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.
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.
Quantum programs are typically developed using quantum Software Development Kits (SDKs). The rapid advancement of quantum computing necessitates new tools to streamline this development process, and one such tool could be Generative Artificial intelligence (GenAI). In this study, we introduce and use the Qiskit HumanEval dataset, a hand-curated collection of tasks designed to benchmark the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce quantum code using Qiskit – a quantum SDK. This dataset consists of more than 100 quantum computing tasks, each accompanied by a prompt, a canonical solution, a comprehensive test case, and a difficulty scale to evaluate the correctness of the generated solutions. We systematically assess the performance of a set of LLMs against the Qiskit HumanEval dataset's tasks and focus on the models ability in producing executable quantum code. Our findings not only demonstrate the feasibility of using LLMs for generating quantum code but also establish a new benchmark for ongoing advancements in the field and encourage further exploration and development of GenAI-driven tools for quantum code generation.
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.
We present a systematic evaluation of large language models on quantum mechanics problem-solving. Our study evaluates 15 models from five providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Alibaba, DeepSeek) spanning three capability tiers on 20 tasks covering derivations, creative problems, non-standard concepts, and numerical computation, comprising 900 baseline and 75 tool-augmented assessments. Results reveal clear tier stratification: flagship models achieve 81\% average accuracy, outperforming mid-tier (77\%) and fast models (67\%) by 4pp and 14pp respectively. Task difficulty patterns emerge distinctly: derivations show highest performance (92\% average, 100\% for flagship models), while numerical computation remains most challenging (42\%). Tool augmentation on numerical tasks yields task-dependent effects: modest overall improvement (+4.4pp) at 3x token cost masks dramatic heterogeneity ranging from +29pp gains to -16pp degradation. Reproducibility analysis across three runs quantifies 6.3pp average variance, with flagship models demonstrating exceptional stability (GPT-5 achieves zero variance) while specialized models require multi-run evaluation. This work contributes: (i) a benchmark for quantum mechanics with automatic verification, (ii) systematic evaluation quantifying tier-based performance hierarchies, (iii) empirical analysis of tool augmentation trade-offs, and (iv) reproducibility characterization. All tasks, verifiers, and results are publicly released.
We introduce QC-Stark, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on 11 quantum computing (QC) tasks, spanning circuit construction, debugging, compilation, error correction, and simulation. Across 2,750 evaluations (10 models × 11 tasks x 5 difficulty levels x 5 seeds), we find that overall rankings mask substantial per-task variation. The Spearman correlation between overall and per-task rankings is statistically insignificant for 4 out of the 11 tasks included in this benchmark. A 2-parameter Item Response Theory (IRT) model validates measurement quality, and prompt sensitivity analysis confirms ranking robustness across prompt conditions. All tasks are auto-verifiable via execution, thus not requiring any manual evaluation. We make the code and data publicly available on Huggingface.
We present a systematic evaluation of large language models on quantum mechanics problem-solving. Our study evaluates 15 models from five providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Alibaba, DeepSeek) spanning three capability tiers on 20 tasks covering derivations, creative problems, non-standard concepts, and numerical computation, comprising 900 baseline and 75 tool-augmented assessments. Results reveal clear tier stratification: flagship models achieve 81% average accuracy, outperforming mid-tier (77%) and fast models (67%) by 4pp and 14pp respectively. Task difficulty patterns emerge distinctly: derivations show highest performance (92% average, 100% for flagship models), while numerical computation remains most challenging (42%). Tool augmentation on numerical tasks yields task-dependent effects: modest overall improvement (+4.4pp) at 3x token cost masks dramatic heterogeneity ranging from +29pp gains to -16pp degradation. Reproducibility analysis across three runs quantifies 6.3pp average variance, with flagshipmodels demonstrating exceptional stability (GPT-5 achieves zero variance) while specialized models require multi-run evaluation. This work contributes: (i) a benchmark for quantum mechanics with automatic verification, (ii) systematic evaluation quantifying tier-based performance hierarchies, (iii) empirical analysis of tool augmentation trade-offs, and (iv) reproducibility characterization. All tasks, verifiers, and results are publicly released.
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.