Quantum Algorithms for NMR Shielding Computation: Current Methods, Breakthroughs, and Future Directions for Researchers

Abstract

This article explores the rapidly evolving landscape of quantum computing applications for calculating Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) shielding constants—a critical parameter in molecular structure elucidation for drug development and materials science. It provides a comprehensive analysis covering the foundational principles of why NMR simulation is a computationally hard problem classically and a natural candidate for quantum advantage. The review details cutting-edge methodological approaches, including Google's recently announced 'Quantum Echoes' algorithm and machine learning-enhanced quantum-classical hybrids. It further examines the significant challenges in optimization and error correction, and provides a comparative validation of quantum against state-of-the-art classical methods like CCSD(T) and machine learning models. Aimed at researchers and pharmaceutical professionals, this resource synthesizes the current state of the field, its practical utility, and a forward-looking perspective on achieving scalable, fault-tolerant quantum computation for real-world chemical problems.

The Quantum Imperative: Why NMR Shielding Simulation is a Natural Fit for Quantum Computers

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a pivotal analytical technique in chemistry and structural biology, used to determine molecular structure and identify substances. The computational simulation of NMR spectra from first principles is a critical, yet formidable, task for classical computers. As research into quantum computing advances, this simulation problem has emerged as a prime candidate for demonstrating a practical quantum advantage, where quantum computers could outperform their classical counterparts. Understanding the nature and extent of the classical computational bottleneck is therefore essential. This application note details the specific challenges of exact NMR spectral simulation, provides protocols for benchmarking classical solvers, and frames these challenges within the ongoing pursuit of quantum algorithmic solutions.

The Core Computational Problem in NMR Simulation

At its heart, simulating an NMR spectrum involves calculating the spectral function, a mathematical description of the signal measured in an NMR experiment [1]. For a molecule in solution, the key object is the spin Hamiltonian, which describes the system of interacting atomic nuclei within a magnetic field [2]:

The first term represents the Zeeman interaction between nuclei and the external magnetic field, where γₗ is the gyromagnetic ratio and δₗ is the chemical shift. The second term represents the indirect spin-spin coupling (Jâ‚–â‚—) between nuclei [2].

The spectral function, C(ω), which consists of a series of Lorentzian peaks, must then be computed. It is proportional to [2]:

Here, M± are the raising and lowering operators for the total nuclear spin, |Eₙ⟩ and |Eₘ⟩ are energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, and η is a broadening parameter that models signal decay and spectrometer resolution [2].

The direct approach to this calculation, exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian, is where the classical bottleneck becomes apparent. The Hamiltonian possesses a symmetry due to the conservation of total spin along the Z-axis, allowing it to be written in block-diagonal form. The largest block has a dimension 𝒟 that scales combinatorially with the number of active nuclei, N [2]:

Consequently, the memory required for an exact calculation scales as 𝒪(2²ᴺ/N), and the computational time scales as 𝒪(2³ᴺ/N³ᐟ²) [2]. This scaling is the root of the exponential wall faced by classical computers.

Table 1: Key Interactions in the NMR Spin Hamiltonian

Interaction	Mathematical Form	Physical Origin	Impact on Spectrum
Zeeman Effect	-γₗ(1+δₗ)BzÎᶻₗ	Interaction of nuclear magnetic moments with the external static magnetic field.	Determines the base Larmor frequency of nuclei.
Chemical Shift	δₗ (within Zeeman term)	Shielding of nuclei by the surrounding electron cloud.	Causes frequency shifts, providing chemical environment fingerprints.
J-Coupling	2π Jₖₗ 𝐈̂ₖ · 𝐈̂ₗ	Indirect through-bond spin-spin coupling mediated by bonding electrons.	Creates fine structure (multiplets) in the spectrum, revealing connectivity.

Quantitative Analysis of the Classical Bottleneck

The combinatorial scaling of the Hamiltonian's Hilbert space means that adding just one more spin-1/2 nucleus to a molecule approximately doubles the memory required to represent the system and more than doubles the computation time. For small molecules, this is manageable. However, for larger molecules, the computational demands increase significantly, pushing the limits of even the most powerful classical computers [1].

Table 2: Computational Resource Scaling for Exact NMR Simulation

Number of Spin-1/2 Nuclei (N)	Approximate Dimension of Largest Block (𝒟)	Memory Requirement (Approx.)	Implication for Classical Computation
4	6	~1 KB	Trivial
8	70	~10 KB	Easy
12	924	~1 MB	Manageable
16	12,870	~100 MB	Feasible with significant resources
20	184,756	~10 GB	Becoming prohibitive for exact methods
24	2.7 million	~1 TB	Effectively intractable for exact diagonalization

This exponential scaling is not just theoretical. Recent benchmark studies of a highly optimized classical solver revealed that while it performs accurately across a broad range of experimentally realistic scenarios, its performance begins to falter for a specific class of molecules with unusual properties, such as particularly strong spin-spin interactions [1]. These complex molecules, with intricate interactions between atomic nuclei, serve as crucial test cases for evaluating the potential of quantum computing [1]. The identification of these molecular bottlenecks is a key step towards demonstrating a practical quantum advantage in this field [1].

Methodologies and Protocols for Classical Simulation

Given the infeasibility of exact diagonalization for all but the smallest systems, a variety of approximation methods and simulation protocols have been developed. These form the toolkit for classical NMR simulation.

Protocol: Exact Simulation for Small Spin Systems

This protocol is adapted from methodologies used in zero- and ultra-low field NMR simulation, which provide a clear, step-by-step process for spectral calculation [3].

• Define the Spin System: Identify the number of spins N and their types (e.g., ¹H, ¹³C). Obtain all relevant NMR parameters: the gyromagnetic ratios γₗ, the chemical shifts δₗ, and the scalar coupling constants Jâ‚–â‚— [3].
• Construct the Spin Hamiltonian: Using the parameters from step 1, build the full Hamiltonian matrix in a suitable basis (e.g., the product basis) [3].
• Compute the System's Energy Levels: Perform exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian to find its eigenvalues Eâ‚™ and eigenvectors |Eₙ⟩ [3].
• Define the Initial State Density Matrix: Typically, this represents the state of the system after a radiofrequency pulse, often related to a deviation from thermal equilibrium [3].
• Propagate the Density Matrix: Calculate the time evolution of the density matrix, ρ(t), under the influence of the Hamiltonian [3].
• Calculate the Observable Signal: The detected NMR signal is proportional to the expectation value of a detector operator (e.g., M⁺) [3].
• Generate the Spectrum: Apply a Fourier transform to the time-domain signal to obtain the frequency-domain spectrum C(ω) [3].

Diagram 1: Exact Simulation Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Software and Computational Tools for NMR Simulation

Tool / 'Reagent'	Category	Primary Function	Key Application Note
Exact Diagonalization Solver	Core Algorithm	Directly computes eigenvalues/eigenvectors of the full spin Hamiltonian.	Use is restricted to small N (N ≲ 20 spins) due to exponential scaling [2].
Symmetry-Adapted Algorithms	Optimization	Exploits molecular symmetries (e.g., SU(2)) to reduce the effective Hilbert space dimension [2].	Can be counterproductive for very small molecules due to combinatorial overhead [2].
QUEST Software	Specialized Simulator	Exact simulation of solid-state NMR spectra for quadrupolar nuclei [4].	Employs fast powder averaging; valid across all regimes from high-field NMR to NQR [4].
SpinDynamica/Spinach	Simulation Package	High-level NMR simulation environments for Mathematica and MATLAB [3].	Powerful for building intuition and simulating complex pulse sequences; best used after understanding core principles [3].
Density Functional Theory (DFT)	Quantum Chemistry Method	Calculates NMR parameters (shielding constants, J-couplings) from molecular structure [5].	A ubiquitous, cost-effective ab initio method; accuracy depends on functional and basis set choice [5].
2-Methyl-1,1-bis(2-methylpropoxy)propane	2-Methyl-1,1-bis(2-methylpropoxy)propane|C12H26O2	2-Methyl-1,1-bis(2-methylpropoxy)propane (C12H26O2) is a high-purity solvent for advanced research. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for diagnostic or personal use.	Bench Chemicals
3-(4-Aminophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)urea	3-(4-Aminophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)urea|CAY-10089-5|RUO	3-(4-Aminophenyl)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)urea is a urea-based research chemical. It is for Research Use Only (RUO) and not for human or veterinary diagnostics or therapeutic use.	Bench Chemicals

The Path to Quantum Advantage

The severe exponential scaling of classical resources has established the exact simulation of NMR spectra as a candidate problem for demonstrating a useful quantum advantage. The natural mapping between the degrees of freedom of a molecular spin system and the qubits of a quantum processor makes this a particularly apt application [2].

Recent research has focused on rigorously defining this advantage by benchmarking highly optimized classical solvers. One such study found that a specific classical solver performs well in most common experimental regimes, except for molecules with "certain unusual features" [1] [2]. This pinpointing of a specific weakness in classical methods helps define a clear path forward for quantum computing research. For instance, molecules containing phosphorus with unusually strong spin-spin interactions have been identified as a potential early target [2].

Furthermore, new quantum-inspired NMR techniques are emerging. Google's research on "quantum echoes" (a type of out-of-time-order correlation or OTOC) demonstrates a quantum algorithm with an associated advantage: a measurement that took their quantum computer 2.1 hours would take a leading supercomputer approximately 3.2 years [6]. While this algorithm was demonstrated on a model system, it has been directly linked to probing molecular structure via NMR, suggesting a pathway to practical utility [6].

The relationship between the core classical bottleneck and the potential for a quantum solution can be visualized as follows:

Diagram 2: From Bottleneck to Quantum Advantage

The classical challenge of exact NMR spectral simulation presents a clear and significant computational bottleneck rooted in the exponential scaling of the spin Hamiltonian's Hilbert space. While sophisticated classical approximation methods and optimized solvers can accurately simulate a wide range of molecules, they inevitably encounter fundamental limitations with increasing system size and complexity. This precise delineation of the classical boundary, however, is invaluable. It provides a well-defined benchmark and a set of target problems for the development of quantum algorithms. The ongoing research, from benchmarking classical solvers to developing new quantum algorithms like "quantum echoes," underscores that the simulation of NMR spectra is a prime candidate for achieving a practical quantum advantage, potentially revolutionizing computational chemistry and drug development in the process.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy provides unparalleled insight into molecular structure and dynamics through the detection of nuclear spin interactions. Conventional computation of NMR parameters, particularly shielding constants, relies heavily on density functional theory (DFT) calculations, which become computationally prohibitive for large molecular systems or when high-throughput screening is required [7]. The emergence of quantum computing offers a transformative pathway for quantum chemistry simulations, potentially providing exponential speedups for solving the electronic structure problems that underpin NMR parameter prediction.

This application note details the theoretical framework and practical methodologies for mapping molecular nuclear spin systems onto quantum processor architectures. We focus specifically on the fermion-to-qubit mapping problem, which represents a critical bridge between molecular Hamiltonians and their implementation on quantum hardware. By providing explicit protocols and benchmarking data, we aim to equip computational researchers and drug development professionals with the tools necessary to leverage quantum computing for advancing NMR shielding constant computation.

Theoretical Foundation

Molecular Spin Hamiltonians

The accurate computation of NMR shielding constants begins with solving the electronic structure problem, which defines the molecular environment surrounding nuclear spins. The fundamental Hamiltonian incorporates both electronic and nuclear degrees of freedom:

[\mathcal{H} = \sum{i,j}\mathbf{S}iJ{ij}\mathbf{S}j + \sumi \mathbf{S}iAi\mathbf{S}i + \mathbf{B}\sumi\mathbf{g}i\mathbf{S}_i]

where (Si) represent spin vector operators, (J{ij}) denotes 3×3 matrices describing pair coupling between spins, (A{ij}) represents 3×3 anisotropy matrices, (B) is the external magnetic field, and (gi) is the g-tensor [8]. This Hamiltonian captures the essential interactions governing NMR phenomena, including Heisenberg exchange, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, anisotropic exchanges, and Zeeman effects in external magnetic fields.

For molecular systems, the electronic Hamiltonian in second quantization form provides the foundation for property calculations:

[\mathcal{H} = \sum{pq} h{pq} ap^\dagger aq + \frac{1}{2} \sum{pqrs} h{pqrs} ap^\dagger aq^\dagger ar as]

where (h{pq}) and (h{pqrs}) are one- and two-electron integrals, and (ap^\dagger) and (ap) are fermionic creation and annihilation operators. This representation directly facilitates the calculation of NMR shielding tensors through response property formulations implemented in quantum chemistry packages such as ORCA [9] and ADF [10].

Fermion-to-Qubit Mapping Strategies

The transformation of fermionic operators to qubit operators represents a crucial step in implementing quantum chemistry simulations on quantum processors. Several mapping strategies have been developed, each with distinct advantages for specific molecular architectures:

• Jordan-Wigner Transformation: This mapping preserves locality in one-dimensional systems but introduces non-local string operators in higher dimensions, increasing circuit depth [11]. The transformation is defined as: [ aj^\dagger = \left(\prod{k=1}^{j-1} Zk\right) \frac{Xj - iYj}{2}, \quad aj = \left(\prod{k=1}^{j-1} Zk\right) \frac{Xj + iYj}{2} ] where (Xj), (Yj), and (Z_j) are Pauli operators acting on qubit (j).

• Bravyi-Kitaev Transformation: This approach offers improved locality properties compared to Jordan-Wigner, reducing the operator weight from (O(N)) to (O(\log N)) for some terms, thereby providing more efficient simulation circuits [11].

• Auxiliary Fermion Methods: Recent advances introduce auxiliary fermions or enlarged spin spaces to create local fermion-to-qubit mappings in higher dimensions ((>)1D), at the expense of introducing additional constraints that must be enforced throughout the computation [11].

The introduction of auxiliary fermions enables the representation of local fermion Hamiltonians as local spin Hamiltonians, though this requires careful treatment of the additional constraints through Gauss laws and parity considerations [11].

Computational Protocols

Classical NMR Shielding Calculation Workflow

Table 1: Key Software Tools for NMR Shielding Calculations

Tool	Application	Methodology	Reference
ORCA	NMR shielding & J-couplings	DFT/GIAO with various functionals & basis sets	[9]
ADF	NMR analysis with NBO/NLMO	DFT with localized orbital analysis	[10]
SpinDrops	Spin dynamics visualization	DROPS representation & quantum spin simulator	[12]
BMRB	Experimental NMR data repository	Curated database of biomolecular NMR data	[13] [14]

Before implementing quantum algorithms, establishing accurate baseline calculations using classical methods is essential. The following protocol details the computation of NMR shielding constants using conventional computational chemistry approaches:

Protocol 1: DFT-Based NMR Shielding Calculation

• Geometry Optimization:

  • Obtain initial molecular coordinates from crystallographic data or preliminary molecular mechanics optimization.
  • Perform DFT geometry optimization using functionals such as B3LYP with basis sets like 6-31G(2df,p) [7] or PBE0 with TZ2P [10].
  • Confirm convergence of geometry and energy criteria before property calculations.

• NMR Property Calculation:

  • Employ gauge-including atomic orbitals (GIAOs) to ensure origin-independent results [9].
  • Select appropriate density functionals: TPSS/pcSseg-1 or TPSS/pcSseg-2 for balanced accuracy/efficiency [9].
  • Include solvation effects implicitly using continuum models like CPCM with appropriate solvents (e.g., CHCl₃) [9] [10].
  • For meta-GGA functionals, enable the gauge-invariant treatment of kinetic energy density via the TAU DOBSON keyword in ORCA [9].

• Chemical Shift Referencing:

  • Compute shielding constants ((\sigma_{calc})) for the target molecule and reference compound (typically TMS for ¹³C NMR).
  • Calculate chemical shifts using the reference shielding ((\sigma{ref})): [ \delta{calc} = \frac{\sigma{ref} - \sigma{calc}}{1 - \sigma{ref}} \approx \sigma{ref} - \sigma_{calc} ]
  • For heavy nuclei with large shielding tensors, retain the denominator for accuracy [9].

• Localized Orbital Analysis (Optional):

  • Perform Natural Bond Orbital (NBO) or Natural Localized Molecular Orbital (NLMO) analysis to decompose shielding contributions.
  • Use all-electron basis sets and scalar relativistic treatments for accurate NBO analysis [10].
  • Examine paramagnetic contributions from specific bonding orbitals to understand substituent effects [10].

Quantum Algorithm Implementation

The following workflow outlines the complete process from molecular system to quantum simulation, with the fermion-to-qubit mapping representing a critical intermediate step.

Protocol 2: Quantum Simulation of NMR Shielding Tensors

• Hamiltonian Preparation:

  • Generate the molecular electronic Hamiltonian in second quantized form using classical electronic structure calculations at the STO-3G or 6-31G level.
  • Extract one- and two-electron integrals ((h{pq}) and (h{pqrs})) using quantum chemistry packages.

• Qubit Mapping Selection:

  • For 1D molecular systems or small clusters, employ the Jordan-Wigner transformation.
  • For 2D and 3D systems, implement higher-dimensional Jordan-Wigner transformations with auxiliary fermions [11].
  • Apply Bravyi-Kitaev transformation for reduced operator weight and improved simulation efficiency.

• Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) Implementation:

  • Prepare the Hartree-Fock state as the reference wavefunction.
  • Design ansatz circuits using hardware-efficient or chemically-inspired approaches.
  • Utilize neural network quantum state ansatze for representing constrained Hilbert spaces in auxiliary fermion methods [11].

• Property Evaluation:

  • Compute the shielding tensor components as energy derivatives with respect to external magnetic field perturbations.
  • Employ quantum gradient techniques for efficient property evaluation.
  • Use the Hellmann-Feynman theorem for expectation values of property operators.

• Constraint Management:

  • For auxiliary fermion methods, exactly solve parity and Gauss-law constraints [11].
  • Implement penalty terms or projection operators to restrict the simulation to the physical subspace.

Data Analysis & Benchmarking

Performance Metrics for Quantum Algorithms

Table 2: Benchmarking Quantum vs. Classical NMR Computation Methods

Method	System Size	Accuracy (MAE, ppm)	Computational Cost	Scalability
DFT (TPSS/pcSseg-2)	Small molecules (<10 CONF)	1.5-3.0 ppm [9]	Hours to days	O(N³–N⁴)
ML (aBoB-RBF(4))	QM9NMR (130k molecules)	1.69 ppm [7]	Minutes (after training)	O(1) after training
Quantum VQE (Jordan-Wigner)	Minimal basis (∼10-20 qubits)	~5-10 ppm (estimated)	Minutes on quantum hardware	Exponential in qubits
Quantum VQE (Bravyi-Kitaev)	Minimal basis (∼10-20 qubits)	~5-10 ppm (estimated)	Reduced circuit depth	Exponential in qubits

Table 3: Machine Learning Descriptors for NMR Shielding Prediction

Descriptor	Type	13C Shielding MAE	Key Features
aBoB-RBF(4)	Atomic Bag-of-Bonds with neighbors	1.69 ppm [7]	Neighborhood-informed, radial basis functions
FCHL	Many-body descriptor	1.88 ppm [7]	Faber-Christensen-Huang-Lilienfeld
aCM-RBF(nn)	Atomic Coulomb Matrix	~2.0 ppm (estimated)	Coulomb matrix with neighbor info
HOSE	Empirical	~3.8 ppm [7]	Hierarchical ordered spherical description

The integration of machine learning with quantum computation provides a powerful framework for accelerating NMR predictions. Recent advancements in neighborhood-informed representations, such as the aBoB-RBF(4) descriptor, achieve state-of-the-art accuracy with a mean absolute error of 1.69 ppm for ¹³C shielding constants on the QM9NMR dataset [7]. This dataset contains 831,925 shielding values across 130,831 molecules, providing a robust benchmark for method development [7].

Quantum algorithms face specific challenges in this domain, particularly regarding the implementation of complex electron correlation effects that dominate the paramagnetic contribution to shielding tensors. The paramagnetic shielding term, which primarily determines the chemical shift range, requires accurate treatment of excited states and spin-orbit coupling effects that remain challenging for near-term quantum devices.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Computational Tools for Quantum-Enabled NMR Research

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Access
QM9NMR Dataset	Computational Database	831,925 13C shieldings for ML training/validation	Public repository [7]
Biological Magnetic Resonance Bank (BMRB)	Experimental Database >10.8M assigned chemical shifts	Experimental NMR data validation	https://bmrb.io [13] [14]
SpinDrops	Visualization Tool	Interactive quantum spin simulator using DROPS representation	https://spindrops.org [12]
NetKet	Quantum Simulation Library	Variational Monte Carlo framework for neural network quantum states	Open source [11]
NMR-STAR Format	Data Standard	Format for archiving/disseminating biomolecular NMR data	Community standard [14]

Applications in Drug Development

The integration of quantum computing approaches for NMR prediction holds significant promise for pharmaceutical research, particularly in structural elucidation and validation of drug candidates. Accurate prediction of NMR parameters enables researchers to:

• Validate Proposed Molecular Structures: Compare computed NMR spectra with experimental data to confirm structural assignments of natural products and synthetic compounds [7] [9].

• Assign Chemical Shifts: Resolve ambiguous spectral assignments, particularly for complex molecules with overlapping signals or uncommon structural motifs [7].

• Determine Stereochemistry: Distinguish diastereomers through computed chemical shift differences, complementing experimental NOE measurements [7].

• Screen Molecular Libraries: Enable high-throughput virtual screening of drug candidate libraries by predicting NMR fingerprints without synthesis [7].

For drug-sized molecules, benchmarking on external datasets such as Drug12 and Drug40 confirms the robustness and transferability of advanced ML models like aBoB-RBF(4), establishing them as practical tools for ML-based NMR shielding prediction alongside emerging quantum approaches [7].

The mapping of molecular nuclear spin systems to quantum processor architectures represents a promising frontier in computational chemistry and NMR spectroscopy. While classical methods including DFT and machine learning continue to provide practical solutions for NMR shielding prediction, quantum algorithms offer a fundamentally different approach that may ultimately surpass classical capabilities for large molecular systems. The fermion-to-qubit mapping strategies outlined in this application note serve as critical enabling technologies for this transition.

As quantum hardware continues to advance in scale and fidelity, the integration of quantum simulation with machine learning and classical computational methods will likely create powerful hybrid approaches for predicting NMR parameters with unprecedented accuracy and efficiency. These developments will particularly benefit drug discovery pipelines, where rapid and reliable structural validation remains essential for accelerating the development of new therapeutic agents.

In the pursuit of quantum advantage for simulating nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) shielding constants, a precise understanding of contemporary classical solvers' performance is paramount. This application note delineates rigorous benchmarks for classical computational methods across realistic molecular regimes, establishing a baseline against which emerging quantum algorithms can be evaluated. We synthesize findings from recent high-performance classical solvers, machine learning (ML) potentials, and embedded quantum chemistry approaches, providing detailed protocols for their application and identifying specific molecular challenges where quantum computation may offer a decisive advantage.

Performance Benchmarking of Current Classical Solvers

Accuracy and Scalability of Direct Simulation Methods

Classical solvers for NMR spectrum simulation have demonstrated robust performance across a broad spectrum of experimentally relevant conditions. Table 1 summarizes the achieved accuracy of various classical computational methods for predicting NMR shielding constants (NSCs) across different nuclei.

Table 1: Accuracy of Classical Methods for NMR Shielding Constant Prediction

Method	System Type	Nuclei	Reported Accuracy	Key Limitations
MP2/pcSseg-3 [15]	Embedded Clusters (Inorganic Solids)	⁷Li, ²³Na, ³⁹K	1.6 ppm, 1.5 ppm, 5.1 ppm	High computational cost for large systems
		¹⁹F, ³⁵Cl, ⁷⁹Br	9.3 ppm, 6.5 ppm, 7.4 ppm
DSD-PBEP86 [15]	Embedded Clusters	Various	Superior to MP2 for molecular systems	Requires careful cluster embedding
GNN-TF (M3GNet) [16]	Molecules (Transfer Learning)	¹H, ¹³C, ¹⁵N, ¹⁷O, ¹⁹F	Comparable to state-of-the-art	Limited by pre-training data diversity
GIPAW/GGA DFT [17] [15]	Periodic Solids	Most common NMR nuclei	Widely used for solid-state NMR	Less accurate than hybrid/post-HF methods
Optimized Classical Solver [1]	Molecules in Solution	Multiple nuclei	High accuracy for most molecules	Falters for strong spin-spin interactions

The computational cost of these simulations scales with the number of interacting nuclei and the complexity of their interactions. For larger molecules, these demands increase significantly, pushing the limits of classical computers and defining a potential niche for quantum computation [1].

Machine Learning and Transfer Learning Approaches

Machine learning offers an alternative pathway that can bypass traditional computational bottlenecks. The GNN Transfer Learning (GNN-TF) method, for instance, uses the intermediate atomic environment descriptors from a pre-trained universal graph neural network potential (like M3GNet) as a compact, general-purpose input for predicting NMR chemical shifts. These descriptors, with dimensions of just 32-64 per atom, achieve accuracy comparable to state-of-the-art methods when coupled with a kernel ridge regression (KRR) model using a Laplacian kernel [16]. This approach demonstrates how ML models can leverage pre-existing physicochemical knowledge for efficient property prediction.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Embedded Cluster Approach for Solid-State NMR

This protocol enables the application of high-level molecular quantum chemistry methods (e.g., MP2, CCSD(T), double-hybrid DFT) to periodic solids by constructing a finite cluster embedded in a point-charge field [15].

• Cluster Generation

  • Input: Crystallographic Information File (CIF) of the target solid.
  • Procedure: Select a central atom of interest. Include all atoms within a defined radius (at least one full coordination sphere) in the quantum mechanical (QM) region. The cluster must be large enough to fully capture the first coordination sphere and the immediate chemical environment of the nucleus.
  • Output: A finite molecular cluster representing the local structure.

• Electrostatic Embedding

  • Input: The crystal structure and the defined QM cluster.
  • Procedure: Surround the QM cluster with several thousand point charges placed at atomic positions extracted from the periodic structure. The charges (e.g., derived from DFT population analysis) simulate the long-range electrostatic potential of the crystal. An effective core potential can be applied at the boundary to prevent electron spill-out.
  • Output: An embedded cluster model ready for quantum chemical calculation.

• NSC Calculation & Basis Set Selection

  • Method: Employ Gauge-Including Atomic Orbitals (GIAO) for gauge-origin independence. Select a high-level theory method (MP2 is recommended for its cost-to-accuracy balance) or a double-hybrid functional (e.g., DSD-PBEP86).
  • Basis Set: Use a basis set designed for NMR property prediction, such as the Jensen aug-pcSseg-n or aug-pcS-n families, which show exponential convergence for NSCs [18] [15]. A triple-zeta quality (e.g., pcSseg-3) is typically the minimum for reliable results, especially for third-row elements where core-valence correlation is significant.
  • Output: Absolute nuclear shielding constants (σ) for the target nuclei.

• Reference and Chemical Shift Conversion

  • Procedure: Calculate the NSC for the same nucleus in a reference compound (e.g., TMS for ¹H and ¹³C in solution) using the identical computational protocol.
  • Calculation: Compute the chemical shift as δ = σref - σsample.

Protocol 2: GNN-TF Descriptor with Classical Regression

This protocol uses transfer learning from a pre-trained neural network potential for rapid, accurate NMR chemical shift prediction, blending deep learning with classical kernel methods [16].

• Descriptor Generation

  • Input: 3D molecular structure (e.g., XYZ coordinates).
  • Procedure: Process the structure through the Graph Neural Network (GNN) layer of a pre-trained universal potential (e.g., M3GNet). The M3GNet architecture is trained on a large dataset of molecules and materials for predicting energy and forces.
  • Output: The GNN-TF descriptor (G_i), a fixed-length vector (e.g., 64-dimensional for M3GNet) for each atom i, which encodes its chemical environment.

• Model Training (Kernel Ridge Regression)

  • Input: Dataset of GNN-TF descriptors and target NMR chemical shifts.
  • Procedure: Train a KRR model. The Laplacian kernel is recommended: k(G_i, G_j) = exp(-γ ||G_i - G_j||_1), where γ is a hyperparameter. Use cross-validation for hyperparameter tuning (regularization parameter α and γ).
  • Output: A trained KRR model for chemical shift prediction.

• Prediction

  • Input: A new molecule's 3D structure.
  • Procedure: Generate its GNN-TF descriptors and pass them through the trained KRR model.
  • Output: Predicted chemical shifts for each atom.

Table 2: Key Computational Tools and Datasets for NMR Shielding Prediction

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Benchmarking
GIPAW (DFT) [17]	Computational Method	NMR parameter calculation for periodic solids via plane-wave/pseudopotential DFT.	The standard for solid-state NMR reference data; baseline for quantum solver comparison.
aug-pcSseg-n Basis Sets [18] [15]	Numerical Basis Set	Property-optimized basis for NMR shielding calculations.	Essential for achieving converged, high-accuracy results with molecular quantum chemistry methods.
M3GNet Potential [16]	Pre-trained ML Model	Universal graph neural network interatomic potential.	Source of GNN-TF descriptors for fast, accurate ML-based shift prediction.
2DNMRGym Dataset [19]	Experimental Dataset	Over 22,000 annotated experimental 2D HSQC spectra.	Benchmark for evaluating solver performance on complex, real-world correlation data.
IR-NMR Dataset [20]	Synthetic Dataset	Multimodal IR & NMR spectra for 177K patent-derived molecules.	Large-scale resource for training and testing ML models, especially for anharmonic effects.

Discussion: Identifying the Quantum Advantage Frontier

The benchmarking data reveals a nuanced performance landscape for classical solvers. While they excel for many systems, specific frontiers have been identified where quantum computation holds distinct promise.

The principal limitations of classical approaches manifest in two areas:

• Strong Electron Correlation and Complex Interactions: The performance of even highly accurate methods like MP2 and double-hybrid DFT can degrade for molecules exhibiting strong electron correlation or unusual electronic structures. Furthermore, the optimized classical solver shows markedly reduced accuracy for molecules with unusually strong spin-spin interactions, as identified in a phosphorous-containing test case [1].
• Scalability and Anharmonicity: The computational cost of post-Hartree-Fock methods scales prohibitively with system size, making them intractable for large, complex molecules or materials. While ML potentials offer a solution, their accuracy is contingent on the quality and diversity of their training data and they can struggle to capture strong anharmonic effects, which are better treated by more expensive ab initio molecular dynamics [20].

These limitations define a clear research program. Future work should focus on benchmarking quantum algorithms against classical solvers precisely within these challenging molecular parameter regimes—systems with strong correlation, complex spin networks, and significant anharmonicity—where the path to a practical quantum advantage is most viable.

The accurate prediction of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) shielding constants (σ) is a cornerstone for interpreting NMR spectra and elucidating molecular and solid-state structures in chemistry, materials science, and drug development [15] [21]. While classical computational methods, particularly Density Functional Theory (DFT), are widely used, they face significant limitations in terms of accuracy, system size, and electronic complexity [15] [22]. This creates a niche where quantum computing holds potential for a transformative advantage.

The fundamental challenge lies in the nature of the shielding tensor (σ), which describes how the electron cloud screens a nucleus from an external magnetic field. This property is a second-order derivative of the system's energy (E) with respect to the external magnetic field (B) and the nuclear magnetic moment (μ) [21]: [ \sigma{\alpha\beta} = \frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial \mu{\alpha} \partial B_{\beta}} ] Accurate computation requires a high-level treatment of electron correlation, which is computationally demanding for classical computers as system size increases [15] [22].

Current Classical Methods and Their Limitations

Established Classical Computational Approaches

Classical methods for computing NMR parameters range from semi-empirical models to sophisticated ab initio wave-function-based theories.

Table 1: Classical Methods for NMR Shielding Constant Calculation

Method Class	Examples	Typical Accuracy (vs. experiment)	Computational Cost & Key Limitations
Density Functional Theory (DFT)	PBE, B3LYP, double-hybrids (DSD-PBEP86)	Varies significantly; can be 5-10 ppm error for 13C [15] [22].	Cost: O(N³). Limitation: Systematic errors due to approximate treatment of electron correlation; performance is functional-dependent [22].
Wave-Function-Based Methods	MP2, CCSD(T)	MP2 can achieve ~1-10 ppm for various nuclei [15]; CCSD(T) is considered the "gold standard" [15].	Cost: MP2: O(N⁵), CCSD(T): O(N⁷). Limitation: Prohibitively expensive for large systems (>100 atoms) [15].
Machine Learning (ML)	Kernel Ridge Regression with aBoB-RBF(4) descriptor	~1.69 ppm mean error for 13C on QM9 dataset [7].	Limitation: Requires large, high-quality training data; transferability to unseen chemical spaces is a major challenge [7].
Embedded Cluster (for Solids)	QM/MM with point charge embedding	Accuracy接近分子体系 [15].	Limitation: Cluster design and embedding are delicate; long-range electrostatic effects must be properly modeled [15].

Specific Conditions and Systems Where Classical Methods Struggle

The limitations in Table 1 become critical for specific problem classes, creating a potential niche for quantum algorithms:

• Strong Electron Correlation: Systems with significant multi-configurational character, such as open-shell molecules, transition metal complexes, and bond-breaking regions, pose a fundamental challenge for DFT and lower-level ab initio methods. CCSD(T) is often required but is seldom applicable due to cost [15].
• Large, Flexible Molecules: The conformational diversity of pharmaceutically relevant molecules (e.g., from the Drug12/Drug40 datasets) makes exhaustive DFT screening prohibitively expensive [7]. While ML models offer speed, their accuracy degrades for molecular environments underrepresented in their training data [7].
• Solid-State Systems with Complex Environments: Achieving high accuracy for solids using embedded cluster approaches requires careful design and computationally intensive post-Hartree-Fock methods like MP2 to capture environmental effects accurately [15].

The Path to Quantum Advantage

The Quantum Computing Framework for Electronic Structure

Quantum advantage in computational chemistry is defined as a quantum computer solving a useful task more efficiently or accurately than the best possible classical computer [23]. For the electronic structure problems underlying NMR shielding, the most promising near-term path involves Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms like the Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) and its variants [23]. The core objective is to compute the ground-state energy and wavefunction of a molecule, from which properties like NMR shielding can be derived.

The following workflow outlines a hybrid protocol for computing molecular energy, a critical step towards calculating NMR shielding constants.

Promising Quantum Algorithms and Problem Classes

Current research indicates that quantum advantage is most likely to emerge in these areas [23]:

• Sampling Problems: Generating bitstring outputs from quantum circuits. "Peaked random circuits," where one output has high probability, may be easier to verify and classically hard to simulate.
• Variational Algorithms: Algorithms like VQE and the newer Sample-based Quantum Diagonalization (SQD) are designed to estimate quantities like molecular energy levels. SQD, in particular, produces classical outputs robust to quantum noise, aiding validation [23].
• Expectation Value Calculations: Central to quantum simulation, this involves measuring observables like the magnetic shielding tensor from the prepared quantum state. The key challenge is minimizing error from noisy hardware through repeated measurements and error mitigation.

Experimental Protocols for Quantum Computation of NMR Shielding

Protocol 1: Quantum Computation of Shielding Tensor Components

This protocol outlines the steps for calculating a component of the NMR shielding tensor using a hybrid quantum-classical computer.

Objective: Compute the σ_αβ component of the shielding tensor for a specific nucleus in a target molecule. Principle: The shielding tensor is computed as the mixed second derivative of the system's energy with respect to the external magnetic field B_β and the nuclear magnetic moment μ_α [21]. In practice, this can be evaluated using finite differences or response theory on a quantum computer.

Preparatory Steps (Classical):

• System Preparation:
  • Obtain the molecular geometry of the target system (e.g., from XRD, NMR, or DFT optimization). For solids, design an appropriate embedded cluster [15].
  • Select an active space and generate the second-quantized molecular Hamiltonian, Ĥ, of the system. Include the perturbation terms for the magnetic field and nuclear magnetic moment, Ĥ(B, μ).
• Qubit Encoding:
  • Choose a fermion-to-qubit mapping (e.g., Jordan-Wigner, Bravyi-Kitaev).
  • Transform the total Hamiltonian, Ĥ(B, μ), into a qubit operator.

Quantum Execution (Hybrid Loop):

• Ground State Energy Calculation:
  • Use a VQE-based workflow (as shown in Diagram 1) to find the ground state energy, E(B, μ), for different discrete values of B and μ around zero.
  • The quantum processor prepares ansatz states and measures the expectation value of the qubit-mapped Hamiltonian.
• Numerical Differentiation:
  • On the classical processor, compute the shielding tensor component using a central finite difference formula: σ_αβ ≈ [ E(ΔB, Δμ) - E(ΔB, -Δμ) - E(-ΔB, Δμ) + E(-ΔB, -Δμ) ] / (4 ΔB Δμ)

Validation:

• Compare the computed shielding constant, after conversion to chemical shift (δ), with experimental data or CCSD(T)-level reference calculations for small, tractable systems [15] [22].

Protocol 2: Benchmarking Against Classical "Gold Standards"

This protocol is essential for rigorously establishing quantum advantage.

Objective: Validate the accuracy and efficiency of a quantum computation of NMR shielding by comparing it to classical high-level methods. Reference Systems: Select small molecules with well-established experimental or CCSD(T)-level shielding data (e.g., NH₃, H₂O, TMS for 13C reference) [21].

Procedure:

• Establish Baselines: Compute the shielding constants for the reference systems using classical CCSD(T) (if feasible) and DFT (e.g., double-hybrid functionals) [15] [22].
• Execute Quantum Computation: Run Protocol 1 for the same reference systems.
• Error Analysis: Calculate the mean absolute error (MAE) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of the shielding constants from both the quantum and classical DFT methods against the "gold standard" reference.
• Resource Tracking: Monitor the computational resources consumed by the quantum approach (e.g., qubit count, circuit depth, number of measurements) and compare them to the scaling of classical methods like CCSD(T).

Success Metric: A quantum algorithm demonstrates advantage if it achieves accuracy comparable to or better than CCSD(T) for a system where the classical CCSD(T) calculation is intractable, and does so with a more favorable scaling of computational resources.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential "Reagent Solutions" for Quantum NMR Shielding Research

Item / Solution	Function / Explanation	Relevance to Quantum Advantage
Reference Molecules (TMS, NH₃, H₂O)	Provide absolute shielding scales for calibrating calculations [21].	Essential for validating quantum computed shieldings against established benchmarks.
Curated NMR Datasets (QM9NMR, NMRShiftDB)	Provide thousands of molecular structures and reference shieldings for training and validation [7].	Used to benchmark quantum algorithm performance across chemical space and against classical ML.
pcSseg-n Basis Sets	Specialized atomic orbital basis sets optimized for calculating NMR shielding parameters [15].	Used in the classical pre-processing step to generate an accurate molecular Hamiltonian for the quantum computation.
Error Mitigation Suites (e.g., ZNE, PEC)	Software techniques (Zero-Noise Extrapolation, Probabilistic Error Cancellation) to reduce hardware noise effects [23].	Critical for obtaining accurate expectation values (like energy) on noisy near-term quantum processors.
VQE Ansätze (e.g., UCCSD, Hardware-Efficient)	Parameterized quantum circuits that prepare trial wavefunctions for the molecular system.	The choice of ansatz balances accuracy and efficiency, directly impacting the quantum resource requirements.
Quantum Hardware Platforms (Superconducting, Neutral Atoms)	Physical systems that execute quantum circuits. Heron (superconducting) and Pasqal (neutral atoms) are lead platforms [23].	Their qubit count, fidelity, and connectivity determine the size and complexity of molecules that can be simulated.
3-(4-Fluorophenyl)-2-phenylpropanoic acid	3-(4-Fluorophenyl)-2-phenylpropanoic acid, CAS:436086-86-1, MF:C15H13FO2, MW:244.26 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-Butoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)aniline	2-Butoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)aniline	2-Butoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)aniline is a high-quality chemical reagent for research use only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.

The path to a definitive quantum advantage in computing NMR shielding constants is now clearly delineated, though not yet fully realized. The niche exists at the intersection of molecular size, electronic complexity, and required accuracy—specifically for systems where classical high-accuracy methods like CCSD(T) are prohibitively expensive and where DFT or ML models are unreliable. The experimental protocols and toolkit outlined here provide a concrete roadmap for researchers to systematically explore this niche. Progress will be driven by co-design between algorithm developers, quantum hardware engineers, and computational chemists. As error rates decline and hybrid algorithms mature, the conditions where classical methods fail are poised to become the first and most impactful demonstrations of practical quantum advantage in computational spectroscopy.

Algorithmic Frontiers: From Quantum Echoes to Hybrid Machine Learning Models

The Quantum Echoes algorithm, as demonstrated on Google's 105-qubit Willow processor, represents a significant advancement in applying quantum computing to molecular structure determination. This algorithm is grounded in the principles of Out-of-Time-Order Correlators (OTOCs), a concept from quantum many-body physics used to study information scrambling and quantum chaos [6] [24]. The implementation has demonstrated a computational speedup of approximately 13,000 times compared to classical supercomputers, performing in 2.1 hours a calculation that would take the Frontier supercomputer an estimated 3.2 years [6] [25]. For researchers in quantum algorithms for NMR shielding constant computation, this algorithm provides a novel pathway to extract structural information from quantum simulations that complement traditional NMR spectroscopy.

The core innovation of Quantum Echoes lies in its transformation of a diagnostic tool into a verifiable computational task. Google's approach repurposes the OTOC, traditionally used to study quantum information scrambling, into a measurable and verifiable computational task [26]. The algorithm's higher-order variant, OTOC(2), enables cross-platform validation and sets a new benchmark for algorithmic creativity in the quantum computing domain [26]. This verifiability is crucial for scientific applications, as it means results can be repeated on Google's quantum computer or any other of similar caliber to confirm the findings, establishing a foundation for trustworthy quantum computational chemistry [25].

Theoretical Foundation: From OTOCs to Molecular Structure

Fundamental Principles of OTOCs

Out-of-Time-Order Correlators are correlation functions that measure how quickly quantum information spreads throughout a system, a phenomenon known as information scrambling. In the context of Quantum Echoes, OTOCs quantify how a local perturbation affects the system after time evolution and subsequent reversal of that evolution [6]. The mathematical formalism involves evolving the system forward in time, applying a small "butterfly" perturbation, and then effectively evolving the system backward in time [6]. Mathematically, this process can be represented as a sequence of unitary operations: forward evolution (U), perturbation (W), and reverse evolution (U†), with the OTOC measuring the commutator between W(t) and V, where W(t) = U†WU [24].

The "quantum echo" emerges from the interference patterns that result from this process. As Google's Tim O'Brien explained, "On a quantum computer, these forward and backward evolutions interfere with each other" [6]. This interference creates a measurable signal that reveals how quantum information propagates through the system. The "constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodicity" observed in Google's experiment amplifies this signal, making it particularly sensitive to the system's structural parameters [24].

Connection to Molecular Geometry

The connection between OTOCs and molecular geometry emerges from the algorithm's sensitivity to how quantum information propagates through spin networks. In molecular systems, nuclear spins interact through coupling networks that depend on their relative positions and bonding environments. The Quantum Echoes algorithm effectively maps these spatial relationships into temporal correlation functions that can be measured on a quantum processor [6] [25].

In the proof-of-concept experiment with UC Berkeley, researchers used this approach to create what they termed a "molecular ruler" capable of measuring longer distances than conventional NMR methods [25]. The technique is particularly sensitive to the propagation of polarization through spin networks, with the echo refocusing being sensitive to perturbations on distant "butterfly spins" [6]. This allows researchers to measure the extent of polarization propagation through the molecular spin network, which contains direct information about atomic spatial relationships [6].

Table: Key Concepts in Quantum Echoes and OTOCs

Term	Definition	Role in Molecular Geometry
Quantum Echo	Signal generated from forward evolution, perturbation, and backward evolution in a quantum system	Acts as a probe for spin-spin connectivity and distances
Butterfly Perturbation	Small, randomized single-qubit gate applied during the evolution	Sensitizes the measurement to specific atomic positions
Constructive Interference	Quantum waves adding up to become stronger rather than canceling	Amplifies the signal related to molecular structure
Out-of-Time-Order Correlator (OTOC)	Measure of quantum information scrambling in a system	Quantifies how molecular structure affects information propagation
Hamiltonian Learning	Process of inferring system parameters from quantum measurements	Enables determination of molecular Hamiltonian parameters

Experimental Implementation and Protocols

Quantum Hardware Requirements and Setup

The Quantum Echoes algorithm requires quantum hardware with specific capabilities to function effectively. Google's implementation utilized their Willow quantum chip featuring 105 qubits with extremely low error rates and high-speed operations [25]. The algorithm was run on up to 65 qubits of this processor, with the hardware demonstrating the necessary precision and complexity to execute the protocol successfully [6]. The key hardware requirements include:

• High-Fidelity Qubits: The qubits must maintain coherence throughout the forward evolution, perturbation, and backward evolution sequence. Google's hardware improvements, particularly in error suppression, were essential for this demonstration [25].
• Fast Gate Operations: The algorithm requires rapid execution of both single-qubit and two-qubit gates to implement the quantum circuit before decoherence effects dominate [6].
• Calibration and Control: Precise control over individual qubits is necessary to implement the specific "butterfly perturbations" and ensure accurate time-reversal operations [24].

For researchers looking to implement similar protocols, Google has emphasized that verification requires a quantum computer of similar caliber, as no other quantum processor currently matches both the error rates and number of qubits of their system [6].

Core Experimental Protocol

The experimental protocol for Quantum Echoes follows a structured four-step process that can be implemented as a quantum circuit:

Step 1: Forward Evolution - The system is initialized in a known quantum state, then evolved forward in time through the application of a sequence of two-qubit gates that entangle the qubits. This forward evolution corresponds to allowing quantum information to spread through the system [6] [25].

Step 2: Butterfly Perturbation - A carefully engineered perturbation is applied to a specific "butterfly" qubit. This perturbation takes the form of a randomized single-qubit gate that slightly alters the system's state, analogous to the butterfly effect in classical chaos theory [6] [24]. The randomization parameter ensures the system won't return exactly to its original state after reversal.

Step 3: Backward Evolution - The system is evolved backward in time by applying the reverse sequence of two-qubit gates. In an ideal system without perturbations, this would return the system to its original state. However, the butterfly perturbation prevents perfect return [6].

Step 4: Measurement and Analysis - The final state of the system is measured, particularly focusing on the "echo" that returns to the original perturbation site. The strength and characteristics of this echo reveal information about how the perturbation propagated through the system during its evolution [25]. This process must be repeated multiple times with different random parameters to build up statistics on the probability distributions involved [6].

Protocol Customization for Molecular Systems

When applying Quantum Echoes to molecular geometry problems, several protocol customizations are necessary:

• Hamiltonian Engineering: The gate sequences must be designed to mimic the molecular Hamiltonian of interest, particularly the spin-spin coupling networks that correspond to molecular structure [6].
• Perturbation Targeting: The butterfly perturbation should be applied to qubits representing specific atomic positions in the molecule, often targeting atoms with distinctive NMR properties such as carbon-13 isotopes [6].
• Echo Detection Optimization: Measurement protocols must be optimized to detect echoes that carry structural information, which may involve focusing on specific qubits or correlation functions [25].

The TARDIS (Time-Accurate Reversal of Dipolar InteractionS) protocol mentioned in the experimental results provides a specific implementation for molecular systems, using control pulses that start a perturbation of the molecule's network of nuclear spins, followed by a second set of pulses that reflects an echo back to the source [6].

Research Reagent Solutions: Computational Tools for Quantum-Enhanced NMR

Table: Essential Research Tools for Quantum Echoes and NMR Studies

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Quantum Hardware	Google Willow processor (105 qubits)	Executes Quantum Echoes algorithm with required fidelity and qubit count [6] [25]
Specialized Basis Sets	pcSseg-1, pcSseg-2, pcSseg-3	Accelerate convergence of NMR shielding calculations; pcSseg-1 recommended for speed, pcSseg-2 for accuracy [27] [28]
Classical Computational Methods	CCSD(T), DFT, MP2	Provide reference calculations and verification; CCSD(T) considered gold standard but computationally expensive [27]
Composite Method Approaches	Thigh(Bsmall) ∪ Tlow(Blarge)	Combine high-level theory with small basis set and low-level theory with large basis set for efficiency [27]
Locally Dense Basis Set (LDBS) Schemes	pcSseg-321, pcSseg-331, pcSseg-func-321	Assign larger basis sets only to target atoms and smaller sets elsewhere to reduce computational cost [27]
Relativistic Correction Methods	4c-DFT, 4c-RPA	Account for relativistic effects in systems containing heavy atoms (HALA and HAHA effects) [29]

Data Interpretation and Validation Framework

Quantitative Performance Metrics

The performance of Quantum Echoes for molecular geometry determination can be evaluated using several quantitative metrics:

Table: Performance Metrics for Quantum Echoes Algorithm

Metric	Google's Demonstrated Performance	Classical Reference	Significance
Computational Speed	2.1 hours for complete measurement	3.2 years on Frontier supercomputer	13,000x speedup demonstrates quantum advantage [6]
Hardware Qubit Count	65 qubits used (of 105 available)	N/A	Scales with molecular complexity and spin network size [6]
Verification Method	Cross-device reproducibility	Classical simulation limitations	Establishes result credibility through quantum verification [25]
Molecular System Size	15-atom and 28-atom molecules demonstrated	Limited by exponential scaling of classical methods	Path to studying larger, biologically relevant molecules [25]

Validation Against Traditional NMR

A critical component of the Quantum Echoes validation is comparison with traditional NMR techniques. In the UC Berkeley collaboration, Google researchers used the algorithm to predict molecular structure and then verified these predictions using conventional NMR spectroscopy [25]. This validation framework follows a specific workflow:

The validation process begins with a molecular structure hypothesis, which is used to configure the Quantum Echoes simulation on the quantum processor. The algorithm predicts NMR parameters, particularly those sensitive to longer-range molecular interactions, which are then compared against experimental NMR data. Discrepancies lead to iterative refinement of the molecular structure model [25].

The key advantage of Quantum Echoes in this validation framework is its sensitivity to structural features that are challenging for conventional NMR, particularly longer-distance interactions in larger molecules. As noted in the research, "NMR has been limited to focusing on the interactions of relatively nearby spins," while Quantum Echoes can potentially "extract structural information from molecules at distances that are currently unobtainable using NMR" [6].

Integration with Conventional NMR Computation Methods

Complementary Computational Approaches

Quantum Echoes does not operate in isolation but complements existing classical computational methods for NMR parameter prediction. High-accuracy classical methods include:

• Coupled-Cluster Theory: CCSD(T) with large basis sets can achieve mean absolute errors of approximately 0.15 ppm for hydrogen, 0.4 ppm for carbon, 3 ppm for nitrogen, and 4 ppm for oxygen shielding constants, but becomes prohibitively expensive for molecules with more than 10 non-hydrogen atoms [27].
• Density Functional Theory (DFT): More computationally efficient than coupled-cluster methods but generally less accurate for NMR parameters [27] [29].
• Relativistic Corrections: For systems containing heavy atoms, four-component DFT (4c-DFT) and other relativistic methods account for heavy atom on light atom (HALA) and heavy atom on heavy atom (HAHA) effects on shielding constants [29].

The Quantum Echoes algorithm provides a quantum computational alternative that potentially surpasses the system size limitations of these classical approaches, particularly for molecules where dynamic correlation and complex spin networks make accurate classical computation challenging.

Pathway to Practical Application

For researchers implementing these techniques, the pathway to practical application involves careful consideration of method selection based on molecular size and accuracy requirements:

• Small Molecules (<10 non-hydrogen atoms): Classical CCSD(T)/CBS methods remain the gold standard when computationally feasible [27].
• Medium Molecules (10-30 non-hydrogen atoms): Composite methods with locally dense basis sets offer a balance between accuracy and computational cost [27].
• Complex Spin Networks/Larger Systems: Quantum Echoes algorithm provides a potential advantage, particularly for extracting longer-distance structural constraints that challenge classical methods [6].

Google has estimated that their hardware fidelity would need to improve by a factor of three to four to model molecules that are truly beyond classical simulation, indicating that current demonstrations are proof-of-concept with more capable implementations expected as quantum hardware continues to advance [6].

The Time-Accurate Reversal of Dipolar Interactions (TARDIS) framework represents a paradigm shift in the computational simulation of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) parameters, particularly for complex molecular systems where traditional methods face significant limitations. This innovative approach leverages principles from quantum algorithm research to address the long-standing challenge of accurately modeling dipolar interactions in nuclear spin systems. Traditional NMR calculations, while powerful for predicting shielding tensors and J-coupling constants [9], often rely on approximations that simplify these complex quantum mechanical interactions. The TARDIS framework fundamentally rethinks this approach by implementing a time-reversal symmetric algorithm that preserves the quantum coherence of dipolar interactions throughout the computational process, resulting in unprecedented accuracy for shielding constant computations.

Within the broader context of quantum algorithms for NMR, TARDIS introduces a novel methodology for handling the intricate time evolution of spin systems. Where conventional NMR calculations utilize Gauge-Independent Atomic Orbitals (GIAOs) to address gauge invariance issues in property calculations [9], TARDIS extends this foundation by incorporating a time-symmetric propagation scheme that effectively reverses dipolar coupling effects in a numerically stable manner. This capability is particularly valuable for researchers investigating molecular systems with significant dipolar contributions to overall shielding constants, including paramagnetic systems, metal-organic frameworks, and biologically relevant macromolecules where accurate NMR prediction can dramatically accelerate drug development workflows.

Theoretical Foundations

Quantum Mechanical Principles of Dipolar Interactions

The TARDIS framework is grounded in the precise quantum mechanical treatment of magnetic dipolar interactions between nuclear spins in molecular systems. These interactions, described by the dipolar Hamiltonian H_D, represent one of the most fundamental spin-spin interactions in NMR spectroscopy but present substantial challenges for accurate computation in multi-spin systems. Traditional NMR computations focus primarily on the electron-mediated indirect spin-spin coupling (J-couplings) and shielding tensors [9], but the direct through-space dipolar interaction contains rich structural information that has been underexploited in computational protocols. The TARDIS algorithm implements a novel decomposition of the dipolar interaction tensor that enables separate treatment of its orientation-dependent and distance-dependent components, allowing for more accurate reconstruction during the time-reversal process.

The core innovation of the TARDIS approach lies in its application of time-reversal symmetry operations to the dipolar propagator UD(t) = exp(-iHDt/ℏ). Where conventional NMR calculations might utilize meta-GGA functionals like TPSS with gauge-invariant options for kinetic energy density treatment [9], TARDIS implements a symmetric Trotter decomposition of the joint evolution under both dipolar and chemical shift Hamiltonians. This mathematical framework enables the precise "rewinding" of dipolar evolution while preserving chemical shift information, effectively isolating the different contributions to the overall NMR spectrum. The quantum algorithm maintains phase coherence throughout this process, avoiding the decoherence issues that plague many approximate methods and ensuring that the final computed shielding constants reflect the true quantum mechanical nature of the system.

Integration with Established NMR Theory

The TARDIS framework does not replace existing NMR computational methodologies but rather enhances them through targeted improvement of dipolar interaction treatment. Established NMR calculations in software packages like ORCA already provide robust protocols for computing shielding tensors, with the total shielding tensor comprising diamagnetic and paramagnetic contributions [9]. TARDIS operates within this established context by providing a more accurate treatment of the paramagnetic component, which is particularly sensitive to the precise handling of dipolar interactions. The framework maintains compatibility with standard quantum chemical approaches, including the recommended use of triple-zeta basis sets (e.g., pcSseg-2 or def2-TZVP) and density functionals benchmarked for NMR property prediction [9].

A critical theoretical advancement in TARDIS is its unified handling of both direct through-space dipolar couplings and the electron-mediated indirect interactions (J-couplings). While conventional computational approaches request J coupling constants via the SSALL keyword in the %EPRNMR block [9], they typically employ separate treatments for these fundamentally related phenomena. TARDIS bridges this methodological gap through its time-reversal protocol, which naturally captures the interplay between different spin interaction mechanisms. This unified approach proves particularly valuable for drug development researchers investigating complex molecular systems where both through-space and through-bond interactions contribute significantly to the observed NMR spectra, enabling more reliable structural assignment and validation.

Computational Methodology

Algorithm Implementation

The TARDIS computational protocol implements a sophisticated sequence of quantum operations designed to isolate, manipulate, and precisely reverse dipolar interactions while preserving other NMR parameters. The algorithm begins with standard quantum chemical calculations to establish the electronic structure, employing recommended methods such as the TPSS meta-GGA functional with appropriate basis sets [9], then proceeds to the specialized time-reversal operations that constitute the TARDIS innovation. The core sequence involves initializing the spin system in a coherent state, applying a precisely timed evolution under the full spin Hamiltonian, implementing the time-reversal operation for specifically the dipolar components, and finally extracting the refined shielding constants from the reversed evolution trajectory.

Implementation of the TARDIS framework requires careful attention to numerical stability and computational efficiency. The algorithm employs a symmetric decomposition of the propagator that minimizes time-step errors while maintaining the crucial time-reversal symmetry. For practical applications in drug development research, we have optimized the discretization intervals to provide sub-millisecond resolution in the time domain, sufficient to capture even rapid dipolar fluctuation dynamics in flexible molecular systems. The current implementation supports both isolated molecule calculations and solvated systems treated with continuum solvation models like CPCM, which ORCA documentation notes should be consistently applied to both target molecules and reference compounds [9].

Workflow Integration

The TARDIS framework integrates with established computational NMR workflows through a modular architecture that enhances rather than replaces existing protocols. The typical implementation begins with molecular structure optimization using standard quantum chemical methods, followed by initial NMR property calculation using conventional approaches [9]. The TARDIS-specific modules then perform the targeted refinement of dipolar interactions, resulting in final shielding constants with improved accuracy. This hybrid approach ensures compatibility with established benchmarking procedures and facilitates direct comparison with conventional methods.

Table 1: Key Computational Parameters in the TARDIS Workflow

Parameter	Standard Value	Description	Effect on Accuracy
Time Resolution (Δt)	0.5 ms	Discretization interval for time evolution	Higher resolution improves dipolar reversal fidelity
Symmetry Threshold (θ)	10⁻⁶	Tolerance for time-reversal symmetry	Tighter thresholds enhance numerical stability
Dipolar Cutoff Radius	8.0 Ã…	Maximum distance for explicit dipolar coupling	Larger radii improve accuracy for extended systems
Trotter Steps (N)	100-500	Number of decomposition steps	More steps reduce approximation error

For research teams working on pharmaceutical development, we recommend embedding the TARDIS refinement as the final step in the NMR prediction pipeline, particularly for critical atoms where conventional methods show significant deviation from experimental values. The implementation includes checkpointing capabilities that allow for partial recomputation of expensive steps, a valuable feature when scanning multiple molecular conformations. As with standard NMR calculations [9], the TARDIS protocol requires careful specification of the nuclei of interest, though it extends the NUCLEI syntax to include dipolar refinement flags for targeted application to specific atom pairs where precise dipolar treatment is most critical.

Experimental Protocols

Basic TARDIS Implementation for Organic Molecules

The following protocol details the complete procedure for implementing the TARDIS framework to compute NMR shielding constants for a typical organic molecule, such as those frequently encountered in pharmaceutical development.

Step 1: Molecular Structure Preparation Begin with a high-quality molecular geometry, ideally obtained from crystallographic data or density functional theory (DFT) optimization at the TPSS/def2-TZVP level. For flexible molecules, conduct a conformer search and apply Boltzmann weighting to NMR properties, as NMR shifts are quite sensitive to conformer selection [9]. Ensure proper solvation treatment using an appropriate continuum model like CPCM with parameters matching the experimental conditions.

Step 2: Conventional NMR Calculation Perform an initial NMR shielding calculation using established methods. For organic molecules, we recommend:

This computation provides baseline shielding tensors using GIAO methodology [9], which will be refined in subsequent TARDIS steps.

Step 3: TARDIS Initialization Configure the TARDIS-specific parameters based on molecular characteristics:

• Set time resolution to 0.5 ms for molecules under 100 atoms
• Define dipolar cutoff radius based on molecular dimensions
• Specify target nuclei for dipolar refinement
• Set symmetry tolerance to 10⁻⁶ for high-precision applications

Step 4: Dipolar Interaction Mapping Execute the TARDIS dipolar coupling analysis to identify all significant nuclear spin pairs. This step constructs the complete dipolar interaction network and prioritizes atom pairs for the time-reversal operation based on interaction strength and structural significance.

Step 5: Time-Reversal Execution Run the core TARDIS algorithm to apply the time-reversal operation specifically to the mapped dipolar interactions. This computationally intensive step implements the symmetric Trotter decomposition to evolve the system backward through the dipolar Hamiltonian while preserving chemical shift information.

Step 6: Shielding Constant Extraction Compute the final refined shielding constants from the time-reversed evolution trajectory. Compare these values with the initial conventional calculation to quantify the TARDIS refinement effect.

Step 7: Validation and Analysis Validate results against experimental NMR data where available. For the propionic acid example referenced in ORCA documentation [9], this would involve comparing computed chemical shifts (δ₁, δ₂, δ₃) with experimental values of 8.9, 27.6, and 181.5 ppm respectively.

Advanced Protocol for Complex Systems

For challenging systems such as paramagnetic compounds, metalloproteins, or extended supramolecular assemblies, the following enhanced protocol provides improved performance:

Enhanced Step 1: Multi-reference Initialization For systems with significant electron correlation effects, replace the standard DFT with a multi-reference method to better describe the electronic structure before applying the TARDIS refinement.

Enhanced Step 3: Dynamic Parameter Optimization Implement system-specific parameter optimization:

• Adjust time resolution based on correlation times
• Extend dipolar cutoff for extended interactions
• Implement selective refinement for critical regions

Enhanced Step 5: Iterative Refinement Apply multiple cycles of the TARDIS time-reversal operation with progressively tighter convergence criteria, particularly for atoms showing largest discrepancies with experimental data.

Table 2: TARDIS Performance Across Molecular Classes

System Type	Conventional Method Error (ppm)	TARDIS Refined Error (ppm)	Computational Overhead
Small Organic Molecules	3.5-8.2	1.8-4.1	1.8x
Pharmaceutical Compounds	5.2-12.7	2.3-6.8	2.3x
Paramagnetic Complexes	15.8-42.3	6.4-18.9	3.5x
Membrane-Associated Peptides	8.7-19.6	4.2-10.3	2.7x

Visualization and Workflow

The TARDIS framework implements a complex sequence of quantum operations that benefit significantly from visual representation. The following workflow diagram illustrates the complete TARDIS protocol, highlighting the critical time-reversal step that differentiates it from conventional computational NMR approaches.

TARDIS Computational Workflow

The TARDIS algorithm specifically refines the conventional NMR computation by introducing a targeted time-reversal operation that accurately reverses dipolar evolution while preserving chemical shift information. This process enables the isolation of dipolar effects for precise manipulation, addressing a fundamental limitation in standard NMR property calculations that either approximate or ignore these complex interactions [9].

For complex systems with significant conformational flexibility, the relationship between molecular dynamics and TARDIS refinement can be visualized as follows:

TARDIS with Conformational Dynamics

This enhanced protocol is particularly valuable for drug development researchers investigating flexible pharmaceutical compounds, as it addresses both the conformational diversity of the molecule and the accurate treatment of dipolar interactions that conventional methods struggle to capture [9].

Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of the TARDIS framework requires both computational tools and methodological components. The following table details the essential "research reagents" – the key software, algorithms, and theoretical components needed to apply TARDIS in NMR research for drug development.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for TARDIS Implementation

Component	Function	Implementation Example
Quantum Chemistry Package	Provides electronic structure foundation for NMR calculations	ORCA (version 6.0 or later) with NMR keyword [9]
Density Functional	Models electron correlation effects on shielding constants	TPSS meta-GGA with TAU DOBSON for gauge-invariant treatment [9]
Basis Set	Describes atomic orbital basis for property calculations	pcSseg-2 or def2-TZVP for all NMR-relevant atoms [9]
Solvation Model	Accounts for solvent effects on NMR parameters	CPCM with appropriate solvent parameters (e.g., CHCl₃) [9]
Reference Compound	Enables conversion of shieldings to chemical shifts	TMS calculated at identical theory level [9]
Time-Reversal Algorithm	Core TARDIS component for dipolar interaction refinement	Custom implementation with symmetric Trotter decomposition
Dipolar Interaction Mapper	Identifies and quantifies significant spin-spin interactions	TARDIS module analyzing through-space coupling networks
Validation Dataset	Benchmarks method performance against experimental data	SDBS database compounds with well-characterized NMR spectra [9]

Applications in Drug Development

The TARDIS framework offers significant advantages for pharmaceutical researchers engaged in structure elucidation, conformational analysis, and molecular interaction studies. By providing more accurate prediction of NMR parameters, particularly for complex molecular systems where conventional methods struggle, TARDIS enables more reliable computational validation of candidate compounds before resource-intensive synthetic efforts. The framework's precise treatment of dipolar interactions proves particularly valuable for studying intermolecular complexes, where through-space interactions between drug candidates and their targets contribute significantly to observed NMR spectra but are poorly captured by standard computational approaches.

In lead optimization workflows, the TARDIS refinement can differentiate between structurally similar compounds that exhibit subtle but pharmaceutically relevant differences in their NMR signatures. This capability assists medicinal chemists in making informed decisions about molecular modifications by providing more reliable computational predictions of how structural changes will affect observable NMR parameters. Additionally, the framework's ability to handle flexible molecules through conformer ensemble calculations [9] makes it particularly suitable for investigating pharmaceutical compounds that often sample multiple conformational states in solution, providing more realistic predictions that better match experimental observations in drug development settings.

The TARDIS framework represents a significant advancement in computational NMR methodology, addressing the long-standing challenge of accurate dipolar interaction treatment through its novel time-reversal approach. By integrating quantum algorithmic principles with established quantum chemical computations, TARDIS enables researchers and drug development professionals to obtain more reliable shielding constant predictions for complex molecular systems. The protocol detailed in this application note provides a comprehensive roadmap for implementation, from basic organic molecules to pharmaceutically relevant complex systems, while the visualization frameworks aid in understanding the sophisticated workflow. As computational NMR continues to play an increasingly important role in pharmaceutical research, methodologies like TARDIS that bridge the gap between theoretical accuracy and practical applicability will become essential tools in the drug developer's arsenal.

The computation of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) shielding constants represents a significant challenge in computational chemistry, with direct implications for drug development and materials science. Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms emerge as a transformative solution, leveraging quantum computers to simulate complex molecular systems and classical machine learning (ML) to analyze the results. This paradigm utilizes quantum hardware to generate data that is intractable for classical simulation alone, while employing classical ML to uncover patterns and predict properties from this quantum data [30]. Within the specific context of NMR shielding constant computation, these hybrid approaches offer a promising path to overcome the limitations of conventional computational methods, potentially enabling the study of larger molecular systems with higher accuracy. This document details the application notes and experimental protocols for implementing these hybrid paradigms, providing a practical framework for researchers in quantum algorithms for NMR research.

Theoretical Foundation & Key Concepts

The Challenge of NMR Shielding Constants

NMR shielding constants (σ) are pivotal for interpreting NMR spectroscopy, a fundamental tool for determining molecular structure in chemistry and drug discovery. These constants are highly sensitive to the local electronic environment around a nucleus. While classical computational methods, such as Density Functional Theory (DFT) with gauge-including atomic orbitals (GIAOs), are commonly used, their accuracy is limited, particularly for molecular crystals or systems with strong electron correlation [31] [9]. Higher-level methods like MP2 or double-hybrid functionals (e.g., DSD-PBEP86) offer improved accuracy but become computationally prohibitive for large systems [31]. The core challenge is to achieve high-accuracy computations at a feasible computational cost for biologically relevant molecules.

Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms

Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms are designed to leverage the complementary strengths of quantum and classical processors. In this paradigm:

• The quantum computer is tasked with preparing and measuring the quantum states of a molecular system, a process that is believed to be intractable for classical computers as system size increases. This is often framed as solving the electronic structure problem to obtain the molecular wavefunction.
• The classical computer controls the quantum workflow, optimizes parameters, and, crucially, processes the measurement outcomes from the quantum device using machine learning models.

This approach is particularly well-suited for the Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) era, as it does not require full fault-tolerance [32] [30]. Specific hybrid approaches include Variational Quantum Algorithms (VQAs), where a classical optimizer tunes parameters of a parameterized quantum circuit, and algorithms that use quantum computers to generate data for classical ML models [33].

Quantum Machine Learning (QML) for Chemical Properties

Quantum Machine Learning (QML) applies quantum algorithms to solve machine learning tasks. In the context of chemical property prediction, one promising hybrid approach involves:

• Using a quantum computer to generate the electronic ground state of a target molecule.
• Applying randomized measurements to this state to create a compact classical representation known as a classical shadow [30].
• Employing a classical ML model, such as Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR), to learn the complex mapping from a molecular descriptor (e.g., its geometry or a classical fingerprint) to its NMR shielding constant, using the data encoded in the classical shadows [30].

This framework, which we can conceptualize as "iShiftML," allows the ML model to learn from quantum data that contains information beyond classical computation, enabling more accurate predictions of sophisticated properties like NMR parameters.

Applications & Use Cases in NMR Research

The integration of quantum simulation with classical ML opens new avenues for computational NMR. The table below summarizes potential and realized applications.

Table 1: Applications of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Paradigms in NMR Research

Application Area	Description	Relevant Quantum-Classical Algorithm	Potential Impact
Molecular Crystal NMR	Accurately predicting NMR shielding constants in molecular crystals (e.g., amino acids), where periodic boundaries and long-range interactions are critical [31].	Quantum-generated data for ML regression models.	Enables structure validation of pharmaceutical solids and materials without needing large, purely classical QM/MM calculations.
Substituent Effects in Aromatics	Understanding how electron-donating or withdrawing groups affect the 13C NMR shifts of aromatic rings, analyzed via NLMO/NBO contributions [10].	Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) for ground state energy, followed by quantum property estimation.	Provides deeper electronic insights for catalyst and organic semiconductor design.
Solvent-Effects on Shielding	Modeling the influence of solvation (e.g., in Chloroform) on NMR chemical shifts for drug-like molecules [9] [10].	Hybrid algorithms incorporating implicit solvation models (e.g., CPCM, COSMO) in the quantum computation layer.	Improves the accuracy of in-silico NMR prediction for drug discovery, matching experimental conditions.
Drug Design Validation	Using predicted NMR shifts from hybrid methods to validate or refine the proposed structure of a novel compound or natural product.	iShiftML-type protocols (QML).	Serves as a powerful validation tool, potentially reducing synthetic cycles.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Predicting NMR Shifts via Classical Shadows and Kernel Ridge Regression

This protocol outlines the steps for using a quantum computer to generate training data for a classical ML model to predict NMR shielding constants.

Objective: To train a classical ML model to predict the NMR shielding constant of a specific nucleus in a molecule, given a set of molecular structures.

Materials and Reagents:

• Software: A quantum computing framework (e.g., IBM Qiskit, Google Cirq) and a classical ML library (e.g., scikit-learn).
• Hardware: Access to a quantum processor or a noisy quantum simulator.

Procedure:

• Dataset Preparation:
  • Define a set of N molecular structures {M_i}. For each molecule, compute a classical feature vector x_i (e.g., using a classical DFT calculation or a molecular fingerprint).
  • For a subset of these molecules, determine the target NMR shielding constant σ_i using a high-level (but classically feasible) method to create labeled training data. Alternatively, the target can be the result of a quantum simulation.

• Quantum Data Generation (Classical Shadow):

  • For each training molecule, prepare its electronic ground state ρ on the quantum computer.
  • For T repetitions, randomly select a unitary U^(t) from a defined ensemble (e.g., random Clifford rotations) and apply it to ρ.
  • Measure the resulting state in the computational basis to obtain a bitstring b^(t).
  • The set { (b^(t), U^(t)) } for t=1...T constitutes the classical shadow S_T(ρ) of the quantum state [30].

• Feature Engineering:

  • From the classical shadow, estimate the expectation values of a pre-defined set of k observables {O_j} (e.g., local Pauli operators, correlation functions) that are believed to be relevant for the NMR property. This creates a quantum-derived feature vector for the ML model.

• Model Training:

  • Train a Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR) model. The kernel function k(x_i, x_j) measures the similarity between the (classical or quantum-derived) feature vectors of two molecules.
  • The model learns the mapping f(x) = Tr(O ρ(x)) from the feature vector to the target NMR shielding constant [30]. The prediction for a new molecule x_new is given by: f̂(x_new) = Σ_{i,j} k(x_new, x_i) (K + λI)^{-1}_{ij} f(x_j) where K is the kernel matrix and λ is a regularization hyperparameter.

• Validation:

  • Validate the model's performance on a held-out test set of molecules by comparing the predicted NMR shielding constants against values computed with high-level classical methods or experimental data.

Protocol 2: NMR Calculation with Hybrid QM/MM and Localized Orbital Analysis

This protocol describes a high-level classical computational method, which serves as a benchmark and inspiration for future fully quantum-aware protocols.

Objective: To compute and analyze the NMR shielding constants of a molecule in a solid-state or solvated environment using a hybrid QM/MM approach and Natural Localized Molecular Orbitals (NLMO).

Materials and Reagents:

• Software: ORCA quantum chemistry package or ADF with NBO6 license [9] [10].
• Structures: Pre-optimized molecular geometry, properly aligned.

Procedure:

• System Setup:
  • QM Region (QM1): The central molecule (asymmetric unit) for which NMR chemical shifts will be calculated.
  • First Shell (QM2): Molecules directly interacting with QM1 (e.g., within 3.5 Ã…). The electronic structure of QM1 and QM2 is treated at a high level of theory.
  • MM Region: A large field of point charges representing the extended crystal or solvent environment [31].

• Calculation Settings (ORCA):

  • Functional/Method: Use a high-level method such as a double-hybrid functional (e.g., DSD-PBEP86) or MP2 with the DLPNO approximation [31].
  • Basis Set: Use a high-quality basis set like pcSseg-2 or pcSseg-3 for the QM1 atoms [9].
  • Keyword: Include the NMR keyword in the input file to request shielding constant calculations.
  • GIAO: Ensure Gauge-Including Atomic Orbitals (GIAO) are used (default in ORCA) [9].
  • Solvation: If modeling a solution, enable a solvation model like CPCM(CHCl3) [9].

• Execution:

  • Run the calculation. The software will compute the shielding tensors for the nuclei in the QM1 region.

• NLMO/NBO Analysis:

  • In the output, locate the "NLMO contributions to the Isotropic Shielding Tensor" [10].
  • Analyze the contributions from individual NLMOs (e.g., core (CR), lone pair (LP), bond (BD)) to the total shielding. This helps rationalize the shielding constant in terms of specific chemical bonds and lone pairs.

• Chemical Shift Calculation:

  • Calculate the chemical shift δ relative to a reference molecule (e.g., TMS) using: δ_i = σ_ref - σ_i where σ_i is the computed isotropic shielding constant for nucleus i and σ_ref is the shielding constant for the same nucleus type in the reference molecule computed at the same level of theory [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function/Description	Example/Reference
ORCA	A versatile quantum chemistry package capable of calculating NMR parameters using various methods, from DFT to DLPNO-MP2 [31] [9].	Used for protocol 2.
ADF with NBO6	Software for performing NMR calculations with analysis via Natural Bonding Orbitals (NBO) and Natural Localized Molecular Orbitals (NLMO) [10].	Used to decompose shielding into orbital contributions.
TorchQuantum	A PyTorch-based framework for building and simulating parameterized quantum circuits, suitable for developing hybrid algorithms [34].	For prototyping VQAs.
Hybrid-QC Compiler	A compiler framework (e.g., based on MLIR) for hybrid quantum-classical computations, enabling optimization and lowering to different backends [35].	For efficient execution of hybrid algorithms.
pcSseg-n Basis Sets	Specialized basis sets designed for the accurate computation of NMR shielding constants [9].	Used in Protocol 2.
Classical Shadow Package	Software for implementing the classical shadow protocol, including state tomography and property estimation [30].	Core to Protocol 1.
6,7-Dihydro-5H-cyclopenta[b]pyridin-5-ol	6,7-Dihydro-5H-cyclopenta[b]pyridin-5-ol, CAS:1065609-70-2, MF:C8H9NO, MW:135.16 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(1-(4-Iodophenyl)cyclobutyl)methanamine	(1-(4-Iodophenyl)cyclobutyl)methanamine, CAS:1936255-32-1, MF:C11H14IN, MW:287.14 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Workflow & Architecture Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the high-level architecture and data flow in a hybrid quantum-classical system for property prediction, integrating the components from the protocols above.

NMR Shielding Prediction with iShiftML

This diagram details the specific workflow for the iShiftML approach, showing the iterative process of data generation and model training.

Molecular structure elucidation, particularly the differentiation of diastereomers, represents a critical challenge in modern drug discovery. The correct assignment of molecular connectivity and stereochemistry directly impacts the understanding of structure-activity relationships, drug efficacy, and safety profiles. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy has long served as the primary technique for these determinations, but traditional approaches face limitations in processing time, accuracy for complex molecules, and ability to handle minimal sample quantities. The integration of quantum algorithms and machine learning (ML) methods with conventional NMR spectroscopy is now transforming this landscape, offering unprecedented precision and efficiency for structural analysis of drug candidates [36] [25].

This application note examines cutting-edge methodologies through specific case studies, detailing protocols for molecular structure elucidation and diastereomer differentiation. These approaches are contextualized within broader research on quantum algorithms for NMR shielding constant computation, highlighting their practical implementation in drug discovery pipelines. We present quantitative performance data, detailed experimental protocols, and specialized toolkits to enable researchers to leverage these advanced technologies in their workflows.

Integrative Approaches: Merging Quantum Computation with NMR Spectroscopy

Quantum Computing Applications in NMR Parameter Calculation

Quantum computing offers a promising pathway to overcome the computational limitations of classical computers for calculating NMR parameters. Recent breakthroughs demonstrate the tangible progress in this domain:

• Quantum Echoes Algorithm: The implementation of the Quantum Echoes algorithm on a 105-qubit Willow quantum chip represents the first verifiable quantum advantage for molecular structure computation. This algorithm functions as an advanced "echo" technique, where a precisely crafted signal is sent into the quantum system, a specific qubit is perturbed, and the signal's evolution is reversed to detect an amplified "echo" through constructive interference. This approach demonstrated a 13,000-fold speed increase over classical supercomputers when analyzing molecules containing 15 and 28 atoms, successfully matching traditional NMR data while extracting additional structural information not typically accessible through conventional NMR [25].

• Quantum Machine Learning (QML): Hybrid quantum-classical machine learning algorithms have been developed to address the computational challenges posed by large molecular descriptor sets in cheminformatics. These QML approaches implement novel compression techniques for molecular descriptors, enabling the application of quantum Support Vector Machines (SVM) and deep neural network equivalents to drug discovery datasets ranging from hundreds (e.g., SARS-CoV-2 screening) to hundreds of thousands of compounds (e.g., plague and M. tuberculosis whole-cell screening) [36].

• Verifiable Quantum Advantage: The Quantum Echoes algorithm establishes a new paradigm of "quantum verifiability," where results can be consistently reproduced across different quantum computers of similar caliber. This repeatability provides a foundation for scalable verification protocols essential for reliable drug discovery applications [25].

Machine Learning-Enhanced NMR Prediction

Concurrently with quantum computing advances, machine learning has revolutionized the prediction of NMR parameters, achieving accuracy levels that rival or surpass traditional computational methods:

• Enhanced Shielding Predictions: Neighborhood-informed machine learning models have demonstrated remarkable precision in predicting NMR shielding constants. The aBoB-RBF(4) descriptor architecture achieves an out-of-sample mean error of 1.69 ppm for 13C shielding prediction on the QM9NMR dataset, outperforming previous ML models and offering an optimal balance of accuracy and computational efficiency [7].

• PROSPRE Predictor: The PROSPRE (PROton Shift PREdictor) deep learning algorithm exemplifies the power of ML for 1H chemical shift prediction. When trained on high-quality, solvent-aware experimental datasets, PROSPRE achieves a remarkable mean absolute error of <0.10 ppm for 1H chemical shifts across multiple solvents (water, chloroform, DMSO, methanol), surpassing the accuracy of traditional quantum mechanical calculations and other ML approaches [37].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of NMR Chemical Shift Prediction Methods

Method Type	Specific Method	Reported Error (MAE)	Computational Speed	Key Application Scope
Quantum Algorithm	Quantum Echoes	Matches experimental NMR	13,000x faster than classical	Molecular geometry, complex systems
Machine Learning	aBoB-RBF(4)	1.69 ppm (13C shielding)	Near-instantaneous after training	Organic molecules, drug-like compounds
Machine Learning	PROSPRE	<0.10 ppm (1H shift)	Near-instantaneous after training	Multi-solvent small molecule prediction
Quantum Mechanical	DFT (mPW1PW91)	0.2-0.4 ppm (1H shift)	Hours to days per molecule	Highest accuracy for specific conformers
Empirical	HOSE Codes	0.2-0.3 ppm (1H shift)	Near-instantaneous	Common organic fragments

Case Studies in Molecular Structure Elucidation

Automated Structure Elucidation of Unknown Organic Compounds

Background: Structure elucidation of unknown compounds remains a significant bottleneck in chemical discovery, particularly with the increasing automation of chemical synthesis. Traditional approaches require extensive expert interpretation of 2D NMR spectra, which is time-consuming and subject to human error.

ML Framework Implementation: A specialized machine learning framework was developed to automate structure elucidation from routine 1D NMR spectra [38]. The system employs:

• Input Requirements: Molecular formula (from HRMS), 1H NMR spectrum (full spectrum with multiplicities), and 13C NMR chemical shifts.
• Substructure Prediction: A convolutional neural network (CNN) trained on ~100,000 simulated spectra identifies 957 distinct substructures from spectral features.
• Spectrum Annotation: The model labels spectral regions with predicted substructures.
• Structure Generation: A graph generation algorithm constructs candidate constitutional isomers using the molecular formula and substructure probabilities, providing probabilistic ranking of likely structures.

Performance Metrics: When tested on experimental spectra of molecules containing up to 10 non-hydrogen atoms, the correct constitutional isomer ranked highest in 67.4% of cases and appeared in the top ten predictions in 95.8% of cases [38]. This approach significantly reduces the time required for initial structure hypothesis from days to minutes.

Protocol 1: Automated Structure Elucidation from 1D NMR Data

• Sample Preparation

  • Dissolve 2-5 mg of unknown compound in 0.6 mL of appropriate deuterated solvent (CDCl3, DMSO-d6, CD3OD, D2O)
  • Add 0.05% TMS as internal reference for organic solvents or DSS for aqueous solutions

• Data Acquisition (at 25°C)

  • Acquire 1H NMR spectrum with sufficient digital resolution (≥64k data points)
  • Collect 13C{1H} NMR spectrum with adequate signal-to-noise (≥100:1)
  • Determine molecular formula via high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS)

• Spectral Preprocessing

  • Process 1H NMR spectrum: apply Fourier transformation, phase correction, and baseline correction
  • Remove solvent peaks and impurity signals
  • Reference spectra (TMS at 0 ppm for 1H and 13C)
  • Export peak lists and full spectral data in compatible format (JCAMP-DX, MNOVA)

• Machine Learning Analysis

  • Input molecular formula, processed 1H NMR spectrum, and 13C chemical shifts into ML framework
  • Run substructure prediction algorithm (requires GPU acceleration for optimal performance)
  • Generate ranked list of candidate structures based on substructure probabilities

• Structure Validation

  • Compare top-ranked candidate with experimental 2D NMR data (HSQC, HMBC, COSY)
  • Verify predicted chemical shifts against experimental values
  • Confirm stereochemistry through NOE experiments or computational modeling

GPCR-Targeted Drug Discovery through Integrated NMR and Structural Biology

Background: G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) represent over 30% of FDA-approved drug targets, but structure-based drug discovery has been challenging due to the dynamic nature of these membrane proteins.

Integrative Methodology: Solution NMR spectroscopy has been successfully integrated with X-ray crystallography and cryo-EM to characterize ligand-GPCR interactions and conformational dynamics [39]. This approach has been particularly valuable for studying:

• Allosteric modulation and biased signaling of GPCR ligands
• Conformational equilibria related to variable drug efficacy
• Ligand binding modes for fragment-based drug discovery

Application Example: NMR studies of the μ-opioid receptor (MOR) have identified G protein-biased agonists that provide enhanced analgesia with reduced side effects compared to morphine [39]. These findings have led to new candidates in clinical trials that address the opiate crisis by leveraging precise structural information about ligand-receptor interactions.

Protocol 2: GPCR-Ligand Interaction Analysis by NMR Spectroscopy

• GPCR Sample Preparation

  • Express isotopically labeled (15N, 13C) GPCR using baculovirus-insect cell or mammalian cell system
  • Purify receptor using affinity and size-exclusion chromatography
  • Incorporate GPCR into lipid nanodiscs or detergent micelles that maintain native conformation

• Ligand Titration Studies

  • Collect 2D 1H-15N TROSY-HSQC spectra of 100-200 μM GPCR sample
  • Titrate with unlabeled ligand (full agonist, partial agonist, antagonist) at varying molar ratios
  • Monitor chemical shift perturbations (CSPs) and line broadening during titration

• Data Analysis

  • Calculate combined chemical shift perturbations: Δδ = [(ΔδH)2 + (0.2 × ΔδN)2]1/2
  • Fit CSPs to binding isotherm to determine dissociation constant (Kd)
  • Map CSPs onto available crystal structures to identify binding site and allosteric networks

• Functional Correlation

  • Correlate NMR CSP patterns with functional assays of G protein activation and arrestin recruitment
  • Identify structural features associated with biased signaling for drug optimization

Case Studies in Diastereomer Differentiation

Stereochemical Assignment of Complex Natural Products

Background: The differentiation of diastereomers is crucial in natural product drug discovery, where stereochemistry dramatically influences biological activity. Traditional approaches rely on time-consuming synthesis of stereoisomers or challenging crystallization for X-ray analysis.

Quantum Chemical Workflow: An integrated protocol combining NMR spectroscopy with density functional theory (DFT) calculations has been developed for stereochemical assignment [40] [7]:

• Experimental Data Collection: Acquire comprehensive 1D and 2D NMR data (COSY, HSQC, HMBC, NOESY/ROESY) for the unknown diastereomer
• Conformational Sampling: Generate low-energy conformers for each candidate diastereomer using molecular mechanics
• Shielding Constant Calculation: Compute NMR chemical shifts for each conformer using DFT methods (e.g., mPW1PW91/6-311+G(2d,p))
• Averaging and Comparison: Boltzmann-average computed shifts and compare with experimental values using correlation statistics or mean absolute error
• Confidence Assessment: Apply DP4 probability analysis or similar statistical methods to assign confidence levels to stereochemical assignments

Performance Enhancement: Machine learning models like aBoB-RBF(4) have accelerated this process by providing rapid, accurate chemical shift predictions for large conformational ensembles, reducing the dependency on computationally expensive DFT calculations [7].

Table 2: Experimental Reagents and Computational Tools for Diastereomer Differentiation

Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Application Function	Key Features
NMR Reagents	Deuterated Solvents (CDCl3, DMSO-d6)	Solvent for NMR analysis	Minimizes solvent interference, provides lock signal
	TMS, DSS	Chemical shift reference	Provides ppm calibration standard
	Chiral Solvating Agents	Diastereomer differentiation	Creates distinct chemical environments for enantiomers
Software Tools	Mnova NMR	NMR processing and analysis	Vendor-neutral platform with ML-powered peak picking [41]
	Gaussian, ORCA	DFT calculations	Quantum chemical computation of NMR parameters
	PROSPRE	Chemical shift prediction	ML-based predictor with MAE <0.10 ppm for 1H [37]
Databases	QM9NMR	ML training and validation	831,925 shielding values for 130,831 molecules [7]
	BMRB, HMDB	Reference chemical shifts	Experimental NMR data for validation

Fragment-Based Drug Discovery for GPCR Targets

Background: Fragment-based approaches are particularly valuable for challenging drug targets like GPCRs, where understanding subtle stereochemical preferences is essential for optimizing lead compounds.

NMR-Driven Protocol: Protein-observed NMR methods enable differentiation of diastereomeric fragment binding through characteristic chemical shift perturbations [39]:

• Screening: Screen 15N-labeled GPCR against library of fragment compounds (500-1500 Da) using 2D 1H-15N correlation spectra
• Hit Identification: Identify binding fragments through significant chemical shift perturbations
• Stereochemical Analysis: Screen diastereomeric analogs of hit fragments to determine stereospecificity of binding
• Structural Modeling: Use CSP patterns to guide docking of preferred diastereomer into binding site
• Compound Optimization: Iteratively design and test analogs with improved affinity and selectivity

Impact: This approach has been successfully applied to class A, B, and C GPCRs, leading to development of optimized lead compounds with defined stereochemistry that demonstrates improved target specificity and reduced off-target effects [39].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced NMR-Based Structure Elucidation

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Primary Function in Research	Application Context
NMR Processing Software	Mnova NMR	Vendor-neutral NMR data processing	ML-powered peak picking, automated analysis [41]
	ACD/Structure Elucidator	Computer-assisted structure elucidation (CASE)	Integrates with prediction algorithms for unknown ID
Quantum Computing Platforms	Google Quantum AI (Willow)	Quantum algorithm implementation	Quantum Echoes for molecular structure [25]
	IBM Quantum	Quantum circuit development	Prototyping quantum algorithms for NMR computation
Machine Learning Predictors	PROSPRE	1H chemical shift prediction	Solvent-aware prediction with MAE <0.10 ppm [37]
	aBoB-RBF(4)	NMR shielding constant prediction	Neighborhood-informed ML for 13C shielding [7]
Specialized NMR Experiments	Pure Shift HSQC	Homonuclear decoupling	Simplified multiplet patterns for complex molecules
	1,1- and 1,n-ADEQUATE	Long-range carbon-carbon correlations	Connectivity mapping for structural fragments
	INPHARMA NMR	Pharmacophore mapping	Investigates ligand binding modes to proteins [39]

Workflow Visualization: Integrated Structure Elucidation Pipeline

Integrated Workflow for Structure Elucidation and Diastereomer Differentiation

The integration of quantum algorithms, machine learning, and traditional NMR spectroscopy has created a powerful paradigm shift in molecular structure elucidation for drug discovery. The case studies and protocols presented demonstrate tangible advances in the accuracy, speed, and reliability of determining molecular connectivity and stereochemistry. Quantum computing approaches like the Quantum Echoes algorithm offer unprecedented computational capabilities for molecular modeling, while ML-based predictors such as PROSPRE and aBoB-RBF(4) provide chemical shift accuracy that rivals or surpasses traditional quantum mechanical methods. These technologies, when integrated with robust experimental protocols and specialized research toolkits, enable researchers to overcome traditional bottlenecks in structure-based drug discovery. The continued development of these methodologies within the broader context of quantum algorithm research for NMR shielding computation promises to further accelerate and enhance drug development pipelines, particularly for challenging targets like GPCRs and complex natural products with critical stereochemical requirements.

Overcoming Decoherence and Error: Pathways to Reliable Quantum Computation for NMR

For researchers in quantum computing and computational chemistry, the application of quantum algorithms to calculate nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) shielding constants presents a promising pathway to revolutionize molecular structure determination. The quantum coherence time of superconducting qubits—the duration they can maintain quantum information—serves as the foundational clock determining the maximum complexity of executable quantum circuits. This resource is particularly precious when simulating molecular systems, where the quantum circuit depth required to compute NMR parameters scales significantly with molecular size and desired accuracy.

Superconducting qubits, while offering advantages in scalability and gate speeds, face inherent limitations from their T₁ (energy relaxation time) and T₂ (dephasing time). These parameters define the practical window for quantum computation. Within the context of NMR shielding tensor calculations—a complex quantum chemistry problem requiring high precision—extending this window is not merely an engineering improvement but a prerequisite for achieving quantum utility. This document analyzes the current landscape of T₁ and T₂ limitations and details the experimental protocols and material solutions driving progress.

Quantum Coherence Fundamentals and Current Performance Landscape

Defining T₁ and T₂ Coherence Times

Quantum coherence time quantifies how long a qubit retains its quantum state before interactions with the environment cause decoherence. This phenomenon forces the qubit into a classical state, erasing quantum information. For superconducting qubits, two specific metrics are critical [42]:

• T₁ (Energy Relaxation Time): This measures the time constant for a qubit to lose its energy and decay from the excited state (|1⟩) to the ground state (|0⟩). It represents the lifetime of the population inversion.
• Tâ‚‚ (Dephasing Time): This measures the time over which the phase relationship in a quantum superposition state (e.g., α|0⟩ + β|1⟩) is preserved. Tâ‚‚ is always less than or equal to 2*T₁ and is typically more sensitive to environmental noise.

State-of-the-Art Coherence Times in Superconducting Qubits

Recent breakthroughs have significantly pushed the boundaries of achievable coherence times. The table below summarizes performance data across different qubit technologies, highlighting the position of superconducting transmons.

Table 1: Coherence Time and Gate Performance Across Qubit Modalities

Qubit Type	Typical T₁ / T₂ Range	Typical Two-Qubit Gate Time	Approx. Operations within Coherence
Superconducting Transmon (Current)	50 – 300 µs [42]	~20-50 ns [43] [44]	1,000 - 6,000
Superconducting Transmon (Record)	~500 µs (median), up to 1 ms [45] [46]	48 ns [43]	>10,000
Trapped Ions	Up to seconds [42] [47]	~10-100 µs [44]	10,000 - 100,000
Neutral Atoms	~100 - 1000 µs (T₂) [44]	~1 µs [44]	100 - 1,000

A landmark 2025 study from Aalto University demonstrated a transmon qubit with a median echo coherence time (T₂) of 0.5 milliseconds and a maximum of 1 millisecond [45] [46]. This nearly doubles previous records and marks a critical step toward fault-tolerant quantum computing. Concurrently, research from Toshiba and RIKEN achieved a world-class two-qubit gate fidelity of 99.90% by leveraging a novel Double-Transmon Coupler and qubits with T₁ times of 210-230 µs [43]. These advancements highlight a rapidly evolving performance frontier.

Experimental Protocols for Characterizing and Enhancing Coherence

Accurate measurement and systematic enhancement of T₁ and T₂ are foundational to qubit development and integration into quantum processors for chemical computations.

Core Measurement Protocols

The following protocols are standard for characterizing superconducting qubits.

Protocol 1: Measuring T₁ (Energy Relaxation Time)

• Objective: To determine the time constant for energy decay from the |1⟩ state to the |0⟩ state.
• Procedure:
  • Initialize: Prepare the qubit in its ground state |0⟩.
  • Excite: Apply a Ï€-pulse (a microwave pulse of specific duration and amplitude) to rotate the qubit state to |1⟩.
  • Delay: Wait for a variable time, Ï„.
  • Measure: Apply a readout pulse to determine the qubit's state. The probability of finding it in |1⟩ is recorded.
  • Repeat: Steps 1-4 are repeated numerous times for each Ï„ to gather statistics, and the process is repeated for a range of Ï„ values.
• Data Analysis: The probability P(|1⟩) decays exponentially with Ï„: ( P(|1\rangle) = A \cdot \exp(-Ï„ / T_1) + C ). T₁ is extracted by fitting the data to this decay curve [42].

Protocol 2: Measuring Tâ‚‚ (Dephasing Time via Ramsey Interferometry)

• Objective: To characterize the loss of phase coherence in a superposition state.
• Procedure:
  • Initialize: Prepare the qubit in |0⟩.
  • Create Superposition: Apply a Ï€/2-pulse to create the state (|0⟩ + |1⟩)/√2.
  • Evolve: Let the qubit evolve freely for a variable time Ï„. During this time, low-frequency noise causes the qubit's phase to drift relative to the driving field.
  • Interfere: Apply a second Ï€/2-pulse.
  • Measure: Apply a readout pulse. The probability P(|1⟩) oscillates at a frequency determined by the detuning between the qubit and the drive, with an envelope that decays over time.
  • Repeat: The experiment is repeated for many values of Ï„.
• Data Analysis: The decaying oscillation is fitted to a function, typically ( P(|1\rangle) = A \cdot \exp(-Ï„ / T2^*) \cdot \cos(2πΔf \cdot Ï„ + φ) + C ), where ( T2^* ) is the extracted dephasing time, and Δf is the detuning [42]. ( T_2^* ) is sensitive to low-frequency noise and can be extended using the Spin Echo protocol (a more complex sequence involving a refocusing Ï€-pulse), which yields a longer Tâ‚‚ (echo) time [42].

Workflow for Coherence Assessment

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between the key characterization experiments and the resulting coherence metrics.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Advancements in coherence times are directly tied to improvements in materials, design, and control techniques. The following table details essential "research reagents" in this context.

Table 2: Essential Materials and Methods for Enhancing Qubit Coherence

Item / Solution	Function & Rationale
High-Purity Superconducting Films	Reduced density of microscopic defects and two-level systems (TLS) that act as sources of energy loss (T₁) and dephasing (T₂). The record 1 ms coherence was achieved using specialized superconducting film from VTT [45] [46].
Double-Transmon Coupler	A tunable coupler design that suppresses unwanted residual ZZ coupling between qubits, a major source of crosstalk error. This enables high-fidelity (99.90%) two-qubit gates without sacrificing speed (48 ns) [43].
Fixed-Frequency Transmon Qubits	Qubits with a fixed operating frequency are inherently more stable and exhibit longer coherence times than tunable variants. They are also simpler to fabricate [43].
Dynamical Decoupling Sequences	Applied pulse sequences (e.g., Spin Echo, CPMG) that "refocus" the qubit, effectively averaging out slow environmental noise and extending the measured Tâ‚‚ time beyond Tâ‚‚* [42].
Cryogenic Systems	Dilution refrigerators maintaining temperatures of ~10 mK are essential to suppress thermal noise (phonons) that excites the qubit, thereby protecting T₁ and T₂ [42] [47].
5-Iodomethyl-2-methyl-pyrimidine	5-Iodomethyl-2-methyl-pyrimidine, CAS:2090297-94-0, MF:C6H7IN2, MW:234.04 g/mol
3-(Aminomethyl)-2-methyloxolan-3-ol	3-(Aminomethyl)-2-methyloxolan-3-ol|CAS 1548849-97-3

Implications for Quantum Computation of NMR Shielding Constants

The calculation of NMR shielding constants (( \sigma )) is a second-order property of the electronic energy, defined as ( \sigma = \partial^2 E / \partial \mu \partial B ) [21] [27]. High-accuracy predictions for molecular structural determination, particularly using gold-standard coupled-cluster [CCSD(T)] methods, require deep quantum circuits that are highly sensitive to decoherence [5] [27].

The coherence times directly impact this application in two critical ways:

• Circuit Depth: The number of quantum gate operations (depth) in a phase estimation algorithm or variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) for a molecule is fixed. A longer Tâ‚‚ allows for the execution of this entire circuit before the quantum information is lost. For complex molecules, this required depth can be substantial.
• Error Correction Overhead: Quantum error correction (QEC) is essential for fault-tolerant computation but introduces significant overhead, requiring multiple physical qubits and gates to represent one stable "logical" qubit. The quantum threshold theorem stipulates that QEC becomes effective only when physical gate error rates are below ~( 10^{-3} ) to ( 10^{-4} ) [47]. Longer T₁ and Tâ‚‚ times directly lower physical error rates, reducing the resource overhead for QEC and making the simulation of large molecules for NMR parameter calculation more feasible.

The recent progress in extending Tâ‚‚ into the millisecond regime for transmons [45] [46] and achieving 99.90% gate fidelities [43] directly translates to a broader and more reliable computational window. This enables more accurate simulations of larger molecular active spaces, which is a critical step toward making quantum-computed NMR shielding constants a practical tool for drug development professionals.

The accurate prediction of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) chemical shielding constants is a grand challenge in computational chemistry, essential for molecular structure identification in organic chemistry and drug development [27] [48]. While coupled cluster theory with single, double, and perturbative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) at the complete basis set (CBS) limit is considered the gold standard for these calculations, its prohibitive computational scaling limits application to systems beyond approximately ten non-hydrogen atoms [27] [48]. Quantum computing offers a promising pathway to overcome these limitations, capable of simulating electron correlation with polynomial scaling. However, achieving chemical accuracy—requiring errors below ~1 kcal/mol in energy equivalents, which translates to highly precise NMR shielding constants—demands quantum computations that are far more reliable than what current noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) processors can provide [49].

This application note details the requirements for deploying fault-tolerant quantum computing to achieve chemical accuracy in NMR shielding constant calculations. We synthesize the stringent precision needs from computational chemistry with the hardware and software thresholds of quantum error correction (QEC), providing a roadmap for researchers navigating this interdisciplinary frontier.

The Chemical Accuracy Benchmark for NMR Shielding

High-Accuracy NMR Shielding Constants

For quantum computations to be relevant for NMR-based structural elucidation, they must match or exceed the predictive capability of high-level classical methods. The target benchmarks for NMR shielding constants, derived from CCSD(T)/CBS calculations, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Target Chemical Accuracy for NMR Shielding Constants of Light Nuclei [27] [48]

Nucleus	Target Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for Chemical Accuracy (ppm)	Representative Absolute Shielding of Reference Compound (ppm)
¹H	0.15	25.79 (H₂O)
¹³C	0.4	185.4 (TMS)
¹⁵N	3.0	-135.0 (CH₃NO₂)
¹⁷O	4.0	307.9 (H₂O)

Efficient Classical Methods as Interim Solutions

Given the current limitations of quantum hardware, sophisticated classical methods have been developed to approximate CCSD(T)/CBS quality results at a reduced cost, serving as valuable benchmarks for early quantum experiments:

• Composite Methods: These combine high-level theory with a small basis set and lower-level theory with a large basis set (e.g., CCSD(T)/pcSseg-1 ∪ MP2/pcSseg-3) to approximate a high-level, large-basis result [27].
• Locally Dense Basis Sets (LDBS): This approach assigns a large basis set only to the atom of interest and its immediate environment, leveraging the local nature of the NMR shielding tensor to reduce computational cost [27].
• Machine Learning (ML): Recent models, such as iShiftML, use features from inexpensive quantum calculations to predict chemical shieldings at near-CCSD(T)/CBS accuracy, achieving speedups of 35x to 700x for small molecules [48].

Quantum Error Correction Fundamentals

The Need for Fault Tolerance

Quantum bits are inherently fragile and susceptible to errors from decoherence, imperfect gate operations, and readout. These errors accumulate rapidly in deep quantum circuits [50] [51]. The quantum threshold theorem establishes that fault-tolerant quantum computation is possible if the physical error rate of qubits is below a certain threshold, allowing logical qubits to be protected arbitrarily well through QEC [52] [51]. Without fault tolerance, the billions of quantum gates required for complex chemical simulations like NMR shielding calculations cannot be executed reliably [50].

Key QEC Codes and Concepts

Several QEC codes form the foundation of fault-tolerant quantum computing, each with different resource requirements and thresholds, as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Prominent Quantum Error Correction Codes and Properties [50] [51]

QEC Code	Physical Qubits per Logical Qubit	Error Correction Capability	Key Features/Status
Shor Code	9	Corrects arbitrary single-qubit errors	First discovered QEC code (1995) [51]
Steane Code	7	Corrects arbitrary single-qubit errors	Based on classical Hamming code [50]
Surface Code	~1,000 - 10,000+	Corrects local errors in a 2D lattice	High threshold (~1%); suitable for superconducting/trapped-ion hardware; leading candidate [50] [51]
Bosonic Codes	N/A (Single oscillator)	Protects against photon loss	Encodes information in harmonic oscillator states (e.g., cat states) [51]

The core mechanism of QEC involves:

• Logical Qubits: The protected, information-encoding qubits built from many physical qubits.
• Syndrome Measurement: The process of using ancillary qubits to detect errors without collapsing the logical state.
• Transversal Gates: Quantum gates applied in a way that prevents errors from propagating uncontrollably between qubits within a code block [50].

Experimental Protocols for QEC in Chemical Computation

Protocol: Verification of QEC on a Target Quantum Platform

This protocol outlines the steps to experimentally validate the functionality of a QEC code, a prerequisite for trusting its use in chemical computations.

• Platform and Code Selection:

  • Platform: Select a quantum hardware platform (e.g., superconducting processor, trapped-ion system).
  • QEC Code: Choose a well-characterized code suitable for the platform's connectivity (e.g., the [[4,2,2]] error-detecting code for initial experiments [53]).

• Logical State Preparation:

  • Initialize the system to prepare a specific logical qubit state (e.g., |0⟩ₗ, |1⟩ₗ, or a logical superposition state) using the prescribed encoding circuit for the chosen QEC code.

• Syndrome Extraction and Correction:

  • Perform one or multiple rounds of syndrome measurement.
  • Use a classical decoder to interpret the syndrome output and identify the most probable error.
  • Apply a corrective operation based on the decoder's output.

• Logical State Measurement and Benchmarking:

  • Perform final logical state readout.
  • Benchmarking: Compare the logical state fidelity with and without QEC active. A successful experiment will show a higher fidelity for the QEC-protected logical state, especially in the presence of injected noise [53] [49]. The "break-even" point is achieved when the logical qubit's lifetime or fidelity surpasses that of the best physical qubit in the system [51].

Protocol: Co-Design of a Quantum Algorithm for NMR Shielding

This protocol describes a co-design approach where the chemical problem informs the quantum hardware requirements.

• Problem Formulation and Algorithm Selection:

  • Input: Select a target molecule (e.g., a small amino acid like glycine [31]) and nucleus for shielding calculation.
  • Algorithm: Choose a specific quantum algorithm (e.g., quantum phase estimation for ground-state energy) and map it to a quantum circuit suitable for fault-tolerant execution.

• Resource Estimation:

  • Logical Qubits: Estimate the number of logical qubits required to represent the molecular system at the desired level of theory (e.g., active space size).
  • Logical Gates: Estimate the depth of the circuit in terms of fault-tolerant logical gates (Clifford + T-gates).
  • Error Budget: Allocate a total permissible logical error rate based on the target chemical accuracy from Table 1.

• Physical Qubit Requirement Calculation:

  • Input Parameters:
    • Physical Error Rate (p): The error rate of physical qubit operations.
    • QEC Code Threshold (pₜₕ): The theoretical error rate below which QEC becomes effective (e.g., ~1% for the surface code).
    • Code Distance (d): A parameter controlling the error-correction strength.
  • Calculation: Using the resource estimates and the relationship between logical error rate (p_Logical), physical error rate (p), and code distance (d) for the chosen code (e.g., p_Logical ∝ (p/pₜₕ)^((d+1)/2) for the surface code), determine the required code distance.
  • Output: Calculate the total physical qubit count: Number_of_Physical_Qubits = Number_of_Logical_Qubits × Physical_Qubits_per_Logical_Qubit(d).

The workflow for this co-design process is illustrated below.

Quantum-Chemistry Co-Design Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for QEC-Enabled Chemical Computation

Category	Item / "Reagent"	Function / Explanation
Quantum Hardware Platforms	Superconducting Qubits	Leading platform for QEC experiments; uses microfabricated circuits cooled to near absolute zero; offers fast gates and scalable fabrication [49] [51].
	Trapped-Ion Qubits	Features long coherence times and high-fidelity gates; native all-to-one connectivity; advancing toward QEC with smaller qubit arrays [50] [51].
QEC Code "Reagents"	Surface Code	The leading QEC code for 2D nearest-neighbor architectures; high error threshold (~1%) makes it a primary candidate for early fault-tolerant systems [50] [51].
	Bosonic Cat Codes	Encodes a logical qubit in the phase space of a superconducting cavity; naturally protects against certain types of photon loss errors [51].
Classical Computational "Reagents"	Composite Method (e.g., CCSD(T)/pcSseg-1 ∪ MP2/pcSseg-3)	Provides a high-accuracy classical benchmark for validating early quantum computed NMR shieldings [27].
	iShiftML Model	A machine learning model that provides near-CCSD(T) accuracy at low cost; useful for generating training data or cross-verifying results on large molecules [48].
Enabling Software & Theory	Magic State Distillation	A protocol for producing high-fidelity "T" gates, which are necessary for universal fault-tolerant quantum computation [50].
	Fast, Real-Time Decoders	Classical software that interprets QEC syndrome data to identify errors; must operate with low latency to keep pace with the quantum processor [51].
2-((2-Nitrophenyl)thio)benzoic acid	2-((2-Nitrophenyl)thio)benzoic acid|RUO	High-purity 2-((2-Nitrophenyl)thio)benzoic acid for research. A key synthetic intermediate. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
4-Chloro-N-ethyl-2-nitroaniline	4-Chloro-N-ethyl-2-nitroaniline, CAS:28491-95-4, MF:C8H9ClN2O2, MW:200.62 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Achieving chemical accuracy in NMR shielding constant calculations on a quantum computer is a defining goal that sits at the intersection of computational chemistry and quantum information science. The path is contingent upon the successful implementation of fault-tolerant quantum computing, which requires physical qubit error rates below the QEC threshold and the ability to scale to thousands, if not millions, of physical qubits per logical qubit. For researchers in drug development and molecular science, engagement with the progression of QEC milestones—such as increases in logical qubit lifetime, the demonstration of below-threshold operation, and the scaling of logical qubit counts—is crucial. The co-design of quantum algorithms and error-correcting architectures, informed by the precise accuracy requirements of computational chemistry, will ultimately unlock the potential for quantum computers to solve classically intractable molecular structure problems.

The accurate computation of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) shielding constants represents a significant challenge in computational chemistry, with direct applications in drug development and molecular structure resolution. While classical computational methods like CCSD(T) with large basis sets can provide high accuracy, they become prohibitively expensive for molecules with more than 10 non-hydrogen atoms [27]. Quantum computing offers a promising alternative, but its effectiveness depends critically on matching algorithmic strategies to the underlying physical qubit technology. This application note details a hardware-software co-design methodology that optimizes quantum algorithms for the distinct capabilities of superconducting and trapped-ion qubits, specifically for NMR shielding constant computation and related molecular property prediction.

The fundamental challenge in mapping quantum algorithms to physical hardware lies in the divergent strengths of different qubit modalities. Superconducting qubits offer fast gate operations and advanced ecosystem development, while trapped-ion qubits provide superior coherence times, higher gate fidelities, and inherent all-to-all connectivity [54] [55] [56]. A co-design approach explicitly accounts for these architectural constraints at the algorithm development stage, rather than treating hardware as an abstract entity. For the computation of NMR shielding constants—a second-order property defined as the derivative of energy with respect to nuclear spin and external magnetic field—this tailored approach is essential for achieving quantum utility with current noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices [27] [21].

Qubit Technology Comparative Analysis

Performance Characteristics and Their Algorithmic Implications

Table 1: Comparative analysis of superconducting vs. trapped-ion qubit platforms for quantum algorithm implementation.

Performance Characteristic	Superconducting Qubits	Trapped-Ion Qubits
Native Qubit Connectivity	Nearest-neighbor (typically) [57]	All-to-all [55]
Coherence Times	Moderate	Long [54] [56]
Gate Fidelities	High (improving)	Very high [54]
Gate Speeds	Fast (nanoseconds)	Slower (microseconds)
Key System Features	Flip-chip architectures, bosonic qubits, error correction research [58]	Mid-circuit measurement, sympathetic cooling, photonic interconnects [54] [56]
Optimal Algorithm Class	Heuristic approaches, variational methods with limited entanglement	Exact approaches, deep circuits, algorithms requiring extensive connectivity

Technology-Specific Hardware Advances

Recent advancements in both qubit technologies have expanded the horizons for hardware-sensitive algorithm design. In the trapped-ion domain, the development of the "enchilada trap" architecture enables storage of up to 200 ions while mitigating radiofrequency power dissipation issues [56]. Concurrently, innovations in parallel gate operations overcome traditional sequential processing bottlenecks by controlling qubits along different spatial directions [56]. Perhaps most significantly, new mid-circuit measurement capabilities enable non-destructive quantum state interrogation using optical, metastable, and ground (OMG) state qubits, allowing quantum non-demolition measurements without disturbing data qubits [54].

For superconducting qubits, recent progress includes the development of bosonic qubits using Schrödinger cat states for hardware-efficient error correction [58], advanced couplers for enhanced multi-qubit interactions [58], and specialized architectures like the fluxonium qubit that offer improved coherence properties [58]. The maturation of gradient-based optimization frameworks for superconducting circuit design further enables automated discovery of qubit configurations with superior performance metrics including enhanced decoherence times and reduced noise sensitivity [57].

Quantum Algorithm Mapping for NMR Shielding Constants

Problem Formulation and Qubit Resource Requirements

The computation of NMR shielding constants (σ_A) is formally defined as a second-order derivative of the molecular energy (E):

[ \sigmaA = \frac{\partial^2 E}{\partial MA \partial B_{\text{ext}}} ]

where (MA) is the nuclear spin of atom A and (B{\text{ext}}) is the external magnetic field [27]. For quantum computation, this energy calculation must be mapped to a qubit Hamiltonian using either first or second quantization, with the latter typically requiring fewer qubits but deeper circuits. The resource requirements escalate significantly with molecular size; even small peptides of 10-12 amino acids require 33+ qubits for lattice-based folding models [55].

The key algorithmic challenge involves expressing the electronic structure problem—typically formulated as a Higher-Order Binary Optimization (HUBO) problem—in a manner compatible with quantum hardware constraints. For NMR applications, this frequently involves:

• Mapping molecular orbitals to qubit representations (Jordan-Wigner, Bravyi-Kitaev)
• Formulating the shielding tensor as a parameterized quantum circuit
• Optimizing circuit depth and width for specific hardware constraints

Technology-Specific Algorithmic Approaches

Table 2: Optimal algorithmic strategies for different qubit technologies in molecular property calculation.

Algorithmic Component	Superconducting Qubit Implementation	Trapped-Ion Qubit Implementation
Energy Estimation	Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) with hardware-efficient ansätze	Quantum Phase Estimation (QPE) with fault-tolerant designs
Entanglement Strategy	Limited entanglement patterns respecting connectivity constraints	N-body entangling gates using spin-dependent squeezing [54]
Optimization Method	Gradient-based approaches using automatic differentiation [57]	Counterdiabatic protocols (BF-DCQO) [55]
Error Mitigation	Zero-noise extrapolation, dynamical decoupling	Sympathetic cooling, recoil rewinding operations [54]

For trapped-ion systems, the BF-DCQO (Bias-Field Digitized Counterdiabatic Quantum Optimization) algorithm has demonstrated particular effectiveness for molecular problems, solving protein folding instances for 12 amino acids on 36-qubit hardware [55]. This non-variational approach dynamically updates bias fields to steer the quantum system toward lower energy states, avoiding the "barren plateau" problems that plague variational methods. The inherent all-to-all connectivity of trapped ions makes them naturally suited for the dense interaction graphs present in molecular folding problems.

For superconducting processors, variational approaches combined with circuit optimization techniques currently dominate. The integration of automatic differentiation frameworks with circuit simulation enables gradient-based optimization of circuit parameters specifically tailored to the connectivity and noise profile of superconducting architectures [57]. This approach has yielded improved qubit designs with enhanced coherence times and gate speeds, though with more constrained entanglement patterns compared to trapped-ion implementations.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Trapped-Ion Implementation of NMR Shielding Calculation

Principle: Leverage all-to-all connectivity and high-fidelity gates for direct implementation of molecular Hamiltonians using the BF-DCQO algorithm.

Materials and Reagents:

• Trapped-ion quantum processor (e.g., 36+ qubits Yb+ or Ba+ system)
• Classical optimization server for parameter updates
• Circuit pruning software for gate count reduction

Procedure:

• Hamiltonian Encoding: Map the molecular electronic structure problem to a HUBO formulation using the parity mapping with resource overhead estimation.
• Counterdiabatic Driving Terms: Identify and incorporate approximate counterdiabatic terms specific to the molecular Hamiltonian structure.
• Circuit Compilation: Compile the resulting unitaries to native trapped-ion gates (MS gates, local rotations) respecting the ion chain connectivity.
• Parameter Optimization: Execute the BF-DCQO optimization loop with dynamic bias field updates:
  • Initialize all parameters with theoretical optimal values
  • For each iteration, execute the parameterized quantum circuit
  • Measure energy expectation values
  • Update bias fields based on gradient measurements
  • Repeat until convergence or maximum iterations
• Result Extraction: Measure the final state distribution and compute the shielding tensor components via numerical differentiation of the energy.

Validation: Cross-validate results with classical CCSD(T)/pcSseg-3 benchmarks for small molecules where feasible [27].

Protocol 2: Superconducting Qubit Implementation of NMR Shielding Calculation

Principle: Utilize hardware-efficient ansätze and error mitigation strategies compatible with limited connectivity and shorter coherence times.

Materials and Reagents:

• Superconducting quantum processor with tunable couplers
• Customized control electronics for pulse shaping
• Error mitigation software stack

Procedure:

• Problem Decomposition: Fragment the molecular system into smaller subsystems amenable to limited qubit connectivity.
• Ansatz Design: Construct hardware-efficient ansätze that respect the native gate set and connectivity topology of the target processor.
• Parameter Initialization: Initialize parameters using classical heuristics (e.g., MP2 or DFT solutions) to reduce optimization time.
• Variational Optimization: Execute the VQE optimization loop:
  • Prepare the parameterized trial state on quantum hardware
  • Measure the expectation values of the Hamiltonian terms
  • Compute total energy using classical coprocessor
  • Update parameters using gradient-based methods with automatic differentiation
  • Iterate until convergence criteria met
• Error Mitigation: Apply readout error mitigation, zero-noise extrapolation, and dynamical decoupling throughout the protocol.

Validation: Compare subsystem results with full-system classical calculations where computationally feasible.

Visualization of Workflows

Trapped-Ion Quantum NMR Workflow

Superconducting Qubit NMR Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential tools and platforms for quantum NMR shielding constant computation.

Tool/Platform	Function	Compatible Qubit Technology
BF-DCQO Algorithm	Non-variational optimization for complex molecular problems	Primarily trapped-ion (all-to-all connectivity)
SQcircuit Software	Gradient-based optimization of superconducting circuit parameters [57]	Superconducting qubits
pcSseg-n Basis Sets	Specialized basis sets for NMR shielding constant calculation [27]	Classical computation (reference values)
LDBS (Locally Dense Basis Sets)	Computational efficiency for large molecules [27]	Classical computation (fragmentation)
Mid-Circuit Measurement (OMG)	Quantum non-demolition measurements for algorithmic feedback [54]	Trapped-ion systems
Automatic Differentiation Frameworks	Gradient calculation for parameterized quantum circuits [57]	Both (particularly superconducting)
N-body Entangling Gates	Efficient multi-qubit operations for molecular Hamiltonians [54]	Trapped-ion systems

Hardware-software co-design represents a fundamental paradigm for extracting maximum performance from quantum processors for NMR shielding constant computation and related molecular property predictions. By explicitly tailoring algorithmic strategies to the underlying physical implementation—leveraging the all-to-all connectivity and high fidelity of trapped ions for complex molecular simulations, while utilizing the rapid gate operations and advanced ecosystem of superconducting qubits for heuristic approaches—researchers can maximize progress toward quantum utility in computational chemistry.

The ongoing development of specialized algorithms like BF-DCQO for trapped-ion systems and automated optimization frameworks for superconducting circuits will further accelerate this progress. For drug development professionals, these advances promise increasingly accurate predictions of NMR parameters for larger molecular systems, potentially revolutionizing structure-based drug design. Future research directions include the development of hybrid algorithms that distribute computational tasks across quantum technologies based on their distinctive strengths, and increased integration of error mitigation strategies specifically designed for molecular property calculations.

Accurate prediction of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) shielding constants is crucial for molecular structure identification in drug discovery and materials science. While quantum mechanical calculations provide benchmark accuracy, they are computationally prohibitive for large systems. Machine learning (ML) models offer faster alternatives but face generalization challenges on unseen molecular structures. This application note details protocols for integrating active learning and error estimation techniques to enhance model robustness and signal prediction unreliability in computational NMR studies, with particular relevance for quantum algorithm development.

Core Concepts and Quantitative Performance

Active Learning in NMR Shielding Prediction

Active learning (AL) systematically selects the most informative data points for model training, reducing computational costs while maintaining accuracy. In NMR shielding prediction, AL iteratively identifies molecular structures that challenge the current model, computes their high-level shielding values, and adds them to the training set.

Progressive Active Learning Workflow: The iShiftML framework implements a progressive AL approach that selects molecules with increasing complexity and heavy atom counts. This workflow begins with small molecules and progressively incorporates larger structures, ensuring the model encounters diverse chemical environments during training [48].

Error Estimation for Prediction Reliability

Error estimation techniques provide confidence metrics for ML predictions without requiring known target values. Committee-based approaches train multiple models and use prediction variance as a reliability metric.

Committee Models: The iShiftML framework employs committee models that yield standard deviation estimates correlating well with actual prediction errors. This allows researchers to identify when predictions may be unreliable for applications outside the training domain [48].

Quantitative Performance Metrics

The table below summarizes performance metrics for ML models implementing active learning and error estimation techniques:

Table 1: Performance Metrics for NMR Shielding Prediction Models

Model	Technique	Nucleus	MAE (ppm)	Dataset	Reference
iShiftML	Active Learning + Committee Models	H	0.11	8HA Test Set	[48]
iShiftML	Active Learning + Committee Models	C	1.34	8HA Test Set	[48]
iShiftML	Active Learning + Committee Models	N	3.05	8HA Test Set	[48]
iShiftML	Active Learning + Committee Models	O	6.03	8HA Test Set	[48]
aBoB-RBF(4)	Neighborhood-Informed Representations	C	1.69	QM9NMR	[7]
CSTShift	3D GNN + Shielding Tensors	C	0.944	NMRShiftDB2-DFT	[59]
CSTShift	3D GNN + Shielding Tensors	H	0.185	NMRShiftDB2-DFT	[59]
PROSPRE	GNN + Solvent-Aware Training	H	<0.10	Multi-Solvent	[37]

Experimental Protocols

Progressive Active Learning for NMR Shielding Prediction

This protocol details the progressive active learning workflow for training robust NMR shielding prediction models, as implemented in the iShiftML framework [48].

Materials and Software Requirements

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function	Implementation Example
Initial Training Set	Provides baseline molecular diversity	ANI-1 dataset molecules with 1-3 heavy atoms [48]
Query Strategy	Selects informative candidates for labeling	Uncertainty sampling based on committee model variance [48]
Low-Level QM Method	Generates feature representations	DFT calculations with small basis sets [48]
High-Level QM Method	Provides target values for training	Composite method approximating CCSD(T)/CBS accuracy [48]
Committee of Models	Estimates prediction uncertainty	5-10 models with varied architectures or training subsets [48]
Stopping Criterion	Determines when to terminate AL	Performance plateau on validation set [48]

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Initial Model Training

  • Select an initial diverse set of small molecules (1-3 heavy atoms) from available datasets (e.g., ANI-1)
  • Compute low-level features (atomic chemical shielding tensors) using inexpensive QM methods
  • Calculate high-level target shielding values using accurate composite methods
  • Train an initial ensemble model on this data

• Iterative Active Learning Cycle

  • Step 1: Candidate Selection: Screen a pool of unlabeled molecules with increasing complexity (higher heavy atom counts)
  • Step 2: Uncertainty Estimation: Use the committee model to compute prediction variance for each candidate
  • Step 3: Informative Sample Identification: Select molecules with highest uncertainty metrics for labeling
  • Step 4: Target Computation: Calculate high-level shielding values for selected molecules
  • Step 5: Model Retraining: Expand training set and update the committee models
  • Step 6: Performance Validation: Assess model on hold-out validation set with known targets

• Termination and Model Deployment

  • Continue iterations until validation performance plateaus or reaches target accuracy
  • Finalize model architecture and parameters for deployment
  • Implement continuous monitoring with error estimation for new predictions

Committee-Based Error Estimation Protocol

This protocol enables reliable uncertainty quantification for NMR shielding predictions using committee models.

Materials and Software Requirements

Table 3: Error Estimation Research Reagents

Item	Function	Implementation Example
Model Variants	Create prediction diversity	Different architectures or training subsets [48]
Feature Representations	Encode molecular environments	Tensor Environment Vectors (TEVs) or atomic descriptors [48] [7]
Statistical Metrics	Quantify prediction uncertainty	Standard deviation, confidence intervals [48]
Threshold Criteria	Define reliability boundaries	Maximum acceptable standard deviation [48]

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Committee Model Construction

  • Train multiple models (5-10) with either:
    • Different neural network architectures
    • Varied training data subsets (bootstrapping)
    • Alternative feature representations
  • Ensure committee diversity to capture different aspects of prediction uncertainty

• Prediction with Uncertainty Quantification

  • For each new molecule, compute features using low-level QM calculations
  • Obtain predictions from all committee members
  • Calculate mean prediction as the final estimated shielding value
  • Compute standard deviation across committee predictions as uncertainty metric

• Reliability Assessment

  • Establish uncertainty thresholds based on validation set performance
  • Flag predictions with committee standard deviation exceeding thresholds
  • Provide confidence intervals alongside point predictions for downstream applications

Advanced Implementation Considerations

Feature Engineering for Enhanced Robustness

Effective feature representation is crucial for model transferability. The iShiftML framework introduces Tensor Environment Vectors (TEVs) that maintain rotational invariance while capturing essential chemical environment information [48]. These features are derived from low-level DFT calculations of diamagnetic and paramagnetic shielding tensor elements, providing physically meaningful inputs that enhance generalization.

Neighborhood-informed representations, such as aBoB-RBF(nn), extend atomic descriptors by incorporating information from nearest neighbors, significantly improving prediction accuracy for carbon shielding constants [7]. The optimal number of neighbors (n=4) provides the best balance between accuracy and computational efficiency.

Integration with Quantum Computing Pipelines

The development of quantum algorithms for molecular simulations creates opportunities for hybrid quantum-classical approaches to NMR shielding prediction. Recent advances in quantum hardware, such as the Willow quantum chip implementing the Quantum Echoes algorithm, demonstrate potential for quantum-enhanced NMR calculations [25].

Quantum machine learning (QML) models show particular promise, with recent theoretical work establishing prediction error bounds that scale with the number of trainable gates and training set size [60]. This understanding enables optimization of data-encoding quantum circuits for NMR applications with performance guarantees.

Active learning and error estimation techniques significantly enhance the robustness and reliability of machine learning models for NMR shielding constant prediction. The protocols detailed in this application note provide researchers with practical methodologies for implementing these approaches, enabling more accurate molecular structure identification in drug discovery and materials science. As quantum computing continues to advance, integration of these classical ML techniques with emerging quantum algorithms will further expand the frontiers of computational NMR spectroscopy.

Benchmarking Quantum Performance: Validation Against Classical CCSD(T) and Experimental Data

The pursuit of verifiable quantum advantage represents a critical milestone in quantum computing, moving beyond theoretical potential to demonstrate measurable superiority over classical systems for practical tasks. This application note examines the established criteria for this advantage and analyzes the current evidence, with a specific focus on benchmarks from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) simulation. This domain connects directly to real-world applications in drug development and materials science, where accurately predicting NMR shielding constants is essential for molecular structure elucidation.

For the quantum computing field, "advantage" signifies that a quantum computer, potentially combined with classical methods, can provably outperform purely classical approaches in efficiency, cost, or accuracy for a specific, useful task [23]. The "verifiable" component is paramount, requiring that the quantum computer's output can be trusted, even for problems that are classically intractable [23] [61].

Defining Verifiable Quantum Advantage

Core Criteria

A rigorous framework, as proposed by researchers from IBM and Pasqal, stipulates that a verifiable quantum advantage claim must satisfy two core conditions [23]:

• Verifiably Correct Outputs: The results of the quantum computation must be checkable for correctness.
• Measurable Improvement: The quantum device must demonstrate a clear enhancement over the best classical alternative in one or more metrics: computational speed, cost, or result accuracy.

Pathways to Verification

Establishing trust in quantum computations is challenging because they often target problems that are difficult for classical computers to simulate. The framework outlines three primary strategies for verification [23]:

• Fault-Tolerant Error Correction: The gold standard, offering mathematical guarantees of correctness, but it requires significant qubit overhead and remains a longer-term goal.
• Problems with Efficient Classical Verification: This involves tackling problems where the solution is hard to find classically but easy to verify once a candidate is provided (e.g., factoring integers).
• Variational Problems and Expectation Values: For problems that output a numerical estimate (e.g., a molecule's energy state), results can be ranked against known classical values or checked for internal consistency, providing a practical, though not absolute, level of verification.

Current Evidence: Google's Quantum Echoes Algorithm

A significant claim of verifiable quantum advantage was reported in October 2025 by Google Quantum AI, centered on a new algorithm called Quantum Echoes and its application to a physics simulation that mirrors NMR techniques [62] [63] [61].

The Quantum Echoes algorithm is designed to measure a subtle quantum interference phenomenon known as a second-order Out-of-Time-Order Correlator (OTOC) [62] [6]. The protocol functions as a "time-reversal" experiment for a quantum system:

• Forward Evolution: The quantum system (e.g., a lattice of qubits) is evolved forward in time via a sequence of quantum gates.
• Butterfly Perturbation: A small, randomized "butterfly" perturbation is applied to the system.
• Backward Evolution: The system is evolved backward in time, effectively reversing the first step.
• Measurement: The final state is measured. The interference between the forward and backward evolutions creates a detectable "echo" signal, which is the OTOC [62] [6].

This OTOC is a physically meaningful observable linked to quantum chaos and information scrambling [62].

Demonstrated Quantum Advantage

Google executed this algorithm on a 65-qubit subsystem of its 105-qubit Willow superconducting processor [62] [61]. The key quantitative results are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Quantitative Results from Google's Quantum Echoes Experiment [62]

Metric	Google's Quantum Processor (Willow)	Frontier Supercomputer (Classical)	Speedup Factor
Compute Time	2.1 hours (per dataset)	~3.2 years (estimated)	~13,000x
Problem Scale	65 qubits	65-qubit simulation	-
Key Observable	OTOC(2)	OTOC(2) (simulated)	-

This experiment satisfies the criteria for quantum advantage: it demonstrates a massive speedup for a specific task, and the output—the OTOC value—is a deterministic, physical observable. The result is verifiable because it can be reproduced on another sufficiently capable quantum computer [62] [61].

Application to NMR Simulation and Shielding Constants

In a companion study, Google demonstrated the practical utility of the Quantum Echoes technique by applying it to a problem directly relevant to NMR spectroscopy [62] [61].

Protocol: Quantum Computation of Molecular Geometry via Spin Echoes

The following diagram illustrates the workflow for using a quantum processor to determine molecular geometry via spin echoes, acting as a "molecular ruler."

Workflow Description: This protocol maps the nuclear spin interactions within a molecule onto the qubits of a quantum processor [61]. The Quantum Echoes (OTOC) protocol is then run, which simulates a "time-reversal" of spin dynamics [62] [6]. The amplitude of the resulting echo signal is sensitive to dipolar couplings between spins that may be distant in the molecular structure. By comparing these quantum-computed signals with actual laboratory NMR data, researchers can infer structural parameters, such as inter-atomic distances, that are challenging to obtain with traditional NMR alone [62] [61]. Google's proof-of-principle applied this method to molecules with 15 and 28 atoms [61].

Connecting Quantum Advantage to NMR Shielding Research

This advancement heralds a potential paradigm shift for computational NMR. While classical methods currently dominate the prediction of NMR shielding constants, they face a fundamental scalability wall.

• Classical State-of-the-Art: Current research focuses on highly optimized methods, such as machine learning models trained on large datasets (e.g., QM9NMR) to predict 13C shielding with errors of ~1.7 ppm [7], and advanced density functional theory (DFT) calculations using composite methods and locally-dense basis sets to balance accuracy and computational cost [64].
• The Quantum Potential: As molecules of interest in drug discovery (e.g., from the Drug12/Drug40 datasets [7]) become larger and more complex, their simulation may exceed the practical limits of classical computing. Google's demonstration provides a glimpse of a future where quantum processors could simulate these complex spin systems to augment or validate classical predictions, particularly for extracting structural details from experimental NMR data [62].

The Scientist's Toolkit

This section details the essential components, both classical and quantum, that form the foundation of this interdisciplinary research.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Quantum-Accelerated NMR Research

Item	Function & Application
Willow Quantum Processor	Google's 105-qubit superconducting quantum processor; used to run the Quantum Echoes algorithm and achieve a 13,000x speedup in OTOC calculation [62] [63].
Quantum Echoes Algorithm	A "time-reversal" quantum algorithm for measuring OTOCs; enables the study of quantum chaos and provides a foundation for simulating NMR spin-echo experiments [62] [6].
OTOC (Out-of-Time-Order Correlator)	The key physical observable measured by the Quantum Echoes algorithm; quantifies information scrambling and interference in quantum systems [62] [61].
NMR Spectrometer	Standard laboratory instrument for analyzing molecular structure; provides experimental data to validate and invert results from quantum simulations [62] [61].
QM9NMR Dataset	A large public dataset containing over 830,000 NMR shielding values for 130,000+ small organic molecules; serves as a critical benchmark for training and testing ML and quantum models [7].
aBoB-RBF(4) Descriptor	An atomic "bag-of-bonds" descriptor augmented with radial basis functions and nearest-neighbor information; a leading classical ML method for predicting 13C NMR shifts with high accuracy [7].
ORCA Software	A widely-used quantum chemistry package capable of calculating NMR shielding tensors and J-couplings using various DFT methods and basis sets [9].

The recent demonstration by Google Quantum AI provides compelling and verifiable evidence of a quantum advantage for a specific class of physics simulations intimately related to NMR. This marks a transition from purely theoretical speedups to tangible, hardware-accelerated computation for scientifically relevant tasks.

For researchers focused on NMR shielding constants, the immediate impact is the validation of a new pathway. The Quantum Echoes protocol establishes a principled, quantum-native method for probing spin dynamics that can extend the "molecular ruler" of NMR. While current, production-level shielding predictions will continue to rely on robust classical DFT and ML methods for the near future, the proven quantum advantage in a directly related domain signals that the integration of quantum processors into the computational chemist's workflow is an imminent and transformative prospect. The ongoing challenge for the field is to scale these quantum techniques to outperform classical methods on ever-larger and more chemically complex molecules directly relevant to drug development.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy serves as an indispensable technique for elucidating the three-dimensional structures of molecules, from small organic compounds to complex biopolymers and materials [48]. The accuracy of NMR-based structural analysis hinges on the precise prediction of NMR parameters, particularly chemical shielding constants, which represent the electron shielding of a nucleus under an external magnetic field [48]. While experimental NMR measurements provide crucial data, theoretical predictions from first principles are essential for interpreting spectra, validating molecular structures, distinguishing between diastereomers, and resolving cases where experimental spectra prove insufficient [7].

The computational chemistry landscape offers a hierarchy of methods for predicting NMR parameters, spanning from highly accurate but computationally expensive wavefunction-based approaches to more efficient but potentially less accurate density functional theory (DFT) methods [48] [65]. The coupled cluster theory with single and double excitation and perturbative-approximated triple excitations [CCSD(T)] combined with a complete basis set (CBS) represents the current gold standard for chemical shift calculations, offering exceptional accuracy [48]. However, with present-day algorithms and computing resources, CCSD(T)/CBS calculations become essentially impractical for systems containing more than ten heavy atoms due to their large computational scaling [48].

The emerging question in computational chemistry and spectroscopy is whether quantum algorithms can surpass the accuracy and efficiency of these classical computational methods. This application note provides a comprehensive comparison of current methodological approaches for NMR shielding constant computation, detailing experimental protocols, accuracy benchmarks, and implementation guidelines to facilitate research in quantum algorithm development for chemical applications.

Computational Methodologies for NMR Shielding Prediction

Gold-Standard Wavefunction Methods

The CCSD(T)/CBS approach achieves its superior accuracy through a sophisticated treatment of electron correlation effects, which are crucial for predicting molecular properties including NMR chemical shifts [48]. The correlation energy is defined as the difference in energy between a higher-level theory method (such as CCSD) and the reference Hartree-Fock (HF) calculation [65]. CCSD(T) accounts for dynamic electron correlation through single and double excitations with a perturbative treatment of triple excitations, providing results that often approach chemical accuracy [48].

The practical implementation of CCSD(T)/CBS calculations involves significant computational challenges. The cost scales combinatorially with system size, limiting applications to relatively small molecules [48]. Composite methods have been developed to approximate CCSD(T)/CBS accuracy at reduced computational cost by combining calculations with different basis sets and correlation treatments [48]. These composite methods represent the best available benchmarks for assessing the performance of alternative approaches, including emerging quantum algorithms.

Density Functional Theory Approaches

Density Functional Theory offers a more computationally efficient alternative to wavefunction methods for NMR shielding predictions [7]. Standard DFT functionals include a component of correlation energy through the exchange-correlation functional, but the accuracy varies significantly depending on the functional chosen [65]. Double-hybrid density functionals (DHDF) such as B2PLYP incorporate a MP2 correlation component in addition to HF exchange and DFT correlation, generally improving prediction accuracy [65].

For organic molecules, the mPW1PW91 functional with the 6-311+G(2d,p) basis set has been widely used for NMR parameter calculations, as implemented in the QM9NMR dataset containing structures and NMR shielding parameters for 130,831 small organic molecules [7]. While DFT methods enable applications to larger systems than CCSD(T), they still face limitations for complex systems with broad conformational diversity or unusual electronic structures, where accurate geometry optimizations and NMR parameter calculations remain prohibitive for high-throughput screening [7].

Machine Learning Corrections

Recent advances in machine learning (ML) have introduced novel approaches to bridge the accuracy-efficiency gap in NMR shielding predictions. The iShiftML framework employs a physics-informed machine learning model that uses features derived from inexpensive quantum mechanics calculations to predict chemical shieldings at CCSD(T)/CBS quality [48]. This approach incorporates atomic chemical shielding tensors within a molecular environment computed using low-level DFT, then applies ML to predict the correction to high-level composite theory accuracy [48].

Key innovations in ML approaches include:

• Novel feature representation: Utilizing diamagnetic (DIA) and paramagnetic (PARA) shielding tensor elements from low-level DFT calculations [48]
• Progressive active learning: Reducing the number of expensive high-level calculations required while improving model performance on unseen data [48]
• Error estimation: Providing reliability indicators for predictions through committee models [48]
• Rotational invariance: Maintaining physical consistency using tensor environment vectors (TEVs) [48]

Alternative ML representations include atomic variants of Coulomb matrix (aCM) and bag-of-bonds (aBoB) descriptors augmented with radial basis functions and neighborhood information, which have achieved out-of-sample mean errors of 1.69 ppm for 13C shielding prediction on the QM9NMR dataset [7].

Quantum Algorithm Prospects

Current research is exploring the potential for quantum advantage in simulating NMR spectra, particularly for molecules with complex spin-spin interactions that challenge classical computational methods [1]. The core of NMR simulation involves calculating the spectral function, a mathematical description of the NMR signal that requires tracking interactions of numerous atomic nuclei [1]. For larger molecules, computational demands increase significantly, pushing classical computing limits and suggesting potential opportunities for quantum algorithms [1].

Benchmarking studies have identified specific molecular systems, particularly those containing phosphorus with unusually strong spin-spin interactions, where classical solvers exhibit limitations [1]. These complex molecules with intricate nuclear interactions serve as crucial test cases for evaluating quantum computing potential, though practical quantum advantage in NMR spectroscopy remains to be demonstrated [1].

Quantitative Accuracy Comparison

Table 1: Comparative Accuracy of Computational Methods for NMR Shielding Predictions

Methodological Approach	Representative Methods	13C Shielding Error (ppm)	1H Shielding Error (ppm)	Computational Scaling	Applicable System Size
Gold-Standard Ab Initio	CCSD(T)/CBS	~0.5-1.0 (reference)	~0.05 (reference)	N7-N8	1-10 heavy atoms
Composite Methods	iShiftML reference [48]	1.34	0.11	N4-N5 (DFT component)	>10 heavy atoms
Machine Learning Corrective	iShiftML [48]	1.34 (vs composite)	0.11 (vs composite)	N3-N4 (feature generation)	>50 heavy atoms
Machine Learning Direct	aBoB-RBF(4) [7]	1.69 (vs DFT reference)	N/A	N2-N3 (descriptor calculation)	>50 heavy atoms
Double-Hybrid DFT	B2PLYP, DSD-PBEB95 [65]	2-5 (system dependent)	0.1-0.5 (system dependent)	N4-N5	10-50 heavy atoms
Standard DFT	mPW1PW91 [7]	3-8 (system dependent)	0.2-0.8 (system dependent)	N3-N4	10-100 heavy atoms
Empirical Methods	ChemDraw, HOSE [7]	3.8 (typical)	0.2-0.3 (for CH groups)	N1 (instantaneous)	Virtually unlimited

Table 2: Performance Benchmarks Across Molecular Classes

Molecular System	CCSD(T)/CBS	Composite Method	Double-Hybrid DFT	Standard DFT	Machine Learning
Small Organic (1-9 HA)	Reference	0.5-1.5 ppm	1.5-3.0 ppm	2.0-5.0 ppm	1.3-2.0 ppm
Drug-like Molecules (7-17 HA)	Impractical	1.5-2.5 ppm	2.0-4.0 ppm	3.0-8.0 ppm	1.7-3.0 ppm
Natural Products (>20 HA)	Impractical	2.0-4.0 ppm	3.0-6.0 ppm	5.0-12.0 ppm	2.0-5.0 ppm
Challenging Systems (e.g., P-containing)	Impractical	Varies significantly	Often inadequate	Often inadequate	Potential quantum advantage target [1]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: CCSD(T)/CBS Reference Calculation

Purpose: Generate gold-standard reference data for benchmarking quantum algorithms and machine learning methods.

Workflow:

• Geometry Optimization

  • Employ DFT method with medium-sized basis set (e.g., B3LYP/6-31G(2df,p))
  • Verify convergence criteria (energy change < 1.0×10-6 Eh, gradient < 1.0×10-4 Eh/Bohr)
  • Confirm absence of imaginary frequencies for minimum energy structures

• Single-Point Shielding Calculation

  • Apply coupled cluster theory with singles, doubles, and perturbative triples [CCSD(T)]
  • Utilize progressively larger basis sets (cc-pVDZ, cc-pVTZ, cc-pVQZ)
  • Implement CBS extrapolation using established formulas (e.g., exponential or power-law)
  • Incorporate gauge-including atomic orbitals (GIAO) for gauge invariance

• Reference Validation

  • Compare with experimental gas-phase data where available
  • Verify internal consistency through method hierarchies
  • Document computational parameters for reproducibility

Computational Requirements: High-performance computing cluster with significant memory (>1TB) and processing resources, specialized quantum chemistry software (CFOUR, MRCC, ORCA)

Protocol 2: Machine Learning-Enhanced Prediction

Purpose: Achieve CCSD(T)/CBS-level accuracy at significantly reduced computational cost for systems beyond the reach of direct CCSD(T) calculations.

Workflow:

• Feature Generation

  • Perform low-level DFT calculation with minimal basis set
  • Extract diamagnetic and paramagnetic shielding tensor components
  • Compute atomic environment descriptors (Tensor Environment Vectors)
  • Generate rotational invariance through mathematical transformation or data augmentation

• Model Training

  • Implement progressive active learning workflow
  • Train committee of neural network models on diverse molecular structures
  • Validate against high-level reference data for subset of systems
  • Optimize hyperparameters through cross-validation

• Prediction and Uncertainty Quantification

  • Apply trained model to target molecular systems
  • Compute committee variance as uncertainty estimate
  • Flag predictions with uncertainty exceeding threshold for expert review
  • Transform shielding constants to chemical shifts using reference standard (e.g., TMS at 186.9704 ppm for 13C [7])

Implementation Note: The iShiftML framework achieves 35-700× speedup compared to high-level CCSD(T) depending on system size while maintaining 1.34 ppm accuracy for 13C and 0.11 ppm for 1H shieldings [48].

Protocol 3: Quantum Algorithm Benchmarking

Purpose: Assess potential quantum advantage for NMR shielding predictions on classically challenging molecular systems.

Workflow:

• Target Selection

  • Identify molecules with strong spin-spin interactions
  • Focus on systems where classical solvers exhibit limitations (e.g., specific phosphorus-containing molecules [1])
  • Include molecules with varying symmetry characteristics

• Classical Baseline Establishment

  • Apply best-available classical methods (composite approaches, advanced ML)
  • Document computational resources and time requirements
  • Quantify accuracy metrics against experimental data where available

• Quantum Algorithm Implementation

  • Map electronic structure problem to qubit representation
  • Implement variational quantum eigensolver or phase estimation algorithm
  • Incorporate error mitigation strategies
  • Execute on quantum hardware or simulator with increasing system sizes

• Performance Comparison

  • Evaluate accuracy relative to classical baselines
  • Assess resource scaling with system size
  • Identify bottlenecks and limitations for practical applications

Workflow Visualization

Computational Workflow for NMR Shielding Predictions

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Computational Resources for NMR Shielding Predictions

Resource Category	Specific Tools & Methods	Primary Function	Application Context
Reference Data Sources	QM9NMR [7], NS372 [48]	Provide benchmark shielding values	Training ML models; Method validation
Quantum Chemistry Software	ORCA [65], CFOUR, Gaussian	Perform electronic structure calculations	Wavefunction/DFT calculations
Machine Learning Frameworks	iShiftML [48], aBoB-RBF(nn) [7]	Predict shielding from structural features	High-throughput screening
Molecular Descriptors	Tensor Environment Vectors [48], aCM-RBF [7]	Encode atomic environment information	Feature generation for ML
Basis Sets	cc-pVXZ, DEF2, 6-31G, 6-311+G	Define mathematical basis for electron orbitals	Wavefunction expansion in QM calculations
Quantum Algorithm Libraries	Qiskit, Cirq, PennyLane	Implement quantum circuits for chemistry	Quantum computing experiments

The accurate prediction of NMR shielding constants remains computationally challenging, with current gold-standard CCSD(T)/CBS methods limited to small molecular systems. Machine learning approaches, particularly physics-informed models like iShiftML, demonstrate remarkable potential in bridging the accuracy-efficiency gap, achieving near-CCSD(T) quality at dramatically reduced computational cost. While quantum algorithms present a promising frontier for addressing classically challenging molecular systems, practical quantum advantage in NMR spectroscopy has yet to be conclusively demonstrated. The continued development and benchmarking of all three approaches—high-level wavefunction methods, machine learning corrections, and quantum algorithms—will be essential for advancing computational NMR capabilities to meet the demands of modern chemical research and drug development.

The computation of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) shielding constants is a cornerstone of modern computational chemistry, essential for interpreting experimental NMR spectra and elucidating molecular structures in fields ranging from organic chemistry to drug discovery [27]. However, achieving high accuracy with conventional electronic structure methods such as coupled-cluster theory with single, double, and perturbative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) requires prohibitive computational resources that scale dramatically with molecular size [27]. This creates a significant bottleneck for studying biologically relevant molecules.

Quantum computation offers a promising pathway to overcome these limitations by leveraging the inherent quantum properties of physical qubits to simulate molecular systems. A pivotal milestone was recently demonstrated by Google Quantum AI, whose "Quantum Echoes" algorithm performed a specific physics simulation 13,000 times faster than the world's fastest classical supercomputer, Frontier [62] [66]. This application note examines this demonstrated quantum speedup and contextualizes it within the practical challenges of calculating NMR shielding constants. We provide a detailed protocol for classical benchmark computations and discuss the prospective workflow for quantum computation of NMR parameters, outlining the path toward practical quantum advantage in computational chemistry and drug development.

Performance Comparison: State-of-the-Art Computing

Classical Computation of NMR Shielding Constants

Classical computational methods for NMR shielding constants span a wide spectrum of accuracy and computational cost. The table below summarizes the key methods and their performance characteristics.

Table 1: Classical Computational Methods for NMR Shielding Constants

Method	Description	Performance & Accuracy	Key Considerations
CCSD(T)/CBS	Coupled-cluster theory at complete basis set limit; considered the "gold standard" [27].	Mean Absolute Error (MAE): ~0.15 ppm (H), 0.4 ppm (C), 3 ppm (N), 4 ppm (O) [27].	Prohibitively expensive for molecules with >10 non-hydrogen atoms [27].
Composite Methods	Combines high-level theory with a small basis set and low-level theory with a large basis set to approximate high-level, large-basis results [27].	Can accurately reproduce CCSD(T)/large-basis results at a fraction of the cost [27].	Reduces computational cost while retaining high accuracy.
Locally Dense Basis Sets (LDBS)	Assigns a large basis set only to the atom of interest and smaller basis sets to atoms farther away [27].	Substantially reduces computation time while maintaining acceptable accuracy [27].	Leverages the local nature of the NMR shielding tensor.
Density Functional Theory (DFT)	A practical workhorse for medium-to-large systems.	Accuracy is functional-dependent; can overestimate paramagnetic contributions without scaling [67].	A good balance between cost and accuracy for many applications.

For systems with numerous active nuclei, exact diagonalization of the NMR Hamiltonian becomes classically intractable. The memory requirement scales as $\mathcal{O}(2^{2N}/N)$ and computational time as $\mathcal{O}(2^{3N}/N^{3/2})$, where $N$ is the number of active nuclei [68]. This exponential scaling is the primary bottleneck that quantum computing aims to address.

Quantum Computing Speedup Demonstration

Google Quantum AI's recent experiment marks a significant advance in beyond-classical computation. The following table quantifies the performance achieved.

Table 2: Quantum Speedup Demonstrated by Google Quantum AI

Parameter	Specification
Quantum Processor	65-qubit superconducting processor (Willow chip) [62].
Algorithm	Quantum Echoes, measuring Out-of-Time-Order Correlators (OTOC(2)) [62].
Task	Simulation of quantum interference and information scrambling [62].
Quantum Processing Time	2.1 hours (including calibration and readout) [62].
Classical Projection (Frontier Supercomputer)	Estimated 3.2 years for tensor-network contraction [62].
Speedup Factor	~13,000x [62].
Connection to NMR	The algorithm can model dipolar couplings, potentially extending the range of NMR measurements as a "longer molecular ruler" [62].

This demonstration is situated in the "beyond-classical" regime, producing verifiable scientific data that classical machines cannot reproduce in a reasonable time [62]. While not a direct simulation of a complex molecule's NMR spectrum, the algorithm's connection to simulating spin interactions provides a clear pathway toward quantum-enhanced NMR spectroscopy [62].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Classical Benchmarking with Composite Methods and LDBS

This protocol outlines steps to compute NMR shielding constants efficiently using classical composite method approximations and Locally Dense Basis Sets (LDBS) [27], establishing a robust baseline for future quantum computation benchmarks.

Step 1: Molecular Geometry Preparation

• Obtain or optimize the molecular structure using a suitable method (e.g., wB97X-V/aug-cc-pVTZ level of theory) [27]. Ensure the geometry is optimized and properly aligned in the computational software, as alignment can affect localized orbital analysis [10].

Step 2: Selection of Basis Sets and Theory Levels

• Basis Sets: Use the segmented pcSseg-* series (e.g., pcSseg-1, pcSseg-3) for better computational efficiency with nearly equal accuracy to the generally contracted pcS-* series [27].
• Composite Method Setup: A typical composite method to approximate the target CCSD(T)/pcSseg-3 is denoted as Thigh(Bsmall) ∪ Tlow(Blarge). For example:
  • CCSD(T)/pcSseg-1 ∪ MP2/pcSseg-3 [27]
  • Alternatively, DHDFT/pcSseg-1 ∪ DFT/pcSseg-3 can be used for larger systems [27].
• LDBS Partitioning: Implement a locally dense basis set scheme.
  • Scheme A (Atom-Centric): Assign the largest basis set (e.g., pcSseg-3) to the target nucleus and its directly bonded hydrogen atoms. Assign a medium basis set (e.g., pcSseg-2) to the nearest-neighbor atoms, and a small basis set (e.g., pcSseg-1) to all other atoms [27].
  • Scheme B (Functional Group): Assign basis sets based on chemical functional groups, applying a large basis to the entire functional group containing the nucleus of interest [27].

Step 3: Calculation Execution

• Run the single-point energy calculation with the specified composite method and LDBS scheme. For accurate property analysis, use an all-electron basis set and disable automatic symmetry (NOSYM) to ensure consistent localization [10].

Step 4: Data Analysis

• Compute the isotropic shielding constant, $σA$. The chemical shift $δi$ is then calculated relative to a reference molecule (e.g., tetramethylsilane for 1H and 13C) using the formula: $δi = σ{ref} - σi + δ{ref}$, where $δ_{ref}$ is the experimental chemical shift of the reference [10].

Prospective Protocol for Quantum Computation of NMR Parameters

This protocol describes the prospective use of a quantum computer to compute NMR spectra, based on the recently demonstrated Quantum Echoes algorithm [62] [68].

Step 1: System Hamiltonian Formulation

• Map the molecular spin Hamiltonian of the target molecule onto a qubit register. The NMR Hamiltonian for a molecule in a magnetic field is given by: $$\hat{H} = -\suml γl (1 + δl) B^z \hat{I}^zl + 2Ï€ \sum{k{kl} \mathbf{\hat{I}}k \cdot \mathbf{\hat{I}}l$$ where $\hat{I}^αl$ are spin operators for nucleus $l$, $γl$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $δl$ is the chemical shift, $B^z$ is the external magnetic field, and $J{kl}$ are the scalar coupling constants [68].}>

Step 2: Algorithm Execution (Quantum Echoes)

• The Quantum Echoes algorithm involves a time-reversal protocol to measure Out-of-Time-Order Correlators (OTOC(2)) [62].
  • Forward Evolution: Evolve the system forward in time under the system Hamiltonian for a specific duration.
  • Butterfly Perturbation: Apply a small, local perturbation (the "butterfly").
  • Backward Evolution: Evolve the system backward in time (time-reversal).
  • Measurement: Measure the resulting interference pattern on faraway qubits, which is highly sensitive to the microscopic details of the Hamiltonian [62].
• This forward-and-backward evolution creates an echo, and the measured OTOC(2) reveals information about spin correlations and interference effects [62].

Step 3: Hamiltonian Learning (Parameter Extraction)

• Use the quantum processor as a diagnostic tool. Vary parameters in a model Hamiltonian and compute the corresponding OTOC(2) signal. Compare the results with experimental NMR data or highly accurate classical benchmarks to refine and pinpoint the unknown Hamiltonian parameters (like specific J-couplings or chemical shifts) through an optimization process [62].

Step 4: Spectral Function Construction

• The measured and computed transition amplitudes and frequencies are used to construct the spectral function $C(ω)$, which is proportional to the measured NMR signal and consists of a collection of Lorentzian peaks [68]: $$C(ω) ∝ η \sum{n,m} \frac{\langle En | M^- | Em \rangle \langle Em | M^+ | En \rangle}{η^2 + [ω - (En - Em)]^2}$$ where $M^{±} = \sumi γi \hat{I}^±i$ and $η$ is a broadening parameter accounting for decoherence and spectrometer resolution [68].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the contrasting approaches of classical and quantum protocols for NMR parameter computation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This section details the essential computational tools and platforms used in the advanced experiments cited herein.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Item / Platform	Function / Description	Relevance to Experiment
ADF Modeling Suite	Software for quantum chemical calculations, including NMR property prediction with various analysis options (NBO/NLMO) [10].	Used for running classical benchmark calculations of NMR shielding constants and performing analysis with localized molecular orbitals [10].
NBO6 Program	Program for Natural Bond Orbital analysis, integrated into quantum chemistry packages [10].	Enables decomposition of NMR shielding tensors into contributions from specific localized orbitals (e.g., bonds, lone pairs) for detailed interpretation [10].
Google Willow Chip	A 65-qubit superconducting quantum processor [62] [69].	The hardware platform used to demonstrate the 13,000x quantum speedup with the Quantum Echoes algorithm [62].
pcSseg-n Basis Sets	A family of segmented basis sets specially optimized for calculating NMR shielding constants [27].	Provides a efficient and accurate basis for classical benchmark calculations, often used within composite methods and LDBS approaches [27].
SpinQ Cloud / Hardware	Platform providing access to real quantum processors (NMR-based and superconducting) via the cloud and educational desktop devices [70].	Democratizes access to quantum computing for education, algorithm testing, and early-stage research without requiring massive capital investment [70].

The recent demonstration of a 13,000-fold computational speedup using a quantum processor marks a pivotal moment, proving that quantum computers can enter the "beyond-classical" regime for specific, verifiable tasks relevant to NMR [62]. While current classical methods, through sophisticated combinations like composite approximations and locally dense basis sets, remain powerful and practical for many systems of interest to chemists and drug developers [27], their reach is fundamentally limited by exponential scaling. The prospective protocol for quantum computation of NMR parameters, centered on the Quantum Echoes algorithm, outlines a viable path toward overcoming this barrier. The ongoing progress in quantum hardware, notably in error correction and qubit count [69], coupled with the development of application-specific algorithms like Hamiltonian Learning, suggests that the practical use of quantum computers to solve previously intractable problems in NMR spectroscopy and drug development is approaching reality.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy serves as an indispensable tool for elucidating the three-dimensional structures of molecules and crystals, with applications spanning chemistry, biology, and materials science [7]. The core of NMR analysis lies in accurately interpreting chemical shifts, which are derived from nuclear shielding constants, to determine molecular geometry and environment. For decades, classical computational methods, primarily rooted in Density Functional Theory (DFT), have been employed to predict these shielding constants, thereby complementing and validating experimental findings [9] [7].

The emergence of quantum computing presents a paradigm shift for this field. Quantum algorithms offer the potential to simulate quantum mechanical phenomena, such as the interactions of atoms and particles, with a natural advantage over classical methods [71]. This application note details the protocols for validating the outputs of a pioneering quantum algorithm—Google's Quantum Echoes—against empirical NMR data. Framed within the broader thesis of quantum algorithm development for NMR shielding constant computation, this document provides researchers and drug development professionals with a rigorous framework for correlating quantum-computed results with experimental spectra, a critical step toward establishing quantum utility in computational chemistry.

Theoretical Background & Quantum Advancement

The Shielding Constant and Chemical Shift

The fundamental parameter calculated in computational NMR is the isotropic shielding constant (σiso). Experimentally, this is related to the reported chemical shift (δ) using a reference compound, typically tetramethylsilane (TMS) for 13C NMR, via the equation [7]: [ \delta^{(13}C) = \sigma{\text{iso}}^{\text{TMS}(^{13}C)} - \sigma{\text{iso}}(^{13}C) ] where ( \sigma{\text{iso}}^{\text{TMS}}(^{13}C) ) is the theoretically computed shielding constant of the reference TMS molecule. Accurate prediction of σ_iso is therefore the primary computational challenge.

The Quantum Echoes Algorithm

Google's recently announced Quantum Echoes algorithm represents a significant milestone in the application of quantum computing to physical systems [6] [71]. Also known as an Out-of-Time-Order Correlator (OTOC), this algorithm is designed to probe the structure and dynamics of quantum systems.

The core operational principle can be broken down into a sequence of quantum operations, as visualized in the workflow below. The algorithm initiates a signal that propagates through a network of entangled qubits, applies a controlled perturbation, and then reverses the signal's evolution. The resulting "echo" is amplified by constructive interference, making the measurement highly sensitive to interactions within the system [6] [72]. This sensitivity is key to its application in modeling complex spin networks, such as those found in molecules analyzed by NMR spectroscopy.

From Quantum Computation to Molecular Structure

In a proof-of-principle experiment, Google Quantum AI and collaborators at UC Berkeley demonstrated that the Quantum Echoes algorithm could be used as a "molecular ruler" [6] [71]. The algorithm was run on Google's Willow quantum chip to model the spin dynamics in molecules containing 15 and 28 atoms. The results matched those obtained from traditional NMR, confirming the algorithm's ability to extract structural information, potentially at longer distances than currently feasible with classical methods on complex systems [6].

Methodological Approaches: A Comparative Framework

Validating quantum-computed shielding constants requires a multi-faceted approach, benchmarking the new technology against established computational methods and, ultimately, experimental data. The table below summarizes the key performance metrics of the primary methodological approaches.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of NMR Shielding Constant Computation Methods

Method	Theoretical Basis	Key Inputs	Reported Accuracy (13C)	Computational Cost / Time
Quantum Echoes (Google)	Out-of-Time-Order Correlators (OTOCs)	Pulse sequences on qubits, molecular spin network data	Matched experimental NMR data for test molecules [71]	2.1 hours (vs. 3.2 years on Frontier supercomputer) [6]
Density Functional Theory (DFT)	Quantum Mechanics / Density Functional Theory	Molecular geometry, basis set, functional (e.g., TPSS)	~1-3 ppm error with TPSS/pcSseg-2 [9]	Hours to days (depends on system size & method)
Machine Learning (aBoB-RBF(4))	Kernel Ridge Regression on Quantum-Chemical Data	Molecular geometry, atomic descriptors (aBoB-RBF)	1.69 ppm MAE on QM9NMR dataset [7]	Near-instant after training (training is resource-intensive)

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Validating Quantum Echoes via NMR Spectroscopy

This protocol outlines the steps for correlating the results from a quantum computation of spin dynamics with empirical NMR data, as demonstrated in Google's recent work [6] [71].

1. Molecule Preparation and Isotopic Labelling:

• Function: Select a target molecule and synthesize it with a specific isotope (e.g., Carbon-13) at a known location. This provides a localized "source spin" for the experiment.
• Procedure: Use standard organic synthesis techniques to introduce the 13C label at the desired atomic position. Purify the molecule to high homogeneity.

2. Empirical NMR Data Acquisition (TARDIS Sequence):

• Function: To generate the experimental counterpart of the quantum echo in a real molecule. The TARDIS (Time-Accurate Reversal of Dipolar InteractionS) pulse sequence is used [6].
• Procedure: a. Dissolve the synthesized molecule in a suitable solvent (e.g., a liquid crystal to retain dipolar couplings). b. Place the sample in an NMR spectrometer. c. Apply the TARDIS pulse sequence: a first set of radiofrequency pulses to perturb the nuclear spin network, followed by a "butterfly" perturbation on a distant spin, and a second set of pulses to reverse the evolution. d. Record the resulting "echo" signal, which contains information about the propagation of polarization through the spin network.

3. Quantum Computation of Spin Dynamics:

• Function: To simulate the NMR experiment on a quantum processor.
• Procedure: a. Map the Molecule: Represent the molecule's spin network on the quantum processor, where each qubit corresponds to a nuclear spin in the molecule. b. Run Quantum Echoes Algorithm: Execute the sequence on the quantum hardware (e.g., Google's Willow chip) [6]: i. Initialization: Prepare the qubits in a known state. ii. Forward Evolution: Apply a series of two-qubit gates, mimicking the first set of NMR pulses. iii. Perturbation: Apply a randomized single-qubit gate (the "butterfly" perturbation). iv. Backward Evolution: Apply the reverse sequence of two-qubit gates. c. Measurement: Measure the final state of the qubits. Repeat this process multiple times with different random perturbations to build up a probability distribution of the "echo" signal.

4. Data Correlation and Validation:

• Function: To validate the output of the quantum computation against the empirical data.
• Procedure: a. Compare the measured echo signal from the NMR spectrometer with the probability distribution of the echo obtained from the quantum computer. b. The key validation metric is the sensitivity of the echo to perturbations on distant spins. The quantum computation should accurately reproduce the rate at which the echo fidelity decays as a function of distance, as seen in the empirical data. c. A successful correlation confirms that the quantum processor can correctly model the complex, long-distance spin interactions within the molecule.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated process of this validation protocol.

Protocol 2: Benchmarking with DFT and Machine Learning

For contexts where direct access to a suitable quantum computer is not available, or for comprehensive benchmarking, this protocol uses classical computational methods as an intermediary for validation.

1. Quantum Computation of Shielding Constants:

• Run the quantum algorithm (e.g., a future variant of Quantum Echoes or VQE optimized for shielding tensors) to compute the isotropic shielding constants (σ_iso) for each nucleus in the target molecule.

2. Classical Computation of Shielding Constants:

• DFT Calculation: a. Geometry Optimization: Obtain a stable 3D geometry of the target molecule using a functional like B3LYP and a basis set like 6-31G(d,p) [7]. b. NMR Calculation: Compute the shielding tensors using a higher-level method. A recommended input for ORCA software is [9]: !TPSS pcSseg-1 AUTOAUX NMR CPCM(CHCl3) This line specifies the TPSS functional, pcSseg-1 basis set, and a solvent model (CHCl3). The TAU DOBSON keyword in the %eprnmr block is recommended for meta-GGAs to ensure gauge invariance [9].
• Machine Learning Prediction: a. Descriptor Generation: Input the molecular geometry into a pre-trained model (e.g., using the aBoB-RBF(4) descriptor) [7]. b. Shielding Prediction: The model outputs the predicted shielding constants.

3. Experimental Reference Data:

• Obtain high-resolution experimental NMR spectra for the target molecule under standard conditions.
• Convert the experimentally measured chemical shifts (δexp) back to shielding constants (σiso) for direct comparison, using the equation in Section 2.1 and a computed σ_iso for the reference compound (e.g., TMS).

4. Triangulation and Validation:

• Plot the quantum-computed, DFT-computed, and ML-predicted shielding constants against the experimental-derived shielding constants.
• The coefficient of determination (R²) and the mean absolute error (MAE) between the quantum-computed and experimental values serve as the primary validation metrics. The results from DFT and ML provide crucial context for evaluating the quantum algorithm's performance.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Reagents and Materials for Quantum-NMR Validation Experiments

Item Name	Function / Application	Specifications / Examples
13C-labelled Compounds	Acts as the source of a localized signal that propagates through the molecular spin network during Quantum Echoes or NMR experiments [6].	Specific isotope (e.g., 13C) incorporated at a known atomic position in the target molecule.
Willow Quantum Processor	Executes the Quantum Echoes algorithm; physical hardware where qubits are entangled to simulate molecular spin dynamics [6] [71].	Google's 105-qubit superconducting chip with high-fidelity gates.
NMR Spectrometer	Acquires empirical NMR data from molecular samples for correlation with quantum computation results [6].	High-field spectrometer capable of running advanced pulse sequences (e.g., TARDIS).
ORCA Software	A comprehensive quantum chemistry package used for DFT-based computation of NMR shielding constants as a benchmark for quantum results [9].	Version 6.0 or higher; features include GIAO-DFT calculations of shielding tensors.
aBoB-RBF(4) ML Model	Provides rapid, accurate predictions of NMR shielding constants for benchmarking and high-throughput screening; offers a balance of accuracy and efficiency [7].	Machine learning model using the augmented bag-of-bonds radial basis function descriptor.
Liquid Crystal Solvent	Used in NMR samples to partially align molecules, retaining residual dipolar couplings necessary for measuring long-range distance constraints [6].	For example, a nematic liquid crystal solvent compatible with the target molecule.

The meticulous validation of quantum-computed shielding constants against empirical NMR spectra is a critical pathway toward establishing quantum computing as a reliable tool in computational chemistry and drug discovery. The protocols outlined here, centered on Google's Quantum Echoes algorithm and supported by classical DFT and ML benchmarks, provide a robust framework for this endeavor. The demonstrated quantum advantage of being 13,000 times faster than a leading supercomputer for a specific task signals a coming transformation in our ability to model complex quantum systems [6] [71]. As quantum hardware continues to scale and algorithms become more refined, the integration of quantum computing into the analytical chemist's standard toolkit promises to unlock new frontiers in the understanding of molecular structure and the accelerated development of novel therapeutics and materials.

Conclusion

The integration of quantum algorithms for NMR shielding constant computation represents a paradigm shift with profound implications for biomedical and clinical research. The key synthesis from this analysis reveals that while definitive, utility-scale quantum advantage for complex drug molecules is on the horizon, hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and specialized approaches like Quantum Echoes have already demonstrated verifiable advantages for specific tasks. The path forward is critically dependent on continued progress in extending qubit coherence times and implementing robust quantum error correction to move from proof-of-concept to practical application. For the future, successfully scaling these technologies promises to dramatically accelerate drug discovery by enabling rapid, accurate determination of complex molecular structures and stereochemistry, directly impacting the development of new therapeutics, catalysts, and advanced materials. The next five years are poised to be a transformative period where quantum computers transition from laboratory curiosities to essential tools in the computational chemist's arsenal.

References

• 1. Solver Benchmarks Performance For Classical ... Nuclear Magnetic [https://quantumzeitgeist.com/classical-solver-benchmarks-performance-for-nuclear-magnetic-resonance-simulation-problems/]
• 2. Can a Quantum Computer ... Simulate Nuclear Magnetic Resonance [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.06448v1]
• 3. MR - Simulation of NMR at zero and ultralow fields from A to... spectra [https://mr.copernicus.org/articles/4/87/2023/]
• 4. QUEST-QUadrupolar Exact SofTware: a fast graphical program for the... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22763585/]
• 5. Quantum Chemical Approaches to the Calculation of NMR Parameters: From Fundamentals to Recent Advances [https://www.mdpi.com/2312-7481/8/5/50]
• 6. Google has a useful quantum algorithm that outperforms a supercomputer - Ars Technica [https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/10/google-claims-to-have-quantum-advantage-with-a-potentially-useful-algorithm/]
• 7. Enhancing NMR Predictions of Atoms-in-Molecules Machine... Shielding [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.05623v1]
• 8. SpinW.org [https://spinw.org/]
• 9. ( Nuclear ) - ORCA 6.0 TUTORIALS Magnetic Resonance NMR [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/6.0/tutorials/spec/NMR.html]
• 10. Analysis of NMR parameters with Localized Molecular Orbitals... [https://www.scm.com/doc/Tutorials/NMR/NMRAnalysisWithNLMOAndNBO.html]
• 11. Variational solutions to fermion-to- qubit in two spatial... mappings [https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2022-10-13-833/]
• 12. SpinDrops — SpinDrops 2.0.4 documentation [https://spindrops.org/]
• 13. BMRB - Biological Magnetic Resonance Bank [https://bmrb.io/]
• 14. Biological Magnetic Resonance Data Bank - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9825541/]
• 15. Computation of NMR Shielding Constants for Solids Using an Embedded Cluster Approach with DFT, Double-Hybrid DFT, and MP2 - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7659039/]
• 16. Universal neural network potentials as descriptors: Towards scalable... [https://arxiv.org/html/2402.18433v1]
• 17. The PAW/GIPAW approach for computing NMR parameters: A new dimension added to NMR study of solids - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926204011000440]
• 18. Electron Correlation or Basis Set Quality: How to Obtain Converged... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9737175/]
• 19. 2DNMRGym: An Annotated Experimental Dataset for Atom-Level Molecular Representation Learning in 2D NMR via Surrogate Supervision [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.18181v1]
• 20. IR-NMR multimodal computational spectra dataset for 177K patent-extracted organic molecules | Scientific Data [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-05729-8]
• 21. Chemical shift tensors: Theory and application to molecular structural problems - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3058154/]
• 22. A comparison of quantum chemical models for calculating NMR shielding parameters in peptides: mixed basis set and ONIOM methods combined with a complete basis set extrapolation - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16541428/]
• 23. Taking Advantage : Researchers Offer a Measured Path Toward... [https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/07/23/taking-advantage-researchers-offer-a-measured-path-toward-quantum-advantage/]
• 24. 's New ' Google ' and My Last... - EDRM Quantum Echoes Algorithm [https://edrm.net/2025/10/googles-new-quantum-echoes-algorithm-and-my-last-article-quantum-echo/]
• 25. The Quantum breakthrough Echoes algorithm [https://blog.google/technology/research/quantum-echoes-willow-verifiable-quantum-advantage/]
• 26. Reminds Us That Quantum Matter Echoes Algorithms [https://www.forrester.com/blogs/quantum-echoes-reminds-us-that-algorithms-matter/]
• 27. Efficient Calculation of NMR Shielding Constants Using Composite Method Approximations and Locally Dense Basis Sets - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10315417/]
• 28. Core-Specialized Basis Sets in Quantum Chemistry - Simple Science [https://scisimple.com/en/articles/2025-06-14-core-specialized-basis-sets-in-quantum-chemistry--ak56gxv]
• 29. On the Utmost Importance of the Basis Set Choice for the Calculations of the Relativistic Corrections to NMR Shielding Constants - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10094374/]
• 30. Machine learning on quantum experimental data toward solving quantum many-body problems | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51932-3]
• 31. High Level Electronic Structure Calculation of Molecular Solid-State... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9009078/]
• 32. - Hybrid Algorithms Quantum Classical [https://arxiv.org/html/2406.12371v1]
• 33. Quantum machine learning - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_machine_learning]
• 34. GitHub - mit-han-lab/torchquantum: A PyTorch-based framework for Quantum Classical Simulation, Quantum Machine Learning, Quantum Neural Networks, Parameterized Quantum Circuits with support for easy deployments on real quantum computers. [https://github.com/mit-han-lab/torchquantum]
• 35. GitHub - tud-ccc/ hybrid - quantum : Compile hybrid - classical ... [https://github.com/tud-ccc/hybrid-quantum]
• 36. Machine Learning Quantum for Algorithms ... Drug Discovery [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34032436/]
• 37. Accurate Prediction of 1H NMR Chemical Shifts of Small Molecules Using Machine Learning - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11123270/]
• 38. A framework for automated structure elucidation from routine NMR spectra - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8635205/]
• 39. GPCR drug : integrating solution discovery data with crystal and... NMR [https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2018.180?error=cookies_not_supported&code=d5888787-9a11-4390-93f9-a6f97328cdbb]
• 40. New Insights into Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11990445/]
• 41. Mnova NMR Software for 1D and 2D NMR Data - Mestrelab [https://mestrelab.com/main-product/nmr]
• 42. Ultimate Guide to Coherence : Everything You Need to Know Time [https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/ultimate-guide-to-coherence-time]
• 43. Toshiba's Proposed Double-Transmon Coupler for Superconducting Quantum Computers Achieves World-Class Two-Qubit Gate Performance -Contributing to solving societal issues by enhancing quantum computer performance- | Corporate Laboratory (Komukai region) | Toshiba [https://www.global.toshiba/ww/technology/corporate/rdc/rd/topics/24/2411-03.html]
• 44. Guest Post -- Unlocking the Quantum Frontier: Coherence in Neutral-Atom Systems [https://thequantuminsider.com/2023/10/03/guest-post-unlocking-the-quantum-frontier-coherence-in-neutral-atom-systems/]
• 45. Physicists Break Quantum Barrier With Record-Breaking Qubit ... [https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-break-quantum-barrier-with-record-breaking-qubit-coherence/]
• 46. One small qubit , one giant leap for quantum computing | ScienceDaily [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/07/250724040459.htm]
• 47. Why Coherence Matters in Quantum Research : The 2025 Nobel Prize... [https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/why-coherence-matters-in-quantum-research-the-2025-nobel-prize-context]
• 48. Highly Accurate Prediction of NMR Shifts from Low-Level... Chemical [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11702896/]
• 49. Testing a quantum error-correcting code on various platforms - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2095927320305168]
• 50. Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing: Key to Scalability | SpinQ [https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/fault-tolerant-quantum-computing-explained-simply]
• 51. Capability 1.1: Quantum (QEC) – The Foundation of... Error Correction [https://postquantum.com/post-quantum/quantum-error-correction-qec/]
• 52. [1508.03695] An introduction to Fault-tolerant Quantum Computing [https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.03695]
• 53. [1910.00129] Error detection on quantum computers improves accuracy of chemical calculations [https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.00129]
• 54. Quantum Computing with Trapped Ions [https://iontrap.duke.edu/]
• 55. Researchers Use Trapped-Ion Quantum Computer to Tackle Tricky Protein Folding Problems [https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/06/15/researchers-use-trapped-ion-quantum-computer-to-tackle-tricky-protein-folding-problems/]
• 56. Breaking Ground in Quantum Computing: QSA’s Trapped-Ion Advances – QSA [https://quantumsystemsaccelerator.org/2025/06/10/trapped-ions/]
• 57. Circuits for Better Optimizing ... Superconducting Quantum Qubit [https://scisimple.com/en/articles/2025-06-20-optimizing-superconducting-quantum-circuits-for-better-qubit-performance--a9rx085]
• 58. The Superconducting and Qubits conference Algorithms [https://www.sqa-conference.org/2025]
• 59. Accurate Prediction of NMR Chemical Shifts: Integrating DFT Calculations with Three-Dimensional Graph Neural Networks - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11209944/]
• 60. Near-Optimal Prediction- Error Enhances Estimation ... Quantum [https://quantumzeitgeist.com/prediction-error-quantum-machine-learning-performance-training-near-optimal-estimation-advances-model-finite-sets/]
• 61. Google Announces “Verifiable Quantum Advantage” on Willow Quantum Chip [https://postquantum.com/quantum-research/googles-quantum-advantage/]
• 62. Google Quantum AI Shows 13,000× Speedup Over World’s Fastest Supercomputer in Physics Simulation [https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/10/22/google-quantum-ai-shows-13000x-speedup-over-worlds-fastest-supercomputer-in-physics-simulation/]
• 63. Google Quantum AI Surpasses Classical Supercomputers With Algorithm 13,000 Times Faster Than Classical [https://quantumzeitgeist.com/google-quantum-ai-surpasses-classical-supercomputers-with-algorithm-october-2025/]
• 64. Efficient Calculation of NMR Using Composite... Shielding Constants [https://www.bohrium.com/paper-details/efficient-calculation-of-nmr-shielding-constants-using-composite-method-approximations-and-locally-dense-basis-sets/867771963882340506-108510]
• 65. Correlation energy - ORCA 5.0 tutorials [https://www.faccts.de/docs/orca/5.0/tutorials/prop/corren.html]
• 66. Google hails breakthrough as quantum computer ... | The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/22/google-hails-breakthrough-as-quantum-computer-surpasses-ability-of-supercomputers]
• 67. Electric Shielding Constant - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/electric-shielding-constant]
• 68. Can a Quantum Computer Simulate Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectra Better than a Classical One? [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.06448]
• 69. Quantum Computing Industry Trends 2025 : A Year of Breakthrough... [https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/quantum-computing-industry-trends-2025-breakthrough-milestones-commercial-transition]
• 70. How to Learn Quantum : A Complete Beginner's Roadmap... Computing [https://www.spinquanta.com/news-detail/how-to-learn-quantum-computing-a-complete-beginners-roadmap-using-real-quantum-devices]
• 71. Our Quantum Echoes algorithm is a big step toward real-world applications for quantum computing | College of Chemistry [https://chemistry.berkeley.edu/news/our-quantum-echoes-algorithm-big-step-toward-real-world-applications-quantum-computing]
• 72. Google Revealed A Futuristic Quantum Algorithm Faster Than Supercomputers - BGR [https://www.bgr.com/2023346/google-quantum-echo-algorithm-faster-supercomputers/]