Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

QOC-Workbench replaces per-instance expert protocol design with an auditable LLM-driven search loop that proposes structural control changes, validates them by simulation, and accumulates reusable motifs, outperforming literature baselines

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

An LLM-driven workflow proposes and validates quantum control protocols by simulation, beating literature baselines on Rydberg MIS, XXZ chains, and random Ising models, and transferring learned counterdiabatic coefficients to larger systems via a graph neural network.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid, honestly reported quantum control results and a real GNN transfer result are wrapped in an over-claimed LLM-autonomy story; the physics deserves review, the attribution does not. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17498 v1 pith:OK3DY2EH submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph

LLM-Driven Cross-Paradigm Design for Quantum Optimal Control

Yu-Qin Chen , Shi-Xin Zhang This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum optimal controllarge language modelscounterdiabatic drivingRydberg atom arraysXXZ spin chainstransverse-field Ising modelgraph neural networksautonomous scientific discovery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces QOC-Workbench, a workflow in which a large language model acts as an autonomous quantum control co-scientist. Instead of tuning parameters within a fixed control formula, the LLM reads physics literature, proposes structural modifications to the time-dependent Hamiltonian, writes code to test them via exact simulation, and stores successes and failures in a persistent memory. The authors demonstrate the loop across three settings: Rydberg-atom arrays for maximum-independent-set problems, XXZ spin chains with catalyst and schedule co-design, and random transverse-field Ising models where per-instance optimization is replaced by a graph-neural-network generator that transfers to larger systems. In the first two cases the discovered protocols exceed the reproduced literature baselines in final fidelity and energy metrics, and in the third the generator matches the teacher fidelity on unseen larger lattices without retraining. If true, this changes the unit of progress in quantum optimal control from hand-crafted per-instance pulses to accumulating, transferable design knowledge.

Core claim

The central claim is that an LLM-driven, artifact-accumulating design loop can autonomously discover quantum control protocols that outperform existing literature baselines across different physical paradigms. The authors show that the workflow, starting from reproduced baselines, proposes and validates structural innovations: empirical relaxations of analytic counterdiabatic waveforms, endpoint-vanishing target catalysts, nonlinear schedule deformations, and amortized neural generators. In Case 1, the loop improves average Rydberg fidelity from 0.882 to 0.931 and finds an early-biased beta-bump pulse that beats the ACQC baseline on a ten-site instance. In Case 2, combining a target catalyst

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the auditable generate–simulate–record loop: a knowledge base of literature priors, an LLM proposal engine that formulates physically motivated structural hypotheses, an inner solver or neural generator that turns hypotheses into explicit time-dependent Hamiltonians, exact simulation for evaluation, and timestamped artifact memory that archives both successes and failures. Cross-paradigm transfer is carried by reusable control motifs — e.g., the analytic counterdiabatic waveform from single-atom physics is relaxed into multi-knot and beta-bump envelopes for interacting Rydberg arrays, and a target catalyst with commutator-CD is combined with schedule deformation

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the LLM autonomously discovered the winning protocols rests on the assumption that the performance gains are caused by the LLM's proposals rather than by the human-enumerated candidate families and the mechanical best-of-N selection among them.

What would settle it

Replace the LLM proposal engine with a script that randomly samples from the same candidate families (same knot positions, sampling ranges, η/α grids, and schedule deformation formulas) and selects the best candidate by final fidelity; if the reported best fidelities are reproduced, the LLM's structural hypotheses are not the causal source of the gains. Conversely, if the random baseline yields substantially worse results, the LLM's proposals are load-bearing.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the workflow is correct, new quantum control protocols for a given platform could be produced in hours rather than weeks of expert trial-and-error, because the LLM loop automates the structural search.
  • Control motifs learned in one Hamiltonian family (e.g., endpoint-vanishing catalysts, schedule deformations) could be retrieved and re-expressed in another platform's native control language, enabling genuine cross-paradigm reuse.
  • Per-instance optimization, the bottleneck of variational counterdiabatic driving, could be replaced by amortized graph-conditioned generators that generalize to larger systems without retraining.
  • Protocol design becomes an auditable, reproducing enterprise where each reported result is linked to executable code, parameter files, and archived failures, allowing the community to accumulate design knowledge instead of isolated pulses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The causal attribution of the reported gains to the LLM's autonomous proposals is not fully established by the manuscript: the method description shows that every candidate family (knot positions, sampling ranges, η/α grids) is enumerated by the authors, and the winner is selected mechanically as the best final fidelity. An ablation that replaces the LLM proposal engine with a random or template-b
  • The GNN's zero-shot fidelity slightly exceeding the exact weighted-CD teacher on the N=8 test set hints that the teacher's variational objective (weighted action with K=3) and the actual final-fidelity objective are not identical; a smoother graph-conditioned approximation can therefore accidentally improve finite-time evolution. This suggests a testable extension: train the generator directly on
  • The workflow's auditability promise depends on releasing the actual agent logs, prompts, and code snapshots; the current availability statement offers data and parameter files only upon request. If the full artifact trail is made public, independent readers could verify that the reported candidate evaluations were produced by LLM proposals rather than by the human-enumerated grids.
  • The cross-paradigm claim would be strengthened by a quantitative transfer metric: e.g., measuring how often a motif discovered in Case 1 is directly reused (with minimal adaptation) in Case 2 or a new platform, rather than only showing that similar motifs appear in both cases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces QOC-Workbench, an LLM-driven workflow for quantum optimal control that is claimed to autonomously propose structural hypotheses, write and run simulation code, and accumulate reusable control motifs across Hamiltonian families. Three case studies are presented: (1) Rydberg-atom MIS pulse design, where the workflow reportedly discovers hardware-compliant auxiliary Y-quadrature pulses and piecewise schedules outperforming an ACQC baseline; (2) an XXZ spin-chain benchmark, where target catalysts, retuned commutator-CD corrections, and nonlinear schedule deformations improve on a reproduced OI+AH+CD baseline; and (3) random TFIM instances, where a GNN is trained on small systems and applied zero-shot to larger ones to generate weighted-CD coefficients. The headline claims are that the workflow 'autonomously discovers' superior protocols and that the discovered strategies were not hard-coded or explicitly prompted.

Significance. If the central causal claim were established, the paper would represent a significant advance: an auditable LLM-driven discovery loop that proposes new control functional forms, transfers motifs across physical platforms, and amortizes per-instance optimization into neural generators. The paper has tangible strengths: the reported fidelities come from standard exact ODE simulation; the SI is unusually transparent about candidate pools, per-family slot counts, and full evaluation traces; and the authors explicitly acknowledge limitations (e.g., the ACQC Y-coefficient is only a noninteracting-sector approximation, the XXZ CD term is 'not a complete CD construction', and the GNN's apparent edge over its teacher is explicitly disclaimed in SI Note 3C). These features make the numerical results credible as simulations. However, the manuscript's central attribution of the results to autonomous LLM-driven proposal generation is not currently supported by the shipped evidence; the search as described is a structured, human-enumerated best-of-N parameter scan. Because the paper's novelty and stated contribution depend on that attribution, the current evidence is insufficient for the claims

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'Search and parameter selection'; SI Note 1C; Eqs. (S6)–(S9)] The central claim that the LLM 'autonomously parses physics literature, proposes structural hypotheses, and writes code' (Abstract) is not supported by the paper's own description of the search. The C6 candidate pool is a fixed 62-slot construction: seven scaled-ACQC slots, seven smooth five-knot Y slots, 45 random piecewise slots, and three targeted piecewise slots, with all knot positions and sampling ranges enumerated in Eqs. (S6)–(S9). Selection is explicitly 'the candidate with the largest final ground-subspace fidelity at that particular total time' (SI Note 1C). The XXZ search likewise uses author-specified grid scans over η and α and a fixed family of schedule deformations (Eqs. S13–S15). This is a structured best-of-N search, not an open-ended proposal loop. No prompts, agent logs, or code are shipped (Data and code availability), so an independent reader cannot distinguish 'LLM
  2. [Data and code availability; baseline reproduction (Refs. 9, 32, 33)] All headline 'outperform literature baseline' claims are relative to reproduced baselines from Refs. [9], [32], and [33], two of which are 2026 preprints. The manuscript does not provide the baseline parameters, reproduction code, or a comparison between the reproduced values and the values in the original papers. If the reproduced baselines are under-strength, every reported improvement is overestimated. This is a secondary load-bearing premise. The paper should ship the baseline artifacts and, ideally, a table with reproduced vs. published baseline fidelities/energies so that readers can verify the comparison. The current 'upon reasonable request' and 'upon publication' statements do not meet the 'auditable workflow' standard promised in the Introduction.
  3. [Discussion; SI Note 4] The Discussion asserts: 'None of the discovered strategies was hard-coded or explicitly prompted.' The only prompt-related artifact in the paper is the generic kick-start template in SI Note 4, which is a user-facing template for future tasks, not the actual prompts used in Cases 1–3. Without the task-specific prompts, the LLM's system-level instructions, and the chronological agent logs, the paper cannot substantiate that the proposals emerged from the Workbench's accumulated experience rather than from the authors' enumeration of candidate families. This is a specific, fixable omission, but it must be addressed: either provide the full artifact log as supplementary material, or soften the 'autonomous' claims to what the current evidence supports.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SI Note 3C; main text Case 3] The SI honestly states that the GNN's final-fidelity advantage over the teacher (0.680 vs 0.654) 'should not be interpreted as evidence that the GNN has learned a superior control path.' The main text should carry this caveat in the same place where the fidelity comparison is reported: the GNN is 'comparable to' the teacher, not better in a meaningful sense; the transfer claim rests on coefficient R², not on fidelity superiority.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption; main text] The abbreviations 'C6' and 'C10' are used in the main text and figure captions but only defined in SI Note 1A. Define them at first use in the main text for readers who do not consult the SI.
  3. [Eq. (S17)] The energy shift E_K(λ) is said to be 'chosen above the instantaneous spectrum by grid search.' Specify the grid or give the chosen shift values for the reported instances; otherwise the 'weighted-CD teacher' is not fully reproducible.
  4. [SI Note 1D / Fig. S5] The best C10 beta-bump parameters (A=0.15, p=1.6, q=2.4) appear only in the Fig. S5 caption. State them in SI Note 1D near the family definition, since they are the main C10 result.
  5. [Methods, 'Time-evolution simulation'] TensorCircuit-NG/JAX is identified, but no version numbers or integrator tolerances are reported. For a paper whose results are all numerical, these details matter for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: reported fidelities are anchored to external baselines and exact simulation; the LLM-autonomy gap is an evidence/reproducibility issue, not circularity.

full rationale

I find no step in which a claimed prediction or discovery reduces by construction to its own inputs. The headline numerical results are grounded externally: Case 1 and Case 2 improvements are measured against independently reproduced literature baselines (ACQC Ref. 9; OI+AH+CD Ref. 32) via exact Schrödinger-equation simulation, so the reported fidelities are not fitted quantities masquerading as predictions. Case 3 is the closest to a supervised-fitting scenario, but the paper explicitly disconnects the teacher from the reported objective: SI Note 3C states that the GNN's final-fidelity advantage over the teacher 'reflects the fact that the weighted variational action teacher is not identical to the final-time fidelity objective,' and the GNN is evaluated zero-shot on unseen N=8 systems against that objective. The selection rule 'the candidate with the largest final ground-subspace fidelity' (SI Note 1C) is best-of-N selection, not a self-definitional prediction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renamed known result. The genuine weakness — that the causal claim of autonomous LLM-driven discovery is under-supported because candidate families are human-enumerated and no prompts, logs, or code are shipped — is an evidentiary and reproducibility gap, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated: the 'target catalyst' extends the known catalyst concept (Refs. 30-31), 'QOC-Workbench' and 'control motifs' are software/conceptual artifacts, and the neural generators are standard regressors. All free parameters are control amplitudes, schedule shapes, and ML hyperparameters fitted to the reported instances. The heaviest unexamined inputs are the three external baselines (Refs. 9, 32, 33) that all comparisons are relative to, two of which are 2026 preprints.

free parameters (9)
  • ACQC Y-coefficient rescaling α (Case 1) = α ∈ {0.45, 0.52, 0.60, 0.70, 0.85, 1.00, 1.04}, per-T best-of-N
    Scalar multiplier on the analytic ACQC Y waveform; selected per total time by highest fidelity (SI Note 1C).
  • Piecewise schedule knot values ω1-ω3, δ1-δ3 (Case 1) = Sampled from U ranges, best-of-45 selected
    45 random piecewise slots per T with uniform-sampled knots; headline improvement is best-of-N over these (SI Note 1C).
  • Beta-bump envelope A, p, q (Case 1, C10) = A=0.15, p=1.6, q=2.4
    Chosen empirically on C10; peak at s*=0.4 (SI Note 1D).
  • Catalyst strength η (Case 2) = η=3.0
    Grid-scanned over {2,2.5,3,3.5,4,5,6} (SI Note 2A).
  • Commutator-CD coefficient α (Case 2) = α=-0.07 (Δ=1), α=-0.08 (Δ=0.5)
    Grid-scanned over 8 values then locally refined (SI Note 2A).
  • Schedule deformation p, q, a (Case 2) = p=1.4,q=0.5; p=1.2; p=0.7,q=0.25; p=1.6; a=0.04
    Fitted to maximize reported metrics at each anisotropy (SI Note 2A).
  • Weighted-action exponent K (Case 3) = K=3
    Teacher hyperparameter biasing the action toward the low-energy subspace; 'denotes the hyperparameter for the weighted variational-CD teacher loss' (Fig. 4 caption).
  • Teacher energy shift E_K(λ) (Case 3) = Grid-searched
    Chosen above the instantaneous spectrum by grid search to keep the least-squares problem stable (SI Note 3A).
  • GNN/MLP hyperparameters (Case 3) = hidden 48, 3 message-passing rounds, 21 λ grid points
    Architecture choices for the generators; not physically derived (SI Note 3B).
axioms (6)
  • standard math The adiabatic theorem guarantees ground-state targeting in the T→∞ limit, legitimizing interpolating schedules as the design space
    Invoked in 'The quantum optimal control problem' section via Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Exact ODE integration of Eq. (1) is an adequate fidelity oracle and the 'protected simulator' was never modified
    Methods: simulator, target Hamiltonian, and evaluation rule are declared protected; compliance is asserted but unverifiable without code.
  • domain assumption The single-atom ACQC Y-coefficient (Eq. S5) is a useful design primitive for the many-body system
    Acknowledged in SI Note 1B: 'corrects the noninteracting driving sector but does not include the many-body blockade interaction'.
  • domain assumption The scalar commutator-CD ansatz (Eq. S13) approximates the full counterdiabatic term
    Acknowledged: 'not a complete CD construction' (SI Note 2A).
  • domain assumption The weighted variational action teacher (Ref. 33, Eq. S17, K=3) defines the correct CD coefficients
    All Case 3 labels derive from this framework, adopted wholesale from a 2026 preprint.
  • domain assumption The declared hardware constraint sets (global-Y-only auxiliary; bounded amplitudes; fixed V) delimit 'hardware-compliant'
    Assumptions about native controls stated in Methods and SI Notes 1-2.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-Driven Cross-Paradigm Design for Quantum Optimal Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OK3DY2EH

@misc{pith2026260717498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-Driven Cross-Paradigm Design for Quantum Optimal Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OK3DY2EH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17498}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Quantum optimal control (QOC) underpins adiabatic quantum computation, quantum annealing, and quantum state engineering, yet practical deployment is fundamentally bottlenecked by strict hardware constraints and substantial expert effort required to design protocols for each problem instance. To overcome this, we introduce QOC-Workbench, an auditable, large language model (LLM)-driven workflow that acts as an automated quantum co-scientist for cross-paradigm protocol design. Going beyond traditional numerical optimizers that merely tune parameters within a fixed formula, the LLM autonomously parses physics literature, proposes structural hypotheses, and writes code to validate them by direct simulation. This workflow supports cross-paradigm design by accumulating control motifs across tasks. We demonstrate this approach across three distinct settings: Case 1, Rydberg-atom maximum-independent-set arrays; Case 2, interacting XXZ spin chains; and Case 3, random transverse-field Ising models. In Cases 1 and 2, the workflow autonomously discovers hardware-compliant auxiliary controls, target catalysts, and schedule deformations that outperform literature baselines. In Case 3, it addresses the computational bottleneck of variational counterdiabatic driving by escalating from per-instance optimization to an amortized graph-neural-network generator, successfully transferring learned coefficient paths to larger unseen systems. By actively bridging the gap between theoretical algorithms and experimental restrictions across distinct control paradigms and Hamiltonian families, QOC-Workbench establishes a continuously evolving, cross-paradigm methodology for autonomous quantum control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17498 by Shi-Xin Zhang, Yu-Qin Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

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

47 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Google Quantum AI, Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature614, 676 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Pro- grammable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and rydberg interactions: Progress and challenges, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics49, 202001 (2016)

    M. Saffman, Quantum computing with atomic qubits and rydberg interactions: Progress and challenges, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics49, 202001 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A.Browaeys, G.-O.Reymond, andC.Jurczak,Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with in- dividually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum optimization of maximum inde- pendentsetusingrydbergatomarrays,Science376,1209 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter,et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Zhang, N

    Q. Zhang, N. N. Hegade, A. G. Cadavid, L. Lassablière, S. Kumar, J. Trautmann, S. Perseguers, E. Solano, L.Henriet, andE.Michon,Analogcounterdiabaticquan- tum computing, npj Unconventional Computing3, 11 (2026)

    2026

  10. [10]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Born and V

    M. Born and V. Fock, Beweis des adiabatensatzes, Zeitschrift für Physik51, 165 (1928)

    1928

  12. [12]

    Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum me- chanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    T. Kato, On the adiabatic theorem of quantum me- chanics, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan5, 435 (1950)

    1950

  13. [13]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser, Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0001106 (2000)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  14. [14]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lund- gren, and D. Preda, A quantum adiabatic evolution al- gorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem, Science292, 472 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model, Physical Review E58, 5355 (1998)

    1998

  16. [16]

    Aharonov, W

    D. Aharonov, W. van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation is equivalent to standard quantum computation, SIAM Journal on Computing37, 166 (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Adiabatic quantum compu- tation, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 015002 (2018). 9

    2018

  18. [18]

    Hauke, H

    P. Hauke, H. G. Katzgraber, W. Lechner, H. Nishimori, and W. D. Oliver, Perspectives of quantum annealing: Methods and implementations, Reports on Progress in Physics83, 054401 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, Adiabatic population transfer with control fields, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A107, 9937 (2003)

    2003

  20. [20]

    M. V. Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  21. [21]

    del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counter- diabatic driving, Physical Review Letters111, 100502 (2013)

    A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counter- diabatic driving, Physical Review Letters111, 100502 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems, Physics Reports697, 1 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    D.SelsandA.Polkovnikov,Minimizingirreversiblelosses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, E3909 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Guéry-Odelin, A

    D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Martínez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Short- cuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applica- tions, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    N. N. Hegade, X. Chen, and E. Solano, Digitized- counterdiabatic quantum optimization, Physical Review Research4, L042030 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Roland and N

    J. Roland and N. J. Cerf, Quantum search by local adi- abatic evolution, Physical Review A65, 042308 (2002)

    2002

  27. [27]

    Y.-Q. Chen, Y. Chen, C.-K. Lee, S. Zhang, and C.- Y. Hsieh, Optimizing quantum annealing schedules with monte carlo tree search enhanced with neural networks, Nature Machine Intelligence4, 269 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    J. R. Finžgar, M. J. A. Schuetz, J. K. Brubaker, H. Nishi- mori, and H. G. Katzgraber, Designing quantum an- nealing schedules using bayesian optimization, Physical Review Research6, 023063 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Perdomo-Ortiz, M

    A. Perdomo-Ortiz, M. Benedetti, J. Realpe-Gómez, and R. Biswas, Opportunities and challenges for quantum- assisted machine learning in near-term quantum comput- ers, Quantum Science and Technology3, 030502 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    Albash, Role of nonstoquastic catalysts in quantum adiabatic optimization, Physical Review A99, 042334 (2019)

    T. Albash, Role of nonstoquastic catalysts in quantum adiabatic optimization, Physical Review A99, 042334 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Crosson, T

    E. Crosson, T. Albash, I. Hen, and A. P. Young, De- signing hamiltonians for quantum adiabatic optimiza- tion, Quantum4, 334 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Albarrán-Arriagada and J

    F. Albarrán-Arriagada and J. C. Retamal, Role of spec- tral structure in adiabatic ground-state preparation of the xxz model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15794 (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15794

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15794 2026

  33. [33]

    Ohga and T

    N. Ohga and T. Hatomura, Improving variational coun- terdiabatic driving with weighted actions and computer algebra, PRX Quantum7, 020347 (2026)

    2026

  34. [34]

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Ka- plan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell,et al., Language models are few-shot learners, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33 (2020) pp. 1877–1901

    2020

  35. [35]

    Ouyang, J

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al., Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35 (2022) pp. 27730–27744

    2022

  36. [36]

    D. A. Boiko, R. MacKnight, B. Kline, and G. Gomes, Autonomous chemical research with large language mod- els, Nature624, 570 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Aygün, A

    E. Aygün, A. Belyaeva, G. Comanici, M. Coram, H. Cui, J. Garrison, R. Johnston, A. Kast, C. Y. McLean, P. Nor- gaard,et al., An ai system to help scientists write expert- level empirical software, Nature654, 909 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    Gottweis, W.-H

    J. Gottweis, W.-H. Weng, A. Daryin, T. Tu, P. Sirkovic, A. Myaskovsky,et al., Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist, Nature655, 487 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    A. E. Ghareeb, B. Chang, L. Mitchener, A. Yiu, C. J. Szostkiewicz, D. Shved,et al., A multi-agent system for automating scientific discovery, Nature655, 497 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Ha, and J

    C.Lu, C.Lu, R.T.Lange, Y.Yamada, S.Hu, J.Foerster, D. Ha, and J. Clune, Towards end-to-end automation of AI research, Nature651, 914 (2026)

    2026

  41. [41]

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks, International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    Veličković, G

    P. Veličković, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Liò, and Y. Bengio, Graph attention networks, Inter- nationalConferenceonLearningRepresentations (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    P. W. Battaglia, J. B. Hamrick, V. Bapst, A. Sanchez- Gonzalez, V. Zambaldi, M. Malinowski, A. Tacchetti, D. Raposo, A. Santoro, R. Faulkner,et al., Re- lational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01261 (2018), 10.48550/arXiv.1806.01261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.01261 2018

  44. [44]

    Zhang, C.-Y

    S.-X. Zhang, C.-Y. Hsieh, S. Zhang, and H. Yao, Differ- entiable quantum architecture search, Quantum Science and Technology7, 045023 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Y. Du, T. Huang, S. You, M.-H. Hsieh, and D. Tao, Quantum circuit architecture search for variational quan- tum algorithms, npj Quantum Information8, 62 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    Zhang, J

    S.-X. Zhang, J. Allcock, Z.-Q. Wan, S. Liu, J. Sun, H. Yu, X.-H. Yang, J. Qiu, Z. Ye, Y.-Q. Chen, C.-K. Lee, Y.-C. Zheng, S.-K. Jian, H. Yao, C.-Y. Hsieh, and S. Zhang, Tensorcircuit: A quantum software framework for the nisq era, Quantum7, 912 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    1010..10

    S.-X. Zhang, Y.-Q. Chen, W. Li, J. Sun, W.-G. Ma, P.-L. Zheng, Y.-X. Huang, Q.-X. Wang, H. Yu, Z. Li, X. Huang, Z.-L. Li, Z.-Q. Wan, S. Liu, J. Qiu, J. Miao, Z. Song, Y. Yan, K. Tsuoka, P. Zhang, L. Wang, H. Fan, C.-Y. Hsieh, H. Yao, and T. Xiang, Tensorcircuit-ng: A universal, composable, and scalable platform for quan- tum computing and quantum simulati...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.14167 2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.