Language models have become practical tools for quantum computing education and research, from summarizing technical papers to explaining theoretical concepts and answering questions about recent developments in the field. While existing benchmarks evaluate quantum code generation and circuit design, their understanding of quantum computing concepts has not been systematically measured. Quantum-Audit addresses this gap with 2,700 questions covering core quantum computing topics. We evaluate 26 models from leading organizations. Our benchmark comprises 1,000 expert-written questions, 1,000 questions extracted from research papers using LLMs and validated by experts, plus an additional 700 questions including 350 open-ended questions and 350 questions with false premises to test whether models can correct erroneous assumptions. Human participants scored between 23% and 86%, with experts averaging 74%. Top-performing models exceeded the expert average, with Claude Opus 4.5 reaching 84% accuracy, though top models showed an average 12-point accuracy drop on expert-written questions compared to LLM-generated ones. Performance declined further on advanced topics, dropping to 73% on security questions. Additionally, models frequently accepted and reinforced false premises embedded in questions instead of identifying them, with accuracy below 66% on these critical reasoning tasks.
Language models have become practical tools for quantum computing education and research, from summarizing technical papers to explaining theoretical concepts and answering questions about recent developments in the field. While existing benchmarks evaluate quantum code generation and circuit design, their understanding of quantum computing concepts has not been systematically measured. Quantum-Audit addresses this gap with 2,700 questions covering core quantum computing topics. We evaluate 26 models from leading organizations. Our benchmark comprises 1,000 expert-written questions, 1,000 questions extracted from research papers using LLMs and validated by experts, plus an additional 700 questions including 350 open-ended questions and 350 questions with false premises to test whether models can correct erroneous assumptions. Human participants scored between 23% and 86%, with experts averaging 74%. Top-performing models exceeded the expert average, with Claude Opus 4.5 reaching 84% accuracy, though top models showed an average 12-point accuracy drop on expert-written questions compared to LLM-generated ones. Performance declined further on advanced topics, dropping to 73% on security questions. Additionally, models frequently accepted and reinforced false premises embedded in questions instead of identifying them, with accuracy below 66% on these critical reasoning tasks.
Large language models (LLMs) can generate quantum programs, but reliable evaluation remains difficult because benchmarks differ in task composition, scoring, and failure handling. We evaluate 15 hosted frontier, open-weight, quantum-specialized, and retrieval-augmented models on five quantum code-generation suites (530 tasks), plus 10 models on our new QuantumBenchEval (QBE) benchmark (96 tasks across six topics). We report bootstrap confidence intervals, multiplicity-adjusted paired comparisons, and audits of output validity and evaluator behavior. QiskitHumanEval-Standard approaches saturation (98.7% pass@1), while its Hard variant retains headroom (63.8%). None of the five top-two comparisons across primary suites remains significant after multiple-comparison correction. Evaluator design substantially changes scores: removing checks for unspecified quantities raises GPT-6 Astra's QBE pass@1 from 0% to 94.1% (T1) and from 1.2% to 92.9% (T6), without changing model outputs. We identify 17 QuanBench-117 tasks with shared failures linked to benchmark-owned imports. Controlled probes also reveal unexecuted unit tests, leakage of canonical functions into candidate execution, and reference imports that block otherwise valid candidates. These defects can produce both false failures and false passes, so historical QuanBench results require revalidation under an isolated evaluator. Overall, leaderboard scores alone do not adequately characterize progress in quantum code generation. We release our harness, per-sample results, and audit artifacts and recommend validating evaluators, isolating candidate code, and reporting uncertainty and output validity.
Large language models are now integrated into many scientific workflows, accelerating data analysis, hypothesis generation, and design space exploration. In parallel with this growth, there is a growing need to carefully evaluate whether models accurately capture domain-specific knowledge and notation, since general-purpose benchmarks rarely reflect these requirements. This gap is especially clear in quantum science, which features non-intuitive phenomena and requires advanced mathematics. In this study, we introduce QuantumBench, a benchmark for the quantum domain that systematically examine how well LLMs understand and can be applied to this non-intuitive field. Using publicly available materials, we compiled approximately 800 questions with their answers spanning nine areas related to quantum science and organized them into an eight-option multiple-choice dataset. With this benchmark, we evaluate several existing LLMs and analyze their performance in the quantum domain, including sensitivity to changes in question format. QuantumBench is the first LLM evaluation dataset built for the quantum domain, and it is intended to guide the effective use of LLMs in quantum research.
We adapt Microsoft's QuantumKatas -- a well-established quantum computing curriculum -- from Q# to Qiskit, the most widely-adopted quantum computing framework, and package it with an evaluation framework for systematic LLM assessment. The resulting benchmark comprises 350 tasks across 26 categories, spanning fundamental gates through advanced algorithms (Grover's, Simon's, Deutsch-Jozsa), error correction, key distribution, and quantum games. Each task includes a natural language prompt, canonical solution, and deterministic test verification via classical circuit simulation. By building on the QuantumKatas' proven pedagogical design rather than creating tasks from scratch, we inherit a principled difficulty progression and comprehensive concept coverage while contributing the framework adaptation, evaluation infrastructure, and empirical analysis. We evaluate 16 LLMs across 7 prompting configurations -- a total of 39,200 model runs -- to demonstrate the benchmark's utility. Three key findings emerge: (1) the benchmark effectively differentiates model capabilities, with best-configuration pass rates ranging from 32.3% to 83.1% and a 26.1 pp average gap between frontier and open-source models; (2) models perform well at implementing known algorithms (SimonsAlgorithm 82.1%, BasicGates 81.6%) but struggle with problem encoding (SolveSATWithGrover 34.4%, DistinguishUnitaries 40.0%); and (3) chain-of-thought prompting shows a modestly bimodal effect -- it is the best strategy for three models (two of them explicitly reasoning-tuned per vendor documentation) but degrades performance for the rest, leaving it mid-pack in aggregate (56.3% mean) behind few-shot-5 (57.8%). We release the benchmark, evaluation framework, and baseline results to support research on LLM capabilities in quantum computing.
Large language models (LLMs) have increasingly been applied to automatic programming code generation. This task can be viewed as a language generation task that bridges natural language, human knowledge, and programming logic. However, it remains underexplored in domains that require interaction with hardware devices, such as quantum programming, where human coders write Python code that is executed on a quantum computer. To address this gap, we introduce QCoder Benchmark, an evaluation framework that assesses LLMs on quantum programming with feedback from simulated hardware devices. Our benchmark offers two key features. First, it supports evaluation using a quantum simulator environment beyond conventional Python execution, allowing feedback of domain-specific metrics such as circuit depth, execution time, and error classification, which can be used to guide better generation. Second, it incorporates human-written code submissions collected from real programming contests, enabling both quantitative comparisons and qualitative analyses of LLM outputs against human-written codes. Our experiments reveal that even advanced models like GPT-4o achieve only around 18.97% accuracy, highlighting the difficulty of the benchmark. In contrast, reasoning-based models such as o3 reach up to 78% accuracy, outperforming averaged success rates of human-written codes (39.98%). We release the QCoder Benchmark dataset and public evaluation API to support further research. (Codes and datasets are available at https://qcoder-bench.github.io/ )
Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong results in classical code generation and are increasingly used to write the unit tests that safeguard that code. Whether they can do the same for quantum software is less clear, because quantum programs are probabilistic, depend on numerical tolerances, and are judged by domain-specific checkers, so a well-formed test can still disagree with the benchmark's verdict. Existing quantum benchmarks measure whether a model produces a correct solution, but not whether its tests can distinguish correct implementations from faulty ones. We introduce QTestBench, a framework that evaluates LLM-generated quantum test suites against independent benchmark checkers, never treating the tests themselves as ground truth. For each task, QTestBench prompts models to produce syntactic, semantic, and behavioral tests, injects candidate solutions at runtime, and compares each test verdict with the checker's label under three validation cohorts, each answering a distinct diagnostic question. We benchmark five LLMs on eight PennyLane QHack challenges and ten Qiskit HumanEval tasks. Generated suites almost always execute, but discrimination lags behind: the best generator reaches a test quality of 0.71 on QHack and 0.34 on Qiskit HumanEval, so executability alone overstates test quality. Oracle-verified synthetic mutants stabilize bug-detection estimates when natural faulty solutions are scarce, as on three of ten Qiskit tasks that yield none. QTestBench offers a reproducible, cross-framework benchmark for the trustworthiness of LLM-generated quantum tests.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as quantum coding copilots, assisting researchers by generating complex programs for frameworks such as Qiskit, PennyLane, and OpenQASM. However, accurately evaluating the practical utility of these models remains a significant challenge. Existing benchmarks are highly fragmented, ranging from syntax-centric unit tests to simulator- and hardware-aware metrics, making results difficult to compare across different languages and hardware targets. To address this fragmentation, this paper systematically reviews recent evaluation suites and post-training methodologies for quantum code generation. We distill current evaluation criteria into four practical dimensions: syntax and API validity, semantic and physical correctness, resource and hardware feasibility, and execution-based feedback. Building upon these dimensions, we present a unified taxonomy that maps current benchmarks to emerging model adaptation techniques, specifically retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), fine-tuning, multi-agent workflows, and reinforcement learning (RL). Our analysis highlights a clear shift: moving away from prompt-only baselines and toward agentic workflows driven by quantum-verifiable rewards. This shift directly targets the semantic gap between superficially compilable code and physically executable quantum programs. In addition, we identify key research opportunities-such as standardized semantic metrics and integration with quantum error correction-aimed at fostering a more reproducible, verifiable, and hardware-grounded ecosystem for automated quantum software development.