pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14609 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.AI · physics.comp-ph

El Agente Forjador: Task-Driven Agent Generation for Quantum Simulation

Zijian Zhang , Aiwei Yin , Amaan Baweja , Jiaru Bai , Ignacio Gustin , Varinia Bernales , Al\'an Aspuru-Guzik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI physics.comp-ph
keywords LLM agentstool generationquantum simulationagentic workflowsquantum chemistryreusable toolsmulti-agent systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

LLM agents can autonomously generate and reuse tools to solve quantum simulations more accurately.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper describes a multi-agent system in which coding agents analyze a task, generate code tools for it, execute those tools, and iteratively refine solutions for quantum chemistry and dynamics problems. This tool-forging approach is tested against direct problem-solving baselines on 24 tasks and shows consistent accuracy gains. Reusing a tool library built by a capable agent lowers costs while lifting performance for less capable agents, and tools created in one domain can be combined with those from another to handle mixed problems. The work concludes that agent skill can be expanded through the tools the agents themselves create rather than through fixed, human-designed toolkits.

Core claim

LLM coding agents can autonomously forge, validate, and reuse computational tools through a four-stage workflow of tool analysis, tool generation, task execution, and iterative solution evaluation, producing higher accuracy on quantum simulation tasks than baseline direct solving and enabling cost-effective reuse across agent strengths and domains.

What carries the argument

The four-stage workflow of tool analysis, tool generation, task execution, and iterative solution evaluation that lets agents create and share task-specific computational tools on demand.

If this is right

  • Reusing a toolset built by a stronger agent reduces API cost and raises solution quality for weaker agents.
  • Tools forged for different domains can be combined to solve hybrid quantum tasks.
  • Accuracy improves consistently over zero-shot tool generation per task and over direct baseline solving.
  • Agent capabilities become defined by the tasks they can solve rather than by pre-engineered tool implementations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same workflow could let agents adapt to new scientific libraries without repeated human curation.
  • Shared tool libraries might accumulate improvements across many agents and sessions.
  • Similar tool-forging could apply outside quantum science to fields that rely on evolving code libraries.
  • Automated checks for tool correctness on edge cases would be needed before trusting the outputs in research.

Load-bearing premise

The agents can reliably generate and validate scientifically correct tools without introducing subtle errors that only appear on harder or unseen quantum problems.

What would settle it

A demonstration that the generated tools produce wrong answers on a new set of complex quantum problems where standard numerical solvers give correct results would falsify the reliability of autonomous tool creation.

read the original abstract

AI for science promises to accelerate the discovery process. The advent of large language models (LLMs) and agentic workflows enables the expediting of a growing range of scientific tasks. However, most of the current generation of agentic systems depend on static, hand-curated toolsets that hinder adaptation to new domains and evolving libraries. We present El Agente Forjador, a multi-agent framework in which universal coding agents autonomously forge, validate, and reuse computational tools through a four-stage workflow of tool analysis, tool generation, task execution, and iterative solution evaluation. Evaluated across 24 tasks spanning quantum chemistry and quantum dynamics on five coding agent setups, we compare three operating modes: zero-shot generation of tools per task, reuse of a curriculum-built toolset, and direct problem-solving with the coding agents as the baseline. We find that our tool generation and reuse framework consistently improves accuracy over the baseline. We also show that reusing a toolset built by a stronger coding agent can reduce API cost and substantially raises the solution quality for weaker coding agents. Case studies further demonstrate that tools forged for different domains can be combined to solve hybrid tasks. Taken together, these results show that LLM-based agents can use their scientific knowledge and coding capabilities to autonomously build reusable scientific tools, pointing toward a paradigm in which agent capabilities are defined by the tasks they are designed to solve rather than by explicitly engineered implementations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces El Agente Forjador, a multi-agent framework in which LLM coding agents autonomously perform a four-stage workflow (tool analysis, generation, task execution, and iterative evaluation) to forge, validate, and reuse computational tools for quantum simulation. It evaluates three operating modes—zero-shot per-task tool generation, reuse of a curriculum-built toolset, and direct baseline problem-solving—across 24 tasks in quantum chemistry and quantum dynamics using five coding-agent setups. The central claims are that the tool-generation-and-reuse framework yields consistent accuracy gains over baseline, that toolsets forged by stronger agents reduce API cost and improve solution quality for weaker agents, and that cross-domain tools can be combined to solve hybrid tasks.

Significance. If the reported gains are supported by detailed quantitative metrics and rigorous validation of scientific correctness, the work would meaningfully advance agentic AI for science by showing that agents can dynamically construct and share reusable scientific tooling rather than depending on static hand-curated libraries. The cross-domain tool-combination case studies would be especially valuable for demonstrating modular, composable capabilities in multi-physics settings. The empirical nature of the study (no free parameters or circular derivations) is a strength, but the absence of concrete performance numbers and validation details currently limits the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claims of 'consistent accuracy improvements' and 'substantially raises the solution quality' are presented without any quantitative metrics, error bars, statistical tests, or description of how accuracy was measured (e.g., against analytical solutions, reference implementations, or conservation laws). This information is load-bearing for the central empirical comparison.
  2. [§3 (workflow description)] Four-stage workflow (analysis, generation, execution, evaluation): the validation step is described only at high level. If it relies primarily on task completion or basic unit tests rather than cross-checks against analytical solutions, reference codes, or physical invariants (e.g., operator ordering in Trotterization or basis-set correctness), subtle scientific errors could remain undetected and would undermine the transferability claims for hybrid tasks.
  3. [§4 or §5 (experimental evaluation)] Evaluation section (24 tasks): no justification is supplied for why the chosen tasks adequately sample the space of real-world quantum simulation challenges, nor are the concrete accuracy metrics or success criteria for chemistry versus dynamics tasks specified. This makes it impossible to judge whether the reported gains generalize beyond the selected set.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] The manuscript would benefit from a table summarizing the five coding-agent setups, the three operating modes, and the quantitative outcomes (accuracy, cost, quality) for each combination.
  2. [§3] Notation for the four-stage workflow and the 'curriculum-built toolset' should be introduced once with a clear diagram or pseudocode to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. These have helped us identify opportunities to strengthen the clarity of our empirical claims, the description of our validation procedures, and the justification of our experimental design. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested improvements in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claims of 'consistent accuracy improvements' and 'substantially raises the solution quality' are presented without any quantitative metrics, error bars, statistical tests, or description of how accuracy was measured (e.g., against analytical solutions, reference implementations, or conservation laws). This information is load-bearing for the central empirical comparison.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including key quantitative results. The body of the manuscript already contains the full set of accuracy metrics (including means, standard deviations, and comparisons to analytical solutions and reference implementations), error bars, and statistical comparisons across the three operating modes. In the revised abstract we will add representative quantitative findings and a concise description of the evaluation methodology. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 (workflow description)] Four-stage workflow (analysis, generation, execution, evaluation): the validation step is described only at high level. If it relies primarily on task completion or basic unit tests rather than cross-checks against analytical solutions, reference codes, or physical invariants (e.g., operator ordering in Trotterization or basis-set correctness), subtle scientific errors could remain undetected and would undermine the transferability claims for hybrid tasks.

    Authors: The validation stage combines execution success checks with scientific validation steps that include comparisons to analytical solutions (where available), verification of physical invariants such as energy conservation and operator ordering, and cross-checks against reference implementations. We will revise §3 to provide an explicit, expanded description of these validation procedures so that the robustness of the forged tools is transparent. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4 or §5 (experimental evaluation)] Evaluation section (24 tasks): no justification is supplied for why the chosen tasks adequately sample the space of real-world quantum simulation challenges, nor are the concrete accuracy metrics or success criteria for chemistry versus dynamics tasks specified. This makes it impossible to judge whether the reported gains generalize beyond the selected set.

    Authors: The 24 tasks were chosen to span representative problems in quantum chemistry and quantum dynamics drawn from standard benchmarks in the literature. We will add a dedicated paragraph in the experimental evaluation section that justifies the task selection on the basis of their coverage of core simulation challenges and that explicitly states the accuracy metrics and success criteria applied to each domain. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical agent framework evaluation

full rationale

The paper is an empirical comparison of three agent operating modes (zero-shot tool generation, curriculum-built toolset reuse, and direct problem-solving baseline) across 24 quantum chemistry and dynamics tasks. It reports accuracy gains and cost reductions from tool reuse without any mathematical derivation chain, fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce claims to inputs by construction. The central results rest on task-completion metrics and case studies rather than equations or uniqueness theorems that could create circularity, making the evaluation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper describes an empirical multi-agent engineering system rather than a mathematical derivation; no free parameters, axioms, or new physical entities are introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1168 out tokens · 38319 ms · 2026-05-10T11:03:38.767701+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hauschild and F

    Model card for Gemini 3.1 Pro, Google’s most advanced multimodal reasoning model as of publication date. Ignacio Gustin, Luis Mantilla Calderón, Juan B. Pérez-Sánchez, Jérôme F. Gonthier, Yuma Nakamura, Karthik Panicker, Manav Ramprasad, Zijian Zhang, Yunheng Zou, Varinia Bernales, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. El agente cuantico: Automating quantum simulations....

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.5 2025

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1002/wcms.1340.https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1340

    ISSN 1759-0884. doi:10.1002/wcms.1340.https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1340. Qiming Sun, Xing Zhang, Samragni Banerjee, Peng Bao, Marc Barbry, Nick S. Blunt, Nikolay A. Bogdanov, George H. Booth, Jia Chen, Zhi-Hao Cui, Janus J. Eriksen, Yang Gao, Sheng Guo, Jan Hermann, Matthew R. Hermes, Kevin Koh, Peter Koval, Susi Lehtola, Zhendong Li, Junzi Liu, Narbe Mar...

    work page doi:10.1002/wcms.1340.https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1340 2020

  3. [8]

    Atomic charge analysis (Mulliken) Compound: •caffeine:CN1C=NC2=C1C(=O)N(C(=O)N2C)C Always verify the presence of any imaginary vibrational frequencies—excluding translational and rota- tional modes—using the Hessian computed in PySCF with mf.grids.level = 3. If an imaginary mode is identified, displace the structure along the corresponding normal mode and...

    work page

  4. [14]

    Assume you have access to the initial geometry from the corresponding XYZ files

    Atomic charge analysis (Mulliken) Compounds: •caffeine:CN1C=NC2=C1C(=O)N(C(=O)N2C)C •theobromine:CN1C=NC2=C1C(=O)NC(=O)N2C •acetylsalicylic_acid:CC(=O)OC1=CC=CC=C1C(=O)O Organic Compounds – Level 2 Prompt Organic Molecule Analysis - Level 2For the 6 molecules defined below by their filenames, charge, and multiplicity, perform a geometry optimization with ...

    work page

  5. [20]

    Atomic charge analysis (Mulliken) Molecules:

    work page

  6. [21]

    caffeine_openbabel.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  7. [22]

    theobromine_openbabel.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  8. [23]

    aspirin_openbabel.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  9. [24]

    methyl_salicylate_openbabel.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  10. [25]

    diisopropylamide_anion_openbabel.xyz (charge = -1; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  11. [26]

    After optimization, generate a separate report for each molecule

    diisopropylammonium_cation_openbabel.xyz (charge = +1; multiplicity = 1) Inorganic Compounds – Level 1 Prompt Inorganic Molecule Analysis - Level 1For the three inorganic compounds listed below, perform a geometry optimization using the Hartree-Fock (HF) method and the def2-SVP basis set in the gas phase. After optimization, generate a separate report for...

    work page

  12. [28]

    Total energy (in Hartrees) 26

    work page

  13. [33]

    Assume you have access to the initial geometry from the corresponding XYZ files

    An image of the optimized structure Compounds: •Chromium(0) hexacarbonyl (low spin):[Cr](=C=O)(=C=O)(=C=O)(=C=O)(=C=O)(=C=O) •Chlorine trifluoride:FCl(F)F •Fluorophosphoric acid (singly deprotonated form):[O-]P(F)(O)=O Inorganic Compounds – Level 2 Prompt Inorganic Molecule Analysis - Level 2For the 6 inorganic molecules defined below by their filenames, ...

    work page

  14. [34]

    Final Cartesian coordinates (in Å)

    work page

  15. [35]

    Total energy (in Hartrees)

    work page

  16. [36]

    Point group symmetry

    work page

  17. [37]

    Dipole moment (in Debye)

    work page

  18. [38]

    Molecular orbital analysis (including an MO energy table and the HOMO–LUMO gap)

    work page

  19. [39]

    Atomic charge analysis (Mulliken)

    work page

  20. [40]

    An image of the optimized structure Molecules:

    work page

  21. [41]

    chromium_hexacarbonyl.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  22. [42]

    chlorine_trifluoride.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  23. [43]

    fluorophosphoric_acid_singly_deprotonated_form.xyz (charge = -1; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  24. [44]

    trifluoromethane_sulfonate.xyz (charge = -1; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  25. [45]

    cyclohexyldimethylphosphine.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1)

    work page

  26. [46]

    You are provided with initial XYZ geometry files for all R-H (molecules), R+ (carbocations), and H- (hydride) species

    t-butylisothiocyanate.xyz (charge = 0; multiplicity = 1) Carbocations – Level 1 Prompt Carbocation Stability - Level 1Calculate the carbocation formation enthalpies (∆H) and Gibbs free energies (∆G) for the reaction: R-H -> R+ + H- The R-H compounds to study are: methane, ethane, propane, 2-methylpropane, toluene, benzene, dimethyl ether, trimethylamine, ...

    work page

  27. [47]

    The provided hydride (H-) structure should be used as-is without optimization

    Optimize the structures of all R-H and R+ species using DFT with the B3LYP functional and def2-SVP basis set. The provided hydride (H-) structure should be used as-is without optimization

    work page

  28. [49]

    From the outputs, calculate the formation enthalpy and Gibbs free energy for each R-H compound’s reaction

    work page

  29. [50]

    Report the results (in kcal/mol) in a table and save it to the report.md file. Carbocations – Level 2 Prompt Carbocation Stability - Level 2Calculate the carbocation formation enthalpies (∆H) and Gibbs free energies (∆G) for the reaction: R−H→R + +H − Instructions:

    work page

  30. [51]

    Also include the hydride anion (H-)

    Generate 3D geometries for the R-H and R+ species from the SMILES strings below. Also include the hydride anion (H-)

    work page

  31. [52]

    The hydride (H-) structure should not be optimized

    Optimize the geometries of all R-H and R+ species using DFT with the B3LYP functional and def2-SVP basis set. The hydride (H-) structure should not be optimized

    work page

  32. [53]

    Use the following charge and multiplicity: •R-H molecules: charge 0, multiplicity 1 •R+ carbocations: charge 1, multiplicity 1 •Hydride (H-): charge -1, multiplicity 1

    work page

  33. [54]

    From the outputs, calculate the formation enthalpy and Gibbs free energy for each reaction

    work page

  34. [55]

    Report the results (in kcal/mol) in a table and save it to a text file. SMILES Strings: •R-H compounds: –methane: C –ethane: CC –propane: CCC –2-methylpropane: CC(C)C –toluene: Cc1ccccc1 –benzene: c1ccccc1 –dimethyl ether: COC –trimethylamine: CN(C)C –propene: C=CC •R+ carbocations: 28 –CH3+ –CH2+C –CCH+C –CC+(C)C –c1c(cccc1)CH2+ –c1c+cccc1 –COCH2+ –CN(C)...

    work page

  35. [56]

    •All structures must be optimized, and frequency calculations are required to obtain enthalpies and Gibbs free energies

    Calculate Reaction Energies: Compute the∆H and∆ G for the following reactions, for n¯4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: cyclo(CnH2n)→cyclo(Cn-1H2n-3)-CH3 •Use the B3LYP/def2-svp level of theory. •All structures must be optimized, and frequency calculations are required to obtain enthalpies and Gibbs free energies. •The first reaction (n = 4) is cyclobutane (C1CCC1)→ meth...

    work page

  36. [57]

    Acetic acid; pKa = 4.76

    work page

  37. [58]

    Fluoroacetic acid; pKa = 2.586

    work page

  38. [59]

    Perform a single-point TDDFT (after geometry optimization and checking for geometric stability) calculation with B3LYP/def2-SVP

    Chloroacetic acid; pKa = 2.86 TD-DFT – Level 1 Prompt Electronic Absorption Spectra - Level 1Compute the energy level of S1, the energy difference between S1 and T1, and the oscillator strength to the S1 state for the following structures from the default working directory: 2.xyz, 3.xyz, 5.xyz. Perform a single-point TDDFT (after geometry optimization and...

    work page 2026

  39. [60]

    Apply a Hadamard gate on qubit 0 and then a CNOT with control qubit 0 and target qubit 1

    Start in |00⟩. Apply a Hadamard gate on qubit 0 and then a CNOT with control qubit 0 and target qubit 1. Measure both qubits in the computational⟨Z|Z⟩ basis with 4096 shots and return the measurement counts. From those counts, compute and return the expectation value of Z⊗Z . Then also estimate the expectation value ofX⊗X by measuring in the X basis, agai...

    work page

  40. [61]

    Add a depolarizing noise channel with probabilityp

    Start in|00⟩, apply a Hadamard gate on qubit 0 and then a CNOT with control qubit 0 and target qubit 1. Add a depolarizing noise channel with probabilityp. Simulate the circuit forp∈ { 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3}. For each value of p, run 4096 shots in theZ basis, return the measurement counts, and compute⟨Z⊗Z⟩ . Then insert Hadamard gates on both qubits to m...

    work page

  41. [62]

    Whether there are bugs that haven’t been fixed 33

    work page

  42. [63]

    Whether the implementation is complete and correct

    work page

  43. [64]

    Whether the key tools are well implemented

    work page

  44. [65]

    Whether more simulation is needed

    work page

  45. [66]

    Whether the report satisfies all requirements

    work page

  46. [67]

    Task complete; no further action needed

    What the next step should be if the task is not complete The task description is read from./question.mdand the report to evaluate from./report.md. Evaluation Criteria: Bug Detection: •Check if the report mentions any errors, exceptions, or failures •Look for incorrect results or unexpected behavior •Identify missing error handling or edge cases Script Com...

    work page

  47. [68]

    Be thorough but not overly strict; minor issues that do not affect correctness may not require rework

    work page

  48. [69]

    Focus on whether the task requirements are actually met, not whether the approach is optimal

    work page

  49. [70]

    If the report indicates successful completion and all requirements appear met, do not create unnecessary next steps

    work page

  50. [71]

    Be specific in yournext_step_plan: provide actionable guidance, but do not suggest installing new software

    work page

  51. [72]

    Consider the task context; some tasks may intentionally not require certain features Please do thorough research and then create theevaluation.jsonfile. D Judge Criteria and Ground Truths Our evaluation criteria build on those introduced inEl Agente Q (Zou et al., 2025) and El Agente Gráfico (Bai et al., 2026), but extend them in two ways. First, we adopt...

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [73]

    Geometry generation & optimization: Use smiles_to_3d_geometry to convert ‘C=C’ SMILES to initial 54 3D coordinates, then userun_dft_geometry_optimizationwith B3LYP/def2-SVP to get the optimized geometry

    work page

  53. [74]

    TD-DFT excited state: Userun_tddft_calculation on the converged DFT mean-field object to compute the S1 excitation energy (π→π ∗ transition), getting excitation energies and oscillator strengths

    work page

  54. [75]

    Use the newvisualize_molecular_orbitals tool to create contour plots of theπ andπ ∗ orbitals

    MO analysis: Use analyze_molecular_orbitals to identify the HOMO (π) and LUMO (π∗) orbital indices and energies. Use the newvisualize_molecular_orbitals tool to create contour plots of theπ andπ ∗ orbitals

    work page

  55. [76]

    This provides a classical reference for the quantum algorithm

    Active space setup: Use run_pyscf_casci to validate the active space choice (e.g., 2 electrons in 2 orbitals for minimalπ/π ∗, or larger spaces includingσ/σ ∗). This provides a classical reference for the quantum algorithm

    work page

  56. [77]

    Quantum Hamiltonian construction: Use tequila_build_molecular_hamiltonian with the chosen active space to generate the qubit Hamiltonian for ethylene

    work page

  57. [78]

    Quantum Subspace Expansion: Use the newrun_quantum_subspace_expansion tool with CUDA-Q to prepare the HF ground state, build excitation subspace, and compute the first excited state energy via QSE

    work page

  58. [80]

    (+230 chars) Step 5:Write— ‘/evaluation.json‘ (225 chars) Createdevaluation.json

    Analysis of π→π* transition, TD-DFT vs quantum limitations, correlation/active space effects- Done✓ 6.MO visualization- Done, images exist✓ The rep... (+230 chars) Step 5:Write— ‘/evaluation.json‘ (225 chars) Createdevaluation.json. The report satisfies all task requirements: •Geometry optimizationat B3LYP/def2-SVP completed 58 •TD-DFT S1 energycomputed (...

    work page

  59. [81]

    Compute electron density at Rb nucleus using PySCF

    work page

  60. [82]

    Use that to derive hyperfine frequency (6.834 GHz for Rb-87)

    work page

  61. [83]

    Simulate Lindblad dynamics with QuTiP for two initial states

    work page

  62. [84]

    query":

    Plot results Let me first check what tools are available in the tools/ directory. Step 1:Bash— ‘ls tools/ 2>/dev/null‘ Step 2:Bash— ‘pwd && ls ‘ Step 3:Bash— ‘ls tools/molecular_electronic_structure_tools/ && echo "–...‘ Step 4:Bash— ‘ls tools/qutip_quantum_dynamics_tools/qutip_quantum_dynami...‘ Step 5:Read— ‘tools/compute_electron_density_at_nuclei.py‘ ...

    work page arXiv

  63. [85]

    query":

    PySCF DFT(B3LYP/def2-SVP): Computed electron density at Rb nucleus = 2.655 e/bohr^3. The computed Fermi contact coupling overestimates the experimental value because it includes all core electrons, not just the valence 5s electron. The experimental hyperfine splitting (6.835 GHz) is used for dynamics. 1.Lindblad dynamics(T1=10, T2=5 in units of 1/omega): ...

    work page

  64. [86]

    Build Hamiltonian ascudaq.SpinOperatorfrom Pauli terms

    work page

  65. [87]

    Create reference state viacudaq.State.from_data()

    work page

  66. [88]

    Generate excitation operators (single/double) as Pauli strings, apply them to reference state as matrices

    work page

  67. [89]

    Build H and S matrices usingstate.overlap()and matrix-vector products

    work page

  68. [90]

    todos": [{

    Solve generalized eigenvalue problem withscipy.linalg.eigh Step 10: TodoWrite— {"todos": [{"content": "Search for cudaq APIs relevant to QSE", "status": "com- pleted", "activeForm": "Searching for cudaq APIs"}, {"content": "Plan implementation", "status": "com- pleted", "activeForm"... Step 11:Write— ‘/tool_smith/task_0f1ba6682313/run_quantum_subspace_exp...

    work page

  69. [91]

    (normalized)

    Basis vectors not normalized: Line 264-266 checks norm > 1e-12 but doesn’t normalize. The comment on line 257 says "(normalized)" but normalization isn’t done. This is actually fine for QSE - you don’t need to normalize because you solve the generalized eigenvalue problem Hc = ES*c which handles non-orthonormal bases

    work page

  70. [92]

    For a Hermitian matrix, the

    Using.real on overlap matrix: Line 287np.linalg.eigh(S_proj.real) - this discards imaginary parts. For a Hermitian matrix, the ... (+1152 chars) I see several algorithm issues. The main problems are discarding imaginary parts of complex matrices and using transpose instead of conjugate transpose. Let me fix them. Step 2:Edit— ‘/tool_smith/task_0f1ba668231...

    work page

  71. [93]

    This is fine - the overlap matrix S handles non-orthonormal bases

    The basis vectors are NOT normalized before building H_proj and S_proj (line 266 - no normalization). This is fine - the overlap matrix S handles non-orthonormal bases. The generalized eigenvalue probl ... (+867 chars) The previous fixes are all properly applied. Let me run a quick test to verify correctness. Step 2: Bash — Test QSE tool correctness: ‘pyt...

    work page

  72. [94]

    Eigenvector output uses.realfor the float-typed model (line 313) Verified with a 2-qubit Hamiltonian — QSE energies match exact diagonalization to machine precision. 65

    work page