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 $\times$ 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.
Comments
accepted at the Quantum AI Workshop, Indianapolis IN, August 2026
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.
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated good performance in general code generation; however, their capabilities in quantum code generation remain insufficiently studied. This paper presents QuanBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on quantum code generation. QuanBench includes 44 programming tasks that cover quantum algorithms, state preparation, gate decomposition, and quantum machine learning. Each task has an executable canonical solution and is evaluated by functional correctness (Pass@K) and quantum semantic equivalence (Process Fidelity). We evaluate several recent LLMs, including general-purpose and code-specialized models. The results show that current LLMs have limited capability in generating the correct quantum code, with overall accuracy below 40% and frequent semantic errors. We also analyze common failure cases, such as outdated API usage, circuit construction errors, and incorrect algorithm logic. QuanBench provides a basis for future work on improving quantum code generation with LLMs.
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) 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 (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 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.