. Nature. 493(7432), 365 (2013).
U. Bozkaya, H. F. Schaefer III, Symmetric and asymmetric triple excitation corrections for the orbitaloptimized coupledcluster doubles method: Improving upon ccsd(t) and ccsd(t) λ: Preliminary application. J. Chem. Phys.136(20), 204114 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4720382.
B. H. Brandow, Linkedcluster expansions for the nuclear manybody problem. Rev. Mod. Phys.39:, 771–828 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.39.771.
E. J. Bylaska, D. Song, N. P. Bauman, K Kowalski, D. Claudino, T. S. Humble, Quantum solvers for planewave hamiltonians: Abridging virtual spaces through the optimization of pairwise correlations. Front. Chem.9:, 26 (2021).
Y. Cao, J. Romero, J. P. Olson, M. Degroote, P. D. Johnson, M. Kieferová, I. D. Kivlichan, T. Menke, B. Peropadre, N. P. Sawaya, et al., Quantum chemistry in the age of quantum computing. Chem. Rev.119(19), 10856–10915 (2019).
A. M. Childs, On the relationship between continuousand discretetime quantum walk. Comm. Math. Phys.294(2), 581–603 (2010).
R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, M. Mosca. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 454(1969), 339–354 (1998).
F. Coester, Bound states of a manyparticle system. Nucl. Phys.7:, 421–424 (1958). https://doi.org/10.1016/00295582(58)902803.
F. Coester, H. Kummel, Shortrange correlations in nuclear wave functions. Nucl. Phys.17:, 477–485 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1016/00295582(60)901401.
J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. KimchiSchwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, I. Siddiqi, Computation of molecular spectra on a quantum processor with an errorresilient algorithm. Phys. Rev. X. 8:, 011021 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011021.
C. J. Cramer, A. Kinal, M. Włoch, P. Piecuch, L. Gagliardi, Theoretical characterization of endon and sideon peroxide coordination in ligated cu2o2 models. J. Phys. Chem. A. 110(40), 11557–11568 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp064232h.
T. D. Crawford, Ab initio calculation of molecular chiroptical properties. Theor. Chem. Accounts. 115(4), 227–245 (2006).
T. D. Crawford, H. F. Schaefer, An introduction to coupled cluster theory for computational chemists. Rev. Comput. Chem.14:, 33–136 (2000).
T. D. Crawford, J. F. Stanton, Investigation of an asymmetric tripleexcitation correction for coupledcluster energies. Int. J. Quantum Chem.70(45), 601–611 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097461X(1998)70:4/5<601::AIDQUA6>3.0.CO;2Z.
R. D’Cunha, T. D. Crawford, Pno++: Perturbed pair natural orbitals for coupled cluster linear response theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput.17(1), 290–301 (2020).
D. J. Dean, M. HjorthJensen, Coupledcluster approach to nuclear physics. Phys. Rev. C. 69:, 054320 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.69.054320.
M. Degroote, T. M. Henderson, J. Zhao, J. Dukelsky, G. E. Scuseria, Polynomial similarity transformation theory: A smooth interpolation between coupled cluster doubles and projected bcs applied to the reduced bcs hamiltonian. Phys. Rev. B. 93(12), 125124 (2016).
J. E. Deustua, J. Shen, P. Piecuch, Converging highlevel coupledcluster energetics by monte carlo sampling and moment expansions. Phys. Rev. Lett.119(22), 223003 (2017).
J. E. Deustua, I. Magoulas, J. Shen, P. Piecuch, Communication: Approaching exact quantum chemistry by cluster analysis of full configuration interaction quantum monte carlo wave functions. J. Chem. Phys.149(15), 151101 (2018).
T. H. Dunning Jr., Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. i. the atoms boron through neon and hydrogen. J. Chem. Phys.90(2), 1007–1023 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.456153.
AK Dutta, F. Neese, R. Izsák, Speeding up equation of motion coupled cluster theory with the chain of spheres approximation. J. Chem. Phys.144(3), 034102 (2016).
B. H. Ellis, S. Aggarwal, A. Chakraborty, Development of the multicomponent coupledcluster theory for investigation of multiexcitonic interactions. J. Chem. Theory Comput.12(1), 188–200 (2016).
F. A. Evangelista, G. K. L. Chan, G. E. Scuseria, Exact parameterization of fermionic wave functions via unitary coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys.151(24), 244112 (2019).
S. R. Gwaltney, M. HeadGordon, A secondorder correction to singles and doubles coupledcluster methods based on a perturbative expansion of a similaritytransformed hamiltonian. Chem. Phys. Lett.323(1), 21–28 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S00092614(00)004231.
Gwaltney, S. R., M. HeadGordon, A secondorder perturbative correction to the coupledcluster singles and doubles method: Ccsd(2). J. Chem. Phys.115(5), 2014–2021 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1383589.
G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, D. J. Dean, M HjorthJensen, Mediummass nuclei from chiral nucleonnucleon interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett.101:, 092502 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.092502.
C. Hampel, H. J. Werner, Local treatment of electron correlation in coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys.104(16), 6286–6297 (1996).
G. Hasberg, H Kümmel, Coupled cluster description of pionnucleon systems. Phys. Rev. C. 33(4), 1367 (1986).
S. Hirata, M. Nooijen, I. Grabowski, R. J. Bartlett, Perturbative corrections to coupledcluster and equationofmotion coupledcluster energies: A determinantal analysis. J. Chem. Phys.114(9), 3919–3928 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1346578.
S. Hirata, P. D. Fan, A. A. Auer, M. Nooijen, P. Piecuch, Combined coupledcluster and manybody perturbation theories. J. Chem. Phys.121(24), 12197–12207 (2004).
S. Hirata, R. Podeszwa, M. Tobita, R. J. Bartlett, Coupledcluster singles and doubles for extended systems. J. Chem. Phys.120(6), 2581–2592 (2004).
S. Hirata, R. Podeszwa, M. Tobita, R. J. Bartlett, Coupledcluster singles and doubles for extended systems. J. Chem. Phys.120(6), 2581–2592 (2004).
W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, U. Baek, B. O’Gorman, K. B. Whaley, A nonorthogonal variational quantum eigensolver. New J. Phys.22:, 073009 (2020).
A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, Hardwareefficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature. 549:, 242–246 (2017).
A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. Corcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor. Nature. 567:, 491–495 (2019).
H. Katagiri, Equationofmotion coupledcluster study on exciton states of polyethylene with periodic boundary condition. J. Chem. Phys.122(22), 224901 (2005).
A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum computations: algorithms and error correction. Russ. Math. Surv.52(6), 1191–1249 (1997).
H. Koch, P. Jørgensen, Coupled cluster response functions. J. Chem. Phys.93(5), 3333–3344 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.458814.
K. Kowalski, Properties of coupledcluster equations originating in excitation subalgebras. J. Chem. Phys.148(9), 094104 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5010693.
K. Kowalski, N. P. Bauman, Subsystem quantum dynamics using coupled cluster downfolding techniques. J. Chem. Phys.152(24), 244127 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0008436. http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0008436.
K. Kowalski, D. J. Dean, M HjorthJensen, T. Papenbrock, P. Piecuch, Coupled cluster calculations of ground and excited states of nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett.92:, 132501 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.132501.
Kowalski, K., Dimensionality reduction of the manybody problem using coupledcluster subsystem flow equations: Classical and quantum computing perspective. Phys. Rev. A. 104:, 032804 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.032804.
H. G. Kümmel, Postgaussian approximation to the soliton of the (1+1)dimensional sinegordon model. Phys. Rev. B. 64(1), 014301 (2001).
W. Li, P. Piecuch, Multilevel extension of the clusterinmolecule local correlation methodology: Merging coupledcluster and møller plesset perturbation theories. J. Phys. Chem. A. 114(24), 6721–6727 (2010).
S. Li, J. Ma, Y. Jiang, Linear scaling local correlation approach for solving the coupled cluster equations of large systems. J. Comp. Chem.23(2), 237–244 (2002).
S. Li, J. Shen, W. Li, Y. Jiang, An efficient implementation of the “clusterinmolecule” approach for local electron correlation calculations. J. Chem. Phys.125(7), 074109 (2006).
W. Li, P. Piecuch, J. R. Gour, S. Li, Local correlation calculations using standard and renormalized coupledcluster approaches. J. Chem. Phys.131(11), 114109 (2009).
N. Ligterink, N. Walet, R. Bishop, A coupledcluster formulation of hamiltonian lattice field theory: The nonlinear sigma model. Ann. Phys.267(1), 97–133 (1998).
I. Lindgren, J. Morrison, Atomic ManyBody Theory, SpringerSeries on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012). https://books.google.com/books?id=L43_CAAAQBAJ.
A. Luis, J Peřina, Optimum phaseshift estimation and the quantum description of the phase difference. Phys. Rev. A. 54(5), 4564 (1996).
J. McClain, Q. Sun, G. K. L. Chan, T. C. Berkelbach, Gaussianbased coupledcluster theory for the groundstate and band structure of solids. J. Chem. Theory Comput.13(3), 1209–1218 (2017).
J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, A. AspuruGuzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantumclassical algorithms. New J. Phys. 18(2), 023023 (2016).
L. Meissner, R. J. Bartlett, A new approach to the problem of noniterative corrections within the coupledcluster framework. J. Chem. Phys.115(1), 50–61 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1373434.
M. Metcalf, N. P. Bauman, K. Kowalski, W. A. de Jong, Resourceefficient chemistry on quantum computers with the variational quantum eigensolver and the double unitary coupledcluster approach. J. Chem. Theory Comput.16(10), 6165–6175 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00421. PMID: 32915568. http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00421.
H. Nakai, K. Sodeyama, Manybody effects in nonadiabatic molecular theory for simultaneous determination of nuclear and electronic wave functions: Ab initio nomo/mbpt and cc methods. J. Chem. Phys.118(3), 1119–1127 (2003).
F. Neese, A. Hansen, F. Wennmohs, S. Grimme, Accurate theoretical chemistry with coupled pair models. Acc. Chem. Res.42(5), 641–648 (2009).
F. Neese, F. Wennmohs, A. Hansen, Efficient and accurate local approximations to coupledelectron pair approaches: An attempt to revive the pair natural orbital method. J. Chem. Phys.130(11), 114108 (2009).
M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th edn. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011).
J. Paldus, X. Li, A critical assessment of coupled cluster method in quantum chemistry. Adv. Chem. Phys.110:, 1–175 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470141694.ch1.
J. Paldus, J. Čížek, I. Shavitt, Correlation problems in atomic and molecular systems. IV. Extended coupledpair manyelectron theory and its application to the B H_{3} molecule. Phys. Rev. A. 5:, 50–67 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.5.50.
J. A. Parkhill, K. Lawler, M. HeadGordon, The perfect quadruples model for electron correlation in a valence active space. J. Chem. Phys.130(8), 084101 (2009).
F. Pavošević, S. HammesSchiffer, Multicomponent unitary coupled cluster and equationofmotion for quantum computation. J. Chem. Theory Comput.17(6), 3252–3258 (2021).
F. Pavošević, T. Culpitt, S. HammesSchiffer, Multicomponent coupled cluster singles and doubles theory within the nuclearelectronic orbital framework. J. Chem. Theory Comput.15(1), 338–347 (2018).
C Peng, M. C. Clement, E. F. Valeev, Stateaveraged pair natural orbitals for excited states: A route toward efficient equation of motion coupledcluster. J. Chem. Theory Comput.14(11), 5597–5607 (2018).
A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M. H. Yung, X. Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. AspuruGuzik, J. L. O’brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun.5:, 4213 (2014).
P. Piecuch, M. Włoch, Renormalized coupledcluster methods exploiting left eigenstates of the similaritytransformed hamiltonian. J. Chem. Phys.123(22), 224105 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2137318.
P. Piecuch, J. R. Gour, M. Włoch, Lefteigenstate completely renormalized equationofmotion coupledcluster methods: Review of key concepts, extension to excited states of openshell systems, and comparison with electronattached and ionized approaches. Int. J. Quantum Chem.109(14), 3268–3304 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.22367.
G. Purvis, R. Bartlett, A full coupledcluster singles and doubles model: The inclusion of disconnected triples. J. Chem. Phys.76(4), 1910–1918 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.443164.
K. Raghavachari, G. W. Trucks, J. A. Pople, M. HeadGordon, A fifthorder perturbation comparison of electron correlation theories. Chem. Phys. Lett.157(6), 479–483 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/S00092614(89)873956.
C. Riplinger, F. Neese, An efficient and near linear scaling pair natural orbital based local coupled cluster method. J. Chem. Phys.138(3), 034106 (2013).
C. Riplinger, B. Sandhoefer, A. Hansen, F. Neese, Natural triple excitations in local coupled cluster calculations with pair natural orbitals. J. Chem. Phys.139(13), 134101 (2013).
C. Riplinger, P. Pinski, U. Becker, E. F. Valeev, F. Neese, Sparse maps—systematic infrastructure for reducedscaling electronic structure methods. ii. linear scaling domain based pair natural orbital coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys.144(2), 024109 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4939030.
J. B. Robinson, P. J. Knowles, Rigorously extensive orbitalinvariant renormalized perturbative triples corrections from quasivariational coupled cluster theory. J. Chem. Phys.138(7), 074104 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4791636.
J. Romero, R. Babbush, J. R. McClean, C. Hempel, P. J. Love, A. AspuruGuzik, Strategies for quantum computing molecular energies using the unitary coupled cluster ansatz. Quantum Sci. Technol.4(1), 014008 (2018).
A. C. Scheiner, G. E. Scuseria, J. E. Rice, T. J. Lee, H. F. Schaefer III, Analytic evaluation of energy gradients for the single and double excitation coupled cluster (ccsd) wave function: Theory and application. J. Chem. Phys.87(9), 5361–5373 (1987).
M. Schütz, Loworder scaling local electron correlation methods. iii. linear scaling local perturbative triples correction (t). J. Chem. Phys.113(22), 9986–10001 (2000).
Schütz, M., H. J. Werner, Loworder scaling local electron correlation methods. iv. linear scaling local coupledcluster (lccsd). J. Chem. Phys.114(2), 661–681 (2001).
J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, P. J. Love, The bravyikitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure. J. Chem. Phys.137(22), 224109 (2012).
Y. Shen, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. N. Zhang, M. H. Yung, K. Kim, Quantum implementation of the unitary coupled cluster for simulating molecular electronic structure. Phys. Rev. A. 95:, 020501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.020501.
M. O. Sinnokrot, E. F. Valeev, C. D. Sherrill, Estimates of the ab initio limit for π π interactions: The benzene dimer. J. Am. Chem. Soc.124(36), 10887–10893 (2002).
L. V. Slipchenko, A. I. Krylov, Singlettriplet gaps in diradicals by the spinflip approach: A benchmark study. J. Chem. Phys.117(10), 4694–4708 (2002).
J. F. Stanton, Why ccsd(t) works: a different perspective. Chem. Phys. Lett.281(1), 130–134 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S00092614(97)011445.
J. F. Stanton, J. Gauss, Perturbative treatment of the similarity transformed hamiltonian in equationofmotion coupledcluster approximations. J. Chem. Phys.103(3), 1064–1076 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.469817.
H. Stoll, Correlation energy of diamond. Phys. Rev. B. 46(11), 6700 (1992).
A. Tajti, P. G. Szalay, A. G. Császár, M. Kállay, J. Gauss, E. F. Valeev, B. A. Flowers, J. Vázquez, J. F. Stanton, Heat: High accuracy extrapolated ab initio thermochemistry. J. Chem. Phys.121(23), 11599–11613 (2004).
X. Wang, T. C. Berkelbach, Excitons in solids from periodic equationofmotion coupledcluster theory. J. Chem. Theory Comput.16(5), 3095–3103 (2020).
D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, M. Troyer, Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms. Phys. Rev. A. 92(4), 042303 (2015).
M. Włoch, J. R. Gour, P. Piecuch, Extension of the renormalized coupledcluster methods exploiting left eigenstates of the similaritytransformed hamiltonian to openshell systems: A benchmark study. J. Phys. Chem. A. 111(44), 11359–11382 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp072535l.
S. H. Yuwono, I. Magoulas, P. Piecuch, Quantum computation solves a halfcenturyold enigma: Elusive vibrational states of magnesium dimer found. Sci. Adv.6(14), 4058 (2020).
J. Arponen, R. Bishop, E. Pajanne, N. Robinson, in Condensed Matter Theories. Towards a coupled cluster gaugefield approach to quantum hydrodynamics (Springer, Boston MA, 1988), pp. 51–66.
N. P. Bauman, E. J. Bylaska, S. Krishnamoorthy, G. H. Low, N. Wiebe, C. E. Granade, M. Roetteler, M. Troyer, K. Kowalski, J. Chem. Phys.151(1), 014107 (2019).
N. P. Bauman, J. Chládek, L. Veis, J. Pittner, K. Kowalski, Variational quantum eigensolver for approximate diagonalization of downfolded hamiltonians using generalized unitary coupled cluster ansatz. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01985 (2020).
R. Bishop, N. Robinson, J. Arponen, E. Pajanne, in Aspects of ManyBody Effects in Molecules and Extended Systems. Quantum fluid dynamics: An extended coupled cluster treatment (Springer, 1989), pp. 241–260.
J Čížek, J. Chem. Phys.45(11), 4256–4266 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1727484.
M. Funke, U. Kaulfuss, H. Kümmel, Phys. Rev. D. 35(2), 621 (1987).
T. Häner, D. S. Steiger, M. Smelyanskiy, M. Troyer, in SC ’16: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. High performance emulation of quantum circuits, (2016), pp. 866–874. https://doi.org/10.1109/SC.2016.73.
T. S. Haugland, E. Ronca, E. F. Kjønstad, A. Rubio, H. Koch, Coupled cluster theory for molecular polaritons: Changing ground and excited states. Phys. Rev. X. 10(4), 041043 (2020a).
T. S. Haugland, E. Ronca, E. F. Kjønstad, A. Rubio, H. Koch, Coupled cluster theory for molecular polaritons: Changing ground and excited states. Phys. Rev. X. 10:, 041043 (2020b). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041043.
K. Kowalski, P. Piecuch, The method of moments of coupledcluster equations and the renormalized ccsd[t], ccsd(t), ccsd(tq), and ccsdt(q) approaches. J. Chem. Phys.113(1), 18–35 (2000a). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.481769.
Kowalski, K., P. Piecuch, Renormalized ccsd(t) and ccsd(tq) approaches: Dissociation of the n2 triple bond. J. Chem. Phys.113(14), 5644–5652 (2000b). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1290609.
S. A. Kucharski, R. J. Bartlett, An efficient way to include connected quadruple contributions into the coupled cluster method. J. Chem. Phys.108(22), 9221–9226 (1998a). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.476376.
Kucharski, S. A., R. J. Bartlett, Noniterative energy corrections through fifthorder to the coupled cluster singles and doubles method. J. Chem. Phys.108(13), 5243–5254 (1998b). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.475961.
S. A. Kucharski, R. J. Bartlett, Sixthorder energy corrections with converged coupled cluster singles and doubles amplitudes. J. Chem. Phys.108(13), 5255–5264 (1998c). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.475962.
F. Pavošević, J. Flick, Polaritonic unitary coupled cluster for quantum computations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09842 (2021).
F. Pavosevic, P. Pinski, C. Riplinger, F. Neese, E. F. Valeev, SparseMapsA Systematic Infrastructure for ReducedScaling Electronic Structure Methods. IV. LinearScaling SecondOrder Explicitly Correlated Energy with Pair Natural Orbitals. J. Chem. Phys.144(14) (2016). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.494544.
P. Piecuch, K. Kowalski, in Computational Chemistry: Reviews of Current Trends. In search of the relationship between multiple solutions characterizing coupledcluster theories (World Scientific, pp. 1–104. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812792501_0001.
D. Poulin, A. Kitaev, D. S. Steiger, M. B. Hastings, M. Troyer, Fast quantum algorithm for spectral properties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11025 (2017).
M. Schütz, H. J. Werner, Local perturbative triples correction (t) with linear cost scaling. Chem. Phys. Lett.318(45), 2000.
I. Shavitt, R. Bartlett, ManyBody Methods in Chemistry and Physics: MBPT and CoupledCluster Theory, Cambridge Molecular ScienceCambridge University Press, 2009). https://books.google.com/books?id=SWw6ac1NHZYC. Accessed 1 Nov 2021
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the "Embedding QC into Manybody Frameworks for Strongly Correlated Molecular and Materials Systems” project, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), the Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences. Part of this work was supported by the Quantum Science Center (QSC), a National Quantum Information Science Research Center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Funding
This work was supported by the "Embedding QC into Manybody Frameworks for Strongly Correlated Molecular and Materials Systems” project, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES), the Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences. Part of this work was supported by the Quantum Science Center (QSC), a National Quantum Information Science Research Center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
NPB performed simulations and contributed to the interpretation of results and writing the manuscript. KK conceptualized the study and contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bauman, N.P., Kowalski, K. Coupled Cluster Downfolding Theory: towards universal manybody algorithms for dimensionality reduction of composite quantum systems in chemistry and materials science. Mater Theory 6, 17 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41313022000468
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41313022000468
Keywords
 Quantum computing
 Electronic structure theory
 Coupled cluster method