QuanBench+: A Unified Multi-Framework Benchmark for LLM-Based Quantum Code Generation

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.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled the automation of an increasing number of programming tasks, including code generation for scientific and engineering domains. In rapidly evolving software ecosystems such as quantum software development, where frameworks expose complex abstractions, a central question is how best to incorporate domain knowledge into LLM-based assistants while preserving maintainability as libraries evolve. In this work, we study specialization strategies for Qiskit code generation using the Qiskit-HumanEval benchmark. We compare a parameter-specialized fine-tuned baseline introduced in prior work against a range of recent general-purpose LLMs enhanced with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and agent-based inference with execution feedback. Our results show that modern general-purpose LLMs consistently outperform the parameter-specialized baseline. While the fine-tuned model achieves approximately 47% pass@1 on Qiskit-HumanEval, recent general-purpose models reach 60-65% under zero-shot and retrieval-augmented settings, and up to 85% for the strongest evaluated model when combined with iterative execution-feedback agents -representing an improvement of more than 20% over zero-shot general-purpose performance and more than 35% over the parameter-specialized baseline. Agentic execution feedback yields the most consistent improvements, albeit at increased runtime cost, while RAG provides modest and model-dependent gains. These findings indicate that performance gains can be achieved without domain-specific fine-tuning, instead relying on inference-time augmentation, thereby enabling a more flexible and maintainable approach to LLM-assisted quantum software development.

Large language models can generate plausible quantum code, but it is unclear whether they can reliably target the specific software development kit (SDK) version requested by the user. We study this problem as API drift and introduce quantum-api-drift, a benchmark for measuring version fidelity, defined here as execution success on the requested SDK version, cross-version compatibility, failure modes, and documentation-guided repair in LLM-generated quantum SDK code. We instantiate the benchmark with Qiskit, a representative quantum SDK that underwent substantial interface changes across v0.43, v1.3, and v2.0. We evaluate 17 models on 50 tasks with 3 samples per prompt, yielding 450 generated samples and 1,350 executions per model. Sixteen models are tested in a matched REST API setting with a 1024-token output cap, while GPT-5.4 (Codex CLI) is reported separately as a reference configuration. Across the 16 matched REST models, diagonal Pass@1 ranges from 0.02 to 0.85. Claude Opus 4.7 is strongest on v0.43 and v2.0, while Grok 4.20 is strongest on v1.3 at 0.513. Error profiles differ systematically by model strength: weaker models fail mainly with broken imports, while stronger models more often reach deprecation-level failures. Documentation-guided repair succeeds for 0.19 to 0.59 of repair attempts overall and is consistently much more effective for migration to v2.0 than to v1.3. The benchmark artifacts are publicly available at https://github.com/arasyi/quantum-api-drift. These results show that version alignment is a distinct evaluation axis for quantum code generation and that API drift remains only partly recoverable even with migration guidance.