Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Energy accuracy alone cannot tell whether a quantum architecture search method found a structurally right circuit; Hamiltonian fingerprints expose five failure modes that energy metrics miss.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 12:37 UTC pith:IK6AZPDL

load-bearing objection Solid diagnostic benchmark for QAS: structure-aware tiers and multi-paradigm evidence that energy alone misses real failure modes; MAES scope is a real but secondary limit. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04845 v1 pith:IK6AZPDL submitted 2026-07-06 quant-ph cs.AI

HamQASBench: A Hamiltonian-Informed Diagnostic Benchmark for Evaluating Quantum Architecture Search

Jiayang Niu , Akib Karim , Yan Wang , Jie Li , Ke Deng , Azadeh Alavi , Muhammad Usman , Yongli Ren This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.AI
keywords quantum architecture searchvariational quantum eigensolverHamiltonian structurecircuit pruningentanglement diagnosticsNISQ benchmarksparameterized quantum circuitsground-state degeneracy
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.

Quantum architecture search tries to invent parameterized circuits for estimating molecular ground-state energies, but existing benchmarks group problems by molecule name or qubit count and score only how close the energy gets. That cannot detect whether the circuit structure actually matches what the Hamiltonian requires—for example, whether a near-product ground state was solved with a handful of rotations or with a bloated over-parameterized ansatz. This paper builds HamQASBench: eleven molecules placed into five structural tiers using fingerprints from the Pauli expansion, computational-basis diagonal dominance, and ground-state entanglement and gap. A post-hoc pruning procedure then strips redundant gates from low-error training circuits under an energy tolerance, and checks the survivors with per-qubit entanglement and pairwise state fidelity. Across five methods from four search paradigms, chemically accurate energies still hide over-parameterization on easy product-like states, locking onto different degenerate eigenstates, missing entanglement on strongly correlated systems, failing to route under linear connectivity, and collapsing as the circuit search space grows with system size.

Core claim

Hamiltonian structure—not molecular identity or qubit count—sets the circuit requirements for variational ground-state search, and energy accuracy is an unreliable proxy for structural correctness. Organizing eleven molecules into five fingerprint-defined tiers and extracting minimal circuits after the fact reveals failure modes that energy-only evaluation never sees: over-parameterization in the minimalism regime, eigenstate commitment under degeneracy, representation failure under strong correlation, topology-induced routing failure, and search-space growth as a scalability bottleneck.

What carries the argument

Hamiltonian structural fingerprints—Pauli ratios for diagonal and multi-qubit weight, Gershgorin-style diagonal-dominance measures, spectral gap or degeneracy, and per-qubit von Neumann entropy—that define five diagnostic tiers, plus post-hoc critical-structure extraction: counterfactual gate ablation with constrained multi-branch beam pruning under an energy tolerance, followed by MAES entanglement comparison or pairwise fidelity clustering.

Load-bearing premise

That the chosen fingerprints and the energy-tolerant beam-pruning procedure truly recover minimal circuits consistent with each tier, so structure comparisons fairly diagnose every search paradigm even when entanglement analysis mainly uses one method’s training snapshots.

What would settle it

Independently re-prune the same chemically accurate Tier-1 and Tier-3 circuits with cold-start re-optimization, and compute per-qubit entropy for the other four methods’ snapshots: if redundancy collapses and MAES stays near zero for all paradigms, energy accuracy was not missing the structural failures claimed.

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

If this is right

  • QAS evaluations that report only energy error can credit methods that over-parameterize or lock onto the wrong degenerate eigenstate.
  • Structure-aware tiers (minimalism, degeneracy, representation, topology, same-family scalability) become a necessary axis for comparing search methods.
  • Critical-structure pruning plus per-qubit entropy (or fidelity under degeneracy) give diagnostics orthogonal to chemical accuracy.
  • Hardware connectivity can decouple energy from entanglement fidelity, so topology must be scored separately from correlation hardness.
  • On controlled near-product ladders, collapse at larger qubit counts points to search-space and optimizer limits rather than entanglement complexity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Fixed ansatz families could be graded with the same fingerprints without any architecture search, as a cheap pre-screen before QAS.
  • Degenerate instances may need training rewards that include state fidelity or multi-eigenstate coverage, not energy alone.
  • If critical-structure extraction is run on all paradigms’ snapshot pools, structural-efficiency rankings may reverse relative to energy rankings.
  • Tabular or surrogate QAS benchmarks modelled on classical NAS will need structure-conditioned cells, not size-only tables.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces HamQASBench, a diagnostic benchmark for quantum architecture search (QAS) in VQE ground-state estimation. Instead of organizing molecules by identity or qubit count, it groups 11 molecular Hamiltonians into five structural tiers (minimalism, degeneracy, representation, topology, same-family scalability) using fingerprints from the Pauli expansion (r_Z, r_≥2), computational-basis diagonal dominance (G1, G2), and ground-state spectral/entanglement structure (Gap, degeneracy, per-qubit von Neumann entropy S(q)). A post-hoc critical-structure extraction procedure (counterfactual gate importance plus constrained beam pruning) yields minimal circuits for structural comparison, complemented by MAES and pairwise fidelity. Five QAS methods spanning RL, differentiable, training-free, and generative paradigms are evaluated under a standardized {RX, RY, RZ, CNOT} gate pool and shared optimizers. The central claim is that energy accuracy alone misses structural failure modes—over-parameterization, eigenstate commitment under degeneracy, entanglement mismatch, topology-induced routing failure, and search-space growth—that the fingerprint tiers and structural metrics expose.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a structure-aware evaluation standard that existing QAS benchmarks (BenchRL-QAS, SQuASH, QAS-Bench) largely lack, and it documents multi-paradigm failure modes that energy-only leaderboards cannot detect. Strengths include: (i) fingerprints grounded in established Hamiltonian structure theory (Gershgorin, Pauli locality, bipartite entropy); (ii) gate-pool standardization and shared optimizers that reduce confounds; (iii) dual reporting of training- and evaluation-stage results, redundancy rates (Tables 5, 12), Tier-2 fidelity clustering, H4 connectivity ablation (Tables 13–14), and a controlled BeH2 basis ladder to 14 qubits with a GPU-accelerated backend; (iv) public molecule scripts, evaluation code, and extracted circuits. These make the contribution both diagnostic and reusable for subsequent QAS method development.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5 Tier 3; Table 6; Limitations] Limitations and §5 (Tier 3 / Table 6): MAES and the detailed entanglement-structure claims are computed primarily on CRLQAS training-stage pruned circuits. The multi-method energy tables (Tables 3–4, 10–11) and Tier-1 redundancy / Tier-2 fidelity analyses do not depend on MAES and already support the thesis that energy is insufficient. However, statements that attribute a general “representation bottleneck” or “entanglement mismatch” across paradigms (Abstract; §5 Tier 3) currently over-reach the MAES evidence base. Please either (a) extend critical-structure extraction and MAES to at least one non-RL method where chemical-accuracy or near-accuracy snapshots exist, or (b) rewrite Tier-3 structural claims so that MAES is explicitly scoped to CRLQAS and cross-paradigm conclusions rest only on energy, CNOT counts, and connectivity gaps.
  2. [§3.3; Algorithm 1 (Appendix F)] §3.3 and Algorithm 1 (App. F): The claim that post-hoc pruning isolates “minimal circuits consistent with each tier’s requirements” depends on free choices—error bucket width, ε_allow / δ_bucket / δ_rec / τ, beam width B, branching factor k, and warm-start re-optimization. No sensitivity study is reported. A short ablation (e.g., varying ε_allow and B on BeH2_STO3G and CH2) showing that the 2-gate Tier-1 collapse and the two orthogonal CH2 skeletons are stable would substantially strengthen the structural diagnostic layer. Without it, residual concern remains that pruning hyperparameters or snapshot-pool composition could bias motif recovery, even though the energy-vs-structure thesis does not rest solely on pruning.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1; Table 2] Table 2 / §4.1: TFQAS and GQEQAS replace their original entangler/operator pools with CNOT at search time. A brief quantitative note on whether this shrinks their native expressivity relative to CRLQAS/HyRLQAS (which needed no adaptation) would help readers interpret their weaker Tier-3/5 results.
  2. [Appendix C; Tables 3–4] Appendix C acknowledges that episode/epoch budgets are not cost-equivalent across paradigms. Consider adding a single wall-clock or VQE-query budget column next to Tables 3–4 (or pointing more prominently to Table 7) so that cross-paradigm comparisons are not misread as equal-compute.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 caption and panel labels are useful; ensure axis units and the “Entanglement Limit” line in panel (c) are defined in the caption for readers who skip §3.1.
  4. [§1 Contributions] Repository URL is anonymous.4open; for the camera-ready version, replace with a permanent public link and pin commit/hash for the Hamiltonians and pruning scripts.
  5. [§3.1 Eq. (1)] Notation: r_≥2 is written with a space as “r ≥2” in Eq. (1) and nearby text; unify to r_{≥2} throughout.
  6. [Table 1; Table 9] Tier 5 Table 1 lists two rows both labeled BeH2_CCPVDZ (12q and 14q); distinguish them in the table (e.g., CAS labels) to match Table 9.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: fingerprints are Hamiltonian properties independent of the methods under test, and structural diagnostics are post-hoc constraints rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

HamQASBench is a diagnostic benchmark paper, not a first-principles derivation of physical predictions. The load-bearing chain is: (i) compute structural fingerprints (r_Z, r_≥2, G1, G2, Gap/degeneracy, S(q)) from fixed qubit Hamiltonians via Pauli expansion, computational-basis diagonal dominance, and exact ground-state reduced density matrices; (ii) group 11 molecules into five tiers by those fingerprints; (iii) run five external QAS paradigms under a standardized gate pool; (iv) apply post-hoc energy-tolerance beam pruning and report energy, CNOT/rot counts, MAES, and pairwise fidelity. None of these steps reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction. Fingerprints are properties of the Hamiltonians (Table 1, Eqs. 1–3), not fitted to method rankings. Chemical accuracy (1.6 mHa) is a community standard, not a free parameter. Critical-structure extraction (Algorithm 1) prunes under an explicit energy budget and then compares retained structure to independent ground-state quantities; it does not redefine success as the structure it finds. Self-citations (e.g., HyRLQAS) appear only as one evaluated method among five, not as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise for the benchmark. External theory citations (Gershgorin, Wiersema, Leone, Joch, Woitzik) supply motivation for fingerprints, not a closed self-citation chain. The Limitations note that MAES is mainly on CRLQAS snapshots is a scope limit, not circularity. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-chemistry and VQE practice plus a few paper-specific evaluation choices. Fingerprints are derived from established spectral/entanglement ideas; the free parameters are mostly pruning and training budgets that shape which circuits enter structural analysis, not physics constants fitted to invent the failure modes.

free parameters (5)
  • chemical_accuracy_threshold = 1.6 mHa
    Success threshold fixed at 1.6 mHa (community convention); shapes success rates and which circuits enter chemical-accuracy redundancy stats.
  • pruning_energy_tolerance_and_beam_hyperparameters = paper-specified defaults in App. F
    ε_allow, bucket slack, per-step τ, beam width B, branching k, prune budget M control which gates survive critical-structure extraction (Alg. 1 / App. F).
  • circuit_depth_budgets_shallow_deep = 10 / 50
    D≤10 vs D≤50 for Tier 1; directly probes over-parameterization and redundancy rates.
  • training_episode_epoch_budgets = easy/hard splits in Table 8
    8k–15k RL episodes, 500–900 DARTS epochs, TFQAS sample sizes, GQE epochs (Table 8); affect whether policies stabilize before eval.
  • VQE_optimizer_choice_and_iters = COBYLA 100 / Rotosolve 2 sweeps
    COBYLA (≤6q, 100 iters) vs Rotosolve (sweeps=2, >6q) with GPU batching; can change which circuits appear chemically accurate.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Jordan–Wigner mapped electronic Hamiltonians with stated CAS/basis define the QAS task instances.
    App. D / Table 9; standard but mapping and active-space choice fix the qubit problem.
  • domain assumption Gershgorin-based diagonal dominance and Pauli Z-weight are meaningful predictors of product-state sufficiency for ansatz structure.
    §3.1 and App. E motivate Tier 1 from known spectral heuristics, not proved necessity for all QAS methods.
  • domain assumption Per-qubit von Neumann entropy of the exact ground state is a sufficient structural target for non-degenerate instances (MAES).
    §3.3; bipartite single-qubit entropy may miss multipartite structure.
  • standard math Standard linear algebra and quantum information definitions (Pauli expansion, reduced density matrices, state fidelity).
    Used throughout fingerprint and MAES/fidelity definitions.
  • ad hoc to paper Gate-pool standardization to {RX,RY,RZ,CNOT} preserves each method’s native search mechanism enough for fair structural comparison.
    §4.1 Table 2; adaptations for TFQAS/GQEQAS/QuantumDARTS are paper-specific fairness choices.
invented entities (3)
  • HamQASBench five-tier diagnostic suite no independent evidence
    purpose: Organize molecules by Hamiltonian structural regimes rather than identity/size.
    Core contribution; independent evidence is the public molecule list and fingerprints in Table 1, not external prior existence of this suite.
  • Post-hoc critical-structure extraction (beam pruning with counterfactual Δe) no independent evidence
    purpose: Recover minimal gate structure from training snapshots under energy tolerance.
    Diagnostic layer orthogonal to energy; procedure is defined in §3.3/Alg. 1 without external validation suite.
  • MAES (mean absolute per-qubit entropy deviation) no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify entanglement-structure fidelity of pruned circuits vs exact ground state.
    Paper-defined metric; falsifiable on any statevector instance but not previously standardized.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28484 in / 3845 out tokens · 33512 ms · 2026-07-11T12:37:26.109901+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum Architecture Search (QAS) automates the design of parameterized quantum circuits for variational quantum algorithms, yet existing benchmarks organize instances by molecular identity or qubit count -- criteria agnostic to Hamiltonian structure -- and rely solely on energy accuracy, which cannot detect structural failures such as over-parameterization on near-product ground states. We introduce HamQASBench, a Hamiltonian-informed diagnostic benchmark organizing 11 molecules into five structural tiers via fingerprints derived from the Pauli operator basis, computational basis representation, and ground-state entanglement. A post-hoc critical-structure extraction procedure identifies minimal circuits consistent with each tier's requirements, complementing energy-based evaluation with per-qubit entanglement analysis and pairwise state fidelity. Benchmarking five QAS methods across four paradigms reveals failure modes invisible to conventional metrics: over-parameterization in the minimalism regime, eigenstate commitment under degeneracy, a representation bottleneck in strongly correlated systems, topology-induced routing failure, and circuit search space growth as a scalability bottleneck.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04845 by Akib Karim, Azadeh Alavi, Jiayang Niu, Jie Li, Ke Deng, Muhammad Usman, Yan Wang, Yongli Ren.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visual illustration of Hamiltonian structural fingerprints for various molecules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Critical-structure analysis. (a,b) Tier 1 circuits collapse to 2-gate minimal forms. (c,d) Tier 2 yields two structurally distinct circuits targeting orthogonal degenerate eigenstates of CH2. MAES rises to 0.121 and four boundary qubits lose all captured entanglement—demonstrating that energy and entanglement structure can decouple under connectivity constraints. Tier 4: Topology. Tier 4 evaluates whether … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. DreamQAS: Learning a Decision-Useful World Model for VQE-Efficient Quantum Architecture Search

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    DreamQAS reaches fine VQE error targets with 1.6–10.6× fewer real optimizer calls than a no-imagination control by learning only the energy-feedback score and imagining policy rollouts over exact circuit rules.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms.Reviews of Modern Physics, 94(1):015004, 2022

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms.Reviews of Modern Physics, 94(1):015004, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 18(2):023023, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1): 4812, 2018

    Jarrod R McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1): 4812, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Expressive power of parametrized quantum circuits.Physical Review Research, 2(3):033125, 2020

    Yuxuan Du, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, Tongliang Liu, and Dacheng Tao. Expressive power of parametrized quantum circuits.Physical Review Research, 2(3):033125, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M Chow, and Jay M Gambetta. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets.nature, 549(7671):242–246, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms.Physical Review A, 92(4):042303, 2015

    Dave Wecker, Matthew B Hastings, and Matthias Troyer. Progress towards practical quantum variational algorithms.Physical Review A, 92(4):042303, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Differentiable quantum architecture search.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(4):045023, 2022

    Shi-Xin Zhang, Chang-Yu Hsieh, Shengyu Zhang, and Hong Yao. Differentiable quantum architecture search.Quantum Science and Technology, 7(4):045023, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    Curriculum reinforcement learning for quantum architecture search under hardware errors

    Yash J Patel, Akash Kundu, Mateusz Ostaszewski, Xavier Bonet-Monroig, Vedran Dunjko, and Onur Danaci. Curriculum reinforcement learning for quantum architecture search under hardware errors. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

  10. [10]

    Hybrid action reinforcement learning for quantum architecture search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04967, 2025

    Jiayang Niu, Yan Wang, Jie Li, Ke Deng, Azadeh Alavi, Muhammad Usman, and Yongli Ren. Hybrid action reinforcement learning for quantum architecture search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04967, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    The generative quantum eigensolver (gqe) and its application for ground state search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09253, 2024

    Kouhei Nakaji, Lasse Bjørn Kristensen, Ryota Kemmoku, Jorge A Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, Mohammad Ghazi Vakili, Haozhe Huang, Mohsen Bagherimehrab, Christoph Gorgulla, FuTe Wong, Alex McCaskey, et al. The generative quantum eigensolver (gqe) and its application for ground state search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09253, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Quantumdarts: differentiable quantum architecture search for variational quantum algorithms

    Wenjie Wu, Ge Yan, Xudong Lu, Kaisen Pan, and Junchi Yan. Quantumdarts: differentiable quantum architecture search for variational quantum algorithms. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 37745–37764. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature communications, 5(1):4213, 2014

    2014

  14. [14]

    Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz.PRX quantum, 1(2):020319, 2020

    Roeland Wiersema, Cunlu Zhou, Yvette de Sereville, Juan Felipe Carrasquilla, Yong Baek Kim, and Henry Yuen. Exploring entanglement and optimization within the hamiltonian variational ansatz.PRX quantum, 1(2):020319, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Entanglement-informed construction of variational quantum circuits.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(3):035032, 2025

    Alina Joch, Götz S Uhrig, and Benedikt Fauseweh. Entanglement-informed construction of variational quantum circuits.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(3):035032, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Entanglement production and convergence properties of the variational quantum eigensolver.Physical Review A, 102(4):042402, 2020

    Andreas JC Woitzik, Panagiotis Kl Barkoutsos, Filip Wudarski, Andreas Buchleitner, and Ivano Tavernelli. Entanglement production and convergence properties of the variational quantum eigensolver.Physical Review A, 102(4):042402, 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    On the practical usefulness of the hardware efficient ansatz.Quantum, 8:1395, 2024

    Lorenzo Leone, Salvatore FE Oliviero, Lukasz Cincio, and Marco Cerezo. On the practical usefulness of the hardware efficient ansatz.Quantum, 8:1395, 2024. 11

    2024

  18. [18]

    Training-free quantum architecture search

    Zhimin He, Maijie Deng, Shenggen Zheng, Lvzhou Li, and Haozhen Situ. Training-free quantum architecture search. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, pages 12430–12438, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures

    Mateusz Ostaszewski, Lea M Trenkwalder, Wojciech Masarczyk, Eleanor Scerri, and Vedran Dunjko. Reinforcement learning for optimization of variational quantum circuit architectures. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:18182–18194, 2021

    2021

  20. [20]

    Quiney, and Muhammad Usman

    Shaobo Zhang, Akib Karim, Harry M. Quiney, and Muhammad Usman. Full band-structure calculation of semiconducting materials on a noisy quantum processor.Phys. Rev. A, 110: 062415, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Jones, Harish J

    Michael A. Jones, Harish J. Vallury, Manolo C. Per, Harry M. Quiney, and Lloyd C. L. Hol- lenberg. Moments-based improved quantum computation of the electric dipole moment of molecular systems.Phys. Rev. Appl., 25:054001, 2026

    2026

  22. [22]

    O’Brien, Michael Streif, Nicholas C

    Thomas E. O’Brien, Michael Streif, Nicholas C. Rubin, Raffaele Santagati, Yuan Su, William J. Huggins, Joshua J. Goings, Nikolaj Moll, Elica Kyoseva, Matthias Degroote, Christofer S. Tautermann, Joonho Lee, Dominic W. Berry, Nathan Wiebe, and Ryan Babbush. Efficient quantum computation of molecular forces and other energy gradients.Phys. Rev. Res., 4:043210, 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    Benchrl-qas: Benchmarking reinforcement learning algorithms for quantum architecture search

    Azhar Ikhtiarudin, Aditi Das, Param Thakkar, and Akash Kundu. Benchrl-qas: Benchmarking reinforcement learning algorithms for quantum architecture search. InProceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, volume 7, pages 358–367, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Benchmarking quantum architecture search with surrogate assistance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06762, 2025

    Darya Martyniuk, Johannes Jung, Daniel Barta, and Adrian Paschke. Benchmarking quantum architecture search with surrogate assistance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06762, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Tensorrl-qas: Reinforcement learning with tensor networks for scalable quantum architecture search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09371, 2025

    Akash Kundu and Stefano Mangini. Tensorrl-qas: Reinforcement learning with tensor networks for scalable quantum architecture search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09371, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ansätze on a quantum processor.PRX Quantum, 2(2):020310, 2021

    Ho Lun Tang, VO Shkolnikov, George S Barron, Harper R Grimsley, Nicholas J Mayhall, Edwin Barnes, and Sophia E Economou. qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ansätze on a quantum processor.PRX Quantum, 2(2):020310, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Automated quantum circuit design with nested monte carlo tree search.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 4:1–20, 2023

    Peiyong Wang, Muhammad Usman, Udaya Parampalli, Lloyd CL Hollenberg, and Casey R My- ers. Automated quantum circuit design with nested monte carlo tree search.IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, 4:1–20, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(5):515–524, 2024

    Florian Fürrutter, Gorka Muñoz-Gil, and Hans J Briegel. Quantum circuit synthesis with diffusion models.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(5):515–524, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Scaling the automated discovery of quantum circuits via reinforcement learning with gadgets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11638, 2025

    Jan Olle, Oleg M Yevtushenko, and Florian Marquardt. Scaling the automated discovery of quantum circuits via reinforcement learning with gadgets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11638, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Reinforcement learning with learned gadgets to tackle hard quantum problems on real hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00230, 2024

    Akash Kundu and Leopoldo Sarra. Reinforcement learning with learned gadgets to tackle hard quantum problems on real hardware.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00230, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Qas-bench: rethinking quantum architecture search and a benchmark

    Xudong Lu, Kaisen Pan, Ge Yan, Jiaming Shan, Wenjie Wu, and Junchi Yan. Qas-bench: rethinking quantum architecture search and a benchmark. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 22880–22898. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  32. [32]

    Nas-bench-101: Towards reproducible neural architecture search

    Chris Ying, Aaron Klein, Eric Christiansen, Esteban Real, Kevin Murphy, and Frank Hutter. Nas-bench-101: Towards reproducible neural architecture search. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 7105–7114. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  33. [33]

    Nas-bench-201: Extending the scope of reproducible neural architecture search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00326, 2020

    Xuanyi Dong and Yi Yang. Nas-bench-201: Extending the scope of reproducible neural architecture search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00326, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  34. [34]

    Nas-bench-nlp: neural architecture search benchmark for natural language processing.IEEE Access, 10:45736–45747, 2022

    Nikita Klyuchnikov, Ilya Trofimov, Ekaterina Artemova, Mikhail Salnikov, Maxim Fedorov, Alexander Filippov, and Evgeny Burnaev. Nas-bench-nlp: neural architecture search benchmark for natural language processing.IEEE Access, 10:45736–45747, 2022. 12

    2022

  35. [35]

    Nas-bench-suite: Nas evaluation is (now) surprisingly easy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13396, 2022

    Yash Mehta, Colin White, Arber Zela, Arjun Krishnakumar, Guri Zabergja, Shakiba Moradian, Mahmoud Safari, Kaicheng Yu, and Frank Hutter. Nas-bench-suite: Nas evaluation is (now) surprisingly easy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13396, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Cambridge university press, 2012

    Roger A Horn and Charles R Johnson.Matrix analysis. Cambridge university press, 2012

    2012

  37. [37]

    Cambridge university press, 2010

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac L Chuang.Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  38. [38]

    Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups.Physical review letters, 69(19):2863, 1992

    Steven R White. Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups.Physical review letters, 69(19):2863, 1992

    1992

  39. [39]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states.Annals of physics, 326(1):96–192, 2011

    Ulrich Schollwöck. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states.Annals of physics, 326(1):96–192, 2011

    2011

  40. [40]

    A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation

    Michael JD Powell. A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation. InAdvances in optimization and numerical analysis, pages 51–67. Springer, 1994

    1994

  41. [41]

    Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits.Quantum, 5:391, 2021

    Mateusz Ostaszewski, Edward Grant, and Marcello Benedetti. Structure optimization for parameterized quantum circuits.Quantum, 5:391, 2021

    2021

  42. [42]

    Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning

    Hado Van Hasselt, Arthur Guez, and David Silver. Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30, 2016

    2016

  43. [43]

    Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning.Machine learning, 8(3):229–256, 1992

    Ronald J Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning.Machine learning, 8(3):229–256, 1992

    1992

  44. [44]

    Automated optimization of large quantum circuits with continuous parameters.npj Quantum Information, 4(1):23, 2018

    Yunseong Nam, Neil J Ross, Yuan Su, Andrew M Childs, and Dmitri Maslov. Automated optimization of large quantum circuits with continuous parameters.npj Quantum Information, 4(1):23, 2018

    2018

  45. [45]

    k" non-identity terms i.e. only acting on

    Sukin Sim, Peter D Johnson, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Expressibility and entangling capability of parameterized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2(12):1900070, 2019. 13 A Method Implementation Details For fair comparison, all methods operate over a unified gate basis {RX,RY,RZ,CNOT} and a shared depth bu...

    2019