Generative AI for Quantum Circuits and Quantum Code: A Technical Review and Taxonomy

Can AI agents visually comprehend quantum circuit diagrams and generate verified executable code--and at what cost? We present Quantum Circuit Vision, a cost-aware evaluation framework for multimodal AI agents on quantum circuit visual understanding. We construct a 132-circuit benchmark spanning 13 categories ($1$--$10$ qubits) with executable Amazon Braket code and unitary-fidelity verification. Evaluating three frontier Claude-family models at different capability-cost tiers with $n=5$ repeated trials, we find that the mid-tier model (Sonnet 4.6, $1.30\times$ credits) offers the most favorable balance on the cost-accuracy frontier: 91% pass rate on the core subset at 18% of the per-call cost of the strongest model (Opus 4.6), whose accuracy advantage is not statistically significant (paired $t$: $p=0.083$). Logistic regression confirms that circuit depth--not qubit count--is the primary predictor of failure ($p<0.001$). Chain-of-thought prompting shows no statistically significant effect (all $p>0.18$, $n=5$), suggesting that visual pattern recognition outweighs explicit reasoning strategy for structurally coupled diagrams. We propose a cascade routing strategy (cheap $\rightarrow$ expensive models) that achieves 84% accuracy at 38% of single-model cost, demonstrating that model routing dominates prompt engineering as a cost lever. We release QCV-Dataset (132 circuits, 5 modalities, 1,931 files) on Hugging Face Hub as an open evaluation infrastructure with structured metadata for discoverability, interoperability, and responsible AI documentation, and all evaluation code, cost logs, and verification scripts on GitHub for full reproducibility.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, yet quantum code generation is still evaluated mostly within single frameworks, making it difficult to separate quantum reasoning from framework familiarity. We introduce QuanBench+, a unified benchmark spanning Qiskit, PennyLane, and Cirq, with 42 aligned tasks covering quantum algorithms, gate decomposition, and state preparation. We evaluate models with executable functional tests, report Pass@1 and Pass@5, and use KL-divergence-based acceptance for probabilistic outputs. We additionally study Pass@1 after feedback-based repair, where a model may revise code after a runtime error or wrong answer. Across frameworks, the strongest one-shot scores reach 59.5% in Qiskit, 54.8% in Cirq, and 42.9% in PennyLane; with feedback-based repair, the best scores rise to 83.3%, 76.2%, and 66.7%, respectively. These results show clear progress, but also that reliable multi-framework quantum code generation remains unsolved and still depends strongly on framework-specific knowledge.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong results in classical code generation and are increasingly used to write the unit tests that safeguard that code. Whether they can do the same for quantum software is less clear, because quantum programs are probabilistic, depend on numerical tolerances, and are judged by domain-specific checkers, so a well-formed test can still disagree with the benchmark's verdict. Existing quantum benchmarks measure whether a model produces a correct solution, but not whether its tests can distinguish correct implementations from faulty ones. We introduce QTestBench, a framework that evaluates LLM-generated quantum test suites against independent benchmark checkers, never treating the tests themselves as ground truth. For each task, QTestBench prompts models to produce syntactic, semantic, and behavioral tests, injects candidate solutions at runtime, and compares each test verdict with the checker's label under three validation cohorts, each answering a distinct diagnostic question. We benchmark five LLMs on eight PennyLane QHack challenges and ten Qiskit HumanEval tasks. Generated suites almost always execute, but discrimination lags behind: the best generator reaches a test quality of 0.71 on QHack and 0.34 on Qiskit HumanEval, so executability alone overstates test quality. Oracle-verified synthetic mutants stabilize bug-detection estimates when natural faulty solutions are scarce, as on three of ten Qiskit tasks that yield none. QTestBench offers a reproducible, cross-framework benchmark for the trustworthiness of LLM-generated quantum tests.