h-cgqe-gic2026

<p align="center"> <h1 align="center">⚛️ Conditional-GQE (H-cGQE)</h1> <p align="center"> <strong>AI-Driven Generative Quantum Circuit Design for Molecular & Materials Discovery</strong><br> <em>Generative AI × Reinforcement Learning × CUDA-Q × Quantum Hardware</em> </p> <p align="center"> <strong>Mitsubishi Chemical Group & AIST Quantum Challenge (GIC 2026)</strong> </p> <p align="center"> <a href="https://github.com/Quantum-Buddies/Conditional_GQE/blob/main/LICENSE"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-blue.svg" alt="License"></a> <a href="https://www.python.org/downloads/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/python-3.10+-blue.svg" alt="Python"></a> <a href="https://pytorch.org/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/PyTorch-2.7+-red.svg" alt="PyTorch"></a> <a href="https://nvidia.github.io/cuda-quantum/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/CUDA--Q-0.8+-green.svg" alt="CUDA-Q"></a> <a href="https://huggingface.co/Ryukijano/h-cgqe-gic2026"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/🤗%20HuggingFace-Model%20Card-yellow.svg" alt="Hugging Face"></a> <a href="https://account.qbraid.com?gitHubUrl=https://github.com/Quantum-Buddies/Conditional_GQE.git"><img src="https://qbraid-static.s3.amazonaws.com/logos/Launch_on_qBraid_white.png" alt="Launch on qBraid" height="20"></a> </p> </p> <p align="center"> <img src="docs/gic2026_journey_loop.gif" alt="H-cGQE GIC 2026 Journey" width="800"> </p>

🎬 Animated Visual Overview

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="8"> <tr> <td align="center"><b>RL Training Loop (DAPO/GRPO)</b></td> <td align="center"><b>Transformer Architecture</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center"><img src="docs/rl_training_loop.gif" alt="RL training loop" width="400"></td> <td align="center"><img src="docs/transformer_architecture.gif" alt="Transformer architecture" width="400"></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center"><b>VQE vs H-cGQE Comparison</b></td> <td align="center"><b>HPC ↔ QPU Async Workflow</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center"><img src="docs/vqe_vs_gqe.gif" alt="VQE vs GQE" width="400"></td> <td align="center"><img src="docs/hpc_qpu_workflow.gif" alt="HPC to QPU workflow" width="400"></td> </tr> </table>

---

🌟 Executive Summary

Conditional-GQE (H-cGQE) is an artificial intelligence framework that automatically designs quantum computing circuits for chemistry and materials science.

Traditional Quantum Virtual Eigensolvers (VQEs) rely on manual, human-designed quantum circuits that are either too deep for real quantum hardware or get trapped in mathematical dead-ends called barren plateaus and diagonal collapse.

H-cGQE pairs a Chemical Graph Neural Network (GNN) and a Transformer with Quality-Diversity Reinforcement Learning (QD-GRPO) to amortize ansatz design: conditioned on molecular structure and the electronic Hamiltonian, the model proposes compact operator sequences whose continuous angles are refined classically (L-BFGS-B). The goal is chemical accuracy ($\le 1.6 \text{ mHa}$) within stated active spaces on simulators, with selective hardware checks.

┌────────────────────────┐      ┌────────────────────────┐      ┌────────────────────────┐
│   Molecular Structure  │ ───► │  AI Transformer Agent  │ ───► │ Compact Quantum Circuit│
│ (Atoms, Bonds, Energy) │      │ (GNN + QD-GRPO Policy) │      │ (Optimized for QPUs)   │
└────────────────────────┘      └────────────────────────┘      └────────────────────────┘

🔗 Model Weights & Artifacts: Hosted on HuggingFace at Ryukijano/h-cgqe-gic2026

---

🏆 Key Results & Benchmark Scores

Notes: Chemical accuracy ≈ $1.6 \text{ mHa}$ ($\approx 1 \text{ kcal/mol}$). Where “exact” references appear below, they mean CASCI/FCI within the stated active space, not full CI in the complete basis. Held-out / zero-shot molecule generalization remains an open evaluation item.

---

📐 Visual Architecture & Dataflow

Diagram 1 — End-to-End Pipeline (High-Level)

Diagram 2 — Internal Transformer Architecture (Technical)

Diagram 3 — RL Training Loop & Reward Decomposition

Diagram 4 — VQE vs C-GQE Comparison

Diagram 5 — Qubit Scaling Spectrum

  4q         12q         20q         28q         40q
  │           │           │           │           │
  ▼           ▼           ▼           ▼           ▼
┌─────┐   ┌─────┐    ┌─────┐    ┌─────┐    ┌─────┐
│ H₂  │   │ LiH │    │ N₂  │    │ C₂H₄│    │C₆H₆│
│ (4q)│   │(12q)│    │(20q)│    │(28q)│    │(40q)│
└──┬──┘   └──┬──┘    └──┬──┘    └──┬──┘    └──┬──┘
   │         │          │          │          │
   ▼         ▼          ▼          ▼          ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  CUDA-Q Statevector (nvidia-mqpu, 3× L40S)          │
│  ● Fast: <1s per circuit    ● RL training rewards   │
│  ● B200 SQLite Cache (24k+ entries)                 │
│  ● QPU Validation (qBraid: IQM, Rigetti)            │
└──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
                       │ 24q threshold (PCIe L40S)
                       ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  MPS Tensor Network (bond dim D=32…256)             │
│  ● Ethylene 28q: ~300s on single L40S               │
│  ● Bond convergence sweep required for accuracy     │
└──────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┘
                       │ 28q threshold
                       ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  QSCI + FMO2 (28–40q)                               │
│  ● Benzene 40q: ~19s QSCI/MPS path (subspace estimate) │
│  ● FMO2: fragment → evaluate → reassemble parent    │
│  ● NOT brute-force statevector (scientifically wrong│
│    for 32–40q JW chemistry circuits)                │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

---

🔬 In-Depth Nuances & Technical Pillars

1. The Chemistry GNN Encoder (ChemistryEncoder)

Unlike standard NLP transformers, C-GQE features an Edge-Aware Message-Passing Graph Neural Network (src/gqe/models/chemistry_encoder.py) that encodes the physical topology of the molecule — conceptually analogous to how AlphaFold's Evoformer processes structural relationships:

• Node Features: Atomic numbers, hybridization states, formal charges, valence, aromaticity.
• Edge Features: Chemical bond types, 3D interatomic distances $R_{ij}$, conjugation, ring membership.
• Global Invariants: Active space qubit count $N_q$, total electron count $N_e$, spin multiplicity $2S+1$.
• Mechanism: 3 layers of edge-weighted message passing → dual pooling (mean + max) → projection to soft prompt tokens that prefix-condition the decoder's cross-attention.
• Why GNN? The molecular graph topology (bond connectivity, atom types) determines which fermionic excitations are chemically relevant. A flat MLP on atom counts would miss the graph structure — the GNN captures local chemical environments (e.g., "this carbon is in an aromatic ring with two neighbors") that inform operator selection.

2. Solving "Diagonal Sequence Collapse"

In early GQE implementations, AI agents discovered a "lazy shortcut": generating commuting $Z$-basis operators (e.g., $IZIZ$, $ZZII$). Because these operators commute with the Hartree-Fock state, their energy gradients are identically zero ($\frac{\partial E}{\partial \theta} = 0$). Classical optimizers trap them at $E = E_{\text{HF}}$, killing training gradient variance (std(rewards) = 0).

  ❌ COLLAPSED SEQUENCE (Z-only, commuting)         ✅ ENTANGLED SEQUENCE (UCCSD, non-commuting)
  ┌─────────────────────────────────┐               ┌─────────────────────────────────┐
  │  A₁ = IZIZ  (Z-only)            │               │  A₁ = YZXI  (X+Y entangling)    │
  │  A₂ = ZZII  (Z-only)            │               │  A₂ = XZYI  (X+Y entangling)    │
  │  A₃ = IZIZ  (duplicate)         │               │  A₃ = IYZX  (X+Y entangling)    │
  │  A₄ = ZIIZ  (Z-only)            │               │  A₄ = ZXIY  (X+Y entangling)    │
  │                                 │               │                                 │
  │  [A_i, A_j] = 0 ∀ i,j           │               │  [A_i, A_j] ≠ 0 (non-commuting) │
  │  ∂E/∂θ_i = 0 (zero gradient)    │               │  ∂E/∂θ_i ≠ 0 (non-zero grad)    │
  │  E = E_HF (trapped at baseline) │               │  E < E_HF (energy improvement)  │
  │  std(rewards) = 0 → no learning │               │  std(rewards) > 0 → RL learns   │
  └─────────────────────────────────┘               └─────────────────────────────────┘

• Our Solution:
  1. UCCSD Operator Pool: Built from fermionic single/double excitations mapped via Jordan-Wigner, guaranteeing entangling $X/Y$ operations. Zero Z-only operators by construction.
  2. Entanglement Enforcement: force_entanglement=True in the decoder masks Z-only tokens during sampling, ensuring at least one multi-qubit entangler per sequence.
  3. Commutator Penalty: Explicit reward penalty $w_4 \cdot \text{frac}([A_i, A_j] \neq 0)$ for commuting operator sequences.

Verified pool statistics: H₂ (4q): 16 Pauli words, 0 Z-only, 192 pool entries. LiH (12q): 1,408 Pauli words, 0 Z-only. N₂ (20q): 11,088 Pauli words, 0 Z-only. BeH₂ (14q): 3,456 Pauli words, 0 Z-only.

3. Quality-Diversity RL: QD-GRPO with MAP-Elites

Standard Policy Gradient methods (PPO/GRPO) suffer from mode collapse, finding only one circuit structure. We implement MAP-Elites QD-GRPO (src/gqe/rl/map_elites.py):

• 2D Feature Space: The archive space is discretized into a 10×10 grid indexed by Entanglement Density (ratio of multi-qubit $X/Y$ terms) and Circuit Depth.
• Adaptive Novelty Bonus: Rewards the policy not just for low energy, but for filling unvisited cells in feature space: $$\text{Reward} = w_1 \cdot \left(-\frac{E}{|E_{\text{ref}}|}\right) + w_2 \cdot \text{Entanglement} + \lambda \cdot \text{Novelty}$$
• As coverage exceeds $50%$, $\lambda$ decays adaptively to shift focus to energy refinement.

4. L-BFGS-B Angle Fine-Tuning

For a generated sequence $[A_1, A_2, \dots, A_k]$, each operator $A_i = e^{i\theta_i \hat{P}i}$ requires a continuous rotation angle $\theta_i \in \mathbb{R}$. The energy landscape is: $$E(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \langle \psi_0 | U{j_k}^\dagger \cdots U_{j_1}^\dagger \hat{H} U_{j_1} \cdots U_{j_k} | \psi_0 \rangle$$

• Truncated mode (RL training): 3–5 iterations, $\theta_0 = 0.01$, Spearman $\rho \approx 0.5$ with converged energies, $50\times$ faster than full opt.
• Full mode (final evaluation): 200 iterations, $\text{ftol} = 10^{-10}$, machine-precision convergence.
• Why L-BFGS-B? BFGS approximates the inverse Hessian $H^{-1}$ using rank-2 updates from gradient evaluations — no explicit Hessian computation needed. The bounded variant (L-BFGS-B) handles box constraints on $\theta_i \in [-\pi, \pi]$.
• DedupCache: MD5 hash of operator sequence → energy. Identical circuits are never re-evaluated. SQLite-backed for persistence across training runs.

5. B200 Energy Cache & Offline RL Pretraining

• SQLite Cache: 24,000+ entries keyed by MD5 hash of operator sequence (results/train/rl_energy_cache.sqlite).
• Offline Pretraining: src/gqe/data/cache_to_pretrain.py recovers 17,408 (operators, energy) pairs by replaying deterministic circuit generation. This allows replay-buffer mixing of known-good circuits without CUDA-Q.
• Cache-only mode: --cache-only returns HF energy for cache misses (no CUDA-Q). Useful for buffer imitation, but on-policy rollouts rarely hit the fixed cache → flat rewards → DAPO advantage collapse. For real RL, use write-through (drop --cache-only) so misses are evaluated and stored. See bash scripts/train_rl.sh full.

6. Scaling to 40 Qubits: QSCI & FMO2

Direct statevector simulation breaks above 28 qubits ($2^{28} \approx 268$M amplitudes). To tackle 32–40 qubit systems required by the GIC challenge, we deploy two scientific scaling pillars:

• QSCI (Quantum Selected Configuration Interaction): Samples circuits to build a determinant subspace, then classically diagonalizes a reduced Hamiltonian. Used here as a scaling path for ~40q systems (e.g. benzene) when full statevector is infeasible — report subspace energies and wall time, not “exact FCI match,” unless an independent CASCI/FCI reference is provided.
• FMO2 (Fragment Molecular Orbital): Fragments large macromolecules into 8–12 qubit sub-units, evaluates them on quantum hardware, and reassembles parent energies via pairwise additive correction: $$E_{\text{FMO2}} = \sum_i E_i - \sum_{i<j} (E_{ij} - E_i - E_j)$$

7. Comparative Architectural Analysis: H-cGQE vs. SpinGQE & GPT-QE

To contextualize C-GQE against contemporary generative quantum eigensolvers, the table below compares H-cGQE with GPT-QE (NVIDIA / U. Toronto / St. Jude, arXiv:2401.09253) and SpinGQE (Mindbeam AI, March 2026, arXiv:2603.24298):

Core Methodological Advances over SpinGQE & GPT-QE

1. Cross-Molecule Conditioning via Encoder-Decoder:

   • SpinGQE & GPT-QE Limit: Decoder-only models are typically trained for a single fixed Hamiltonian; changing geometry often means retraining.
   • H-cGQE Approach: HamiltonianEncoder + ChemistryEncoder (MPNN) condition a shared policy on $(H, \text{graph})$. This enables multi-molecule amortization; rigorous leave-one-family-out energy evaluation is the right test of whether that conditioning generalizes.

2. Policy Optimization (DAPO RL) vs. Weighted MSE Loss:

   • SpinGQE Limit: SpinGQE uses a heuristic weighted MSE loss $L = \sum w(E) \cdot (\text{logits}_t - E_t)^2$ to force discrete categorical token logits to regress onto continuous energy values. This leads to vanishing gradients near energy plateaus.
   • H-cGQE Solution: We frame circuit design as pure Reinforcement Learning via DAPO (Decoupled Clip + Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization) with group-relative advantage $A_i = \frac{R_i - \mu_R}{\sigma_R}$. Asymmetric clipping ($\epsilon_{\text{low}}=0.2, \epsilon_{\text{high}}=0.28$) and token-level loss stabilize RL updates without surrogate MSE regression.

3. Decoupled Two-Stage Optimization (Topology vs. Continuous Rotation Angles):

   • SpinGQE & GPT-QE Limit: Both models discretize continuous evolution times into discrete vocabulary tokens ($e^{i P_j t_k}$ for $t_k \in {0.01, 0.05, 0.1, \dots}$), causing vocabulary explosion and limiting expressivity.
   • H-cGQE Solution: We decouple discrete structural topology from continuous parameterization. Stage 1 (Transformer) generates the discrete operator sequence $(P_{j_1}, P_{j_2}, \dots)$. Stage 2 (L-BFGS-B) optimizes the continuous rotation angles $\vec{\theta}$ over the exact CUDA-Q expectation landscape using nvidia-mqpu.

4. Quality-Diversity Archive (MAP-Elites) preventing Diagonal Collapse:

   • SpinGQE & GPT-QE Limit: Autoregressive transformers naturally collapse into generating commuting, single-qubit, or Z-only operators (diagonal sequence collapse) because they carry zero entanglement overhead.
   • H-cGQE Solution: We maintain a 2D MAP-Elites archive (Entanglement Density $\times$ Circuit Depth). Rollouts discovering unoccupied topological niches receive intrinsic novelty bonuses, forcing the agent to learn non-commuting $X/Y$ entangling operators.

---

🧪 Comprehensive Molecule Inventory (35 GIC Molecules)

The framework is benchmarked across the complete GIC 2026 challenge molecule suite:

---

Quick start (qBraid)

1. Clone and one-shot setup

git clone https://github.com/Quantum-Buddies/Conditional_GQE.git
cd Conditional_GQE
bash scripts/setup_env.sh

setup_env.sh handles everything — no sudo or system conda needed:

• Downloads and installs git-lfs binary to $HOME/.local/bin (prebuilt, no root)
• Pulls all LFS-tracked assets (checkpoints, energy cache, pretrain data)
• Installs Python dependencies via python3 -m pip (qBraid-safe)
• Verifies GPU, CUDA-Q, and audits critical files

LFS artifacts on main:

2. Environment

On qBraid Lab, use the Launch on qBraid button or:

For local or HPC setups:

conda env create -f environment-dgx-spark-cudaq.yml
conda activate conditional-gqe-cudaq
pip install -r requirements-qbraid.txt

3. Smoke test

bash scripts/train_rl.sh smoke

4. Training

bash scripts/train_rl.sh full          # write-through RL from SFT (skips cache-only)
bash scripts/train_rl.sh online-rl     # 50 epochs, write-through cache + CUDA-Q misses
bash scripts/train_rl.sh cache-warmup  # buffer imitation only (weak on-policy RL)

5. Evaluation

bash scripts/evaluate_rl.sh all        # infer → eval → optimize → report
bash scripts/evaluate_rl.sh infer      # generate circuits from checkpoint
bash scripts/evaluate_rl.sh eval       # CUDA-Q energy evaluation
bash scripts/evaluate_rl.sh optimize   # L-BFGS-B coefficient optimization

6. QPU validation

python scripts/qpu_preflight.py --dry-run --device qbraid:qbraid:sim:qir-sv
bash scripts/run_hpc_qbraid_workflow.sh --qpu-submit
bash scripts/run_hpc_qbraid_workflow.sh --qpu-retrieve

---

Training launcher

Portable qBraid scripts (zero hardcoded paths)

bash scripts/train_rl.sh smoke          # 2 epochs, 2 molecules (~2 min)
bash scripts/train_rl.sh full           # write-through RL from SFT (skips cache-only)
bash scripts/evaluate_rl.sh all         # infer → eval → optimize → report
# Optional: MAX_QUBITS_OVERRIDE=28 bash scripts/train_rl.sh full

train_rl.sh modes: full / online-rl use write-through caching (CUDA-Q evaluates misses and stores them). Prefer these for real learning. full always starts from the SFT checkpoint (ignores any stale *_rl_warmup.pt). cache-warmup (--cache-only) is kept for buffer-imitation experiments only — on-policy samples almost never hit the precomputed MD5 keys, so misses get a flat HF penalty and DAPO/GRPO advantages collapse.

GPU auto-detection: env_gpu.sh reads compute capability and sets CUDA-Q gate fusion level (Hopper CC 9.0 → fusion 5, Blackwell CC 10.0 → +FP32 emulation, Ampere CC 8.0 → fusion 4). Molecule lists are auto-generated from the Hamiltonians JSON filtered by GPU-specific qubit limits (train_rl.sh defaults to ≤22q on H200).

Import order note: Triton (torch.compile) and CUDA-Q both embed LLVM. train_rl_dapo.py lazy-imports CUDA-Q after torch.compile. Do not import cudaq before compiling the model in the same process.

B200 / Blackwell launcher (legacy)

Portable entry point: scripts/launch_b200_training.sh

bash scripts/launch_b200_training.sh sft          # supervised warm-start
bash scripts/launch_b200_training.sh ablation       # RL from scratch (ablation)
bash scripts/launch_b200_training.sh cache          # precompute energy cache (≤28q only)
bash scripts/launch_b200_training.sh both           # SFT → RL main pipeline

Energy cache: SQLite-backed circuit→energy store for fast RL. Default cap CACHE_MAX_QUBITS=28. Do not precompute 32–40q SV caches — use QSCI/FMO2 instead. train_rl.sh defaults to ≤22q on H200 (override with MAX_QUBITS_OVERRIDE).

# Optional: one-time cache fill (append-safe, skips existing keys)
bash scripts/launch_b200_training.sh cache

Blackwell / B200 env knobs: scripts/env_b200_blackwell.sh (source before import cudaq). GPU auto-env for H100/H200/etc.: scripts/env_gpu.sh.

---

Datasets

Generate new Hamiltonians:

python src/gqe/data/generate_hamiltonians.py --help

---

QPU guidelines (qBraid)

• Target 4–12 qubit molecules for hardware (h2, iodobenzene, imeph_cas12).
• Preflight skips ZNE if two-qubit gates > 20; skips REM if qubits > 10.
• Use Pauli expectation energy (cudaq.observe), not raw state probability.
• FMO dimers (8–12q) are the best “large system + real QPU” story — not 40q full Hamiltonians on hardware.

python scripts/qpu_preflight.py --dry-run
python src/gqe/eval/submit_qpu.py --help

---

Repository layout

Conditional_GQE/
├── README.md                          # This file
├── QUICKSTART.md                      # Short reproduction guide
├── AGENTS.md                          # Canonical training decisions
├── docs/B200_TRAINING_PLAN.md         # B200 / Blackwell notes
├── scripts/
│   ├── launch_b200_training.sh        # SFT / RL / cache launcher
│   ├── run_hpc_qbraid_workflow.sh      # HPC → QPU orchestration
│   └── phase3/                        # Experiment scripts (01–09)
├── src/gqe/
│   ├── models/                        # Transformer, train_rl_dapo.py
│   ├── eval/                          # evaluate, QSCI, FMO2, submit_qpu
│   ├── rl/                            # MAP-Elites, energy_cache
│   └── data/                          # Hamiltonians, precompute cache
└── results/
    ├── train/                         # Checkpoints (LFS), metrics, cache
    └── phase3_final/                  # Published experiment artifacts

---

Safeguards

---

Hardware notes

L40S is PCIe-only: keep n_qubits ≤ 24 for nvidia-mqpu to avoid distributed statevector segfaults.

---

Phase 3 Submission — Quick Start for Judges

Verify the Pipeline (Single Command)

bash scripts/phase3/00_smoke_test.sh

This runs 5 verification tests: DedupCache SQLite persistence, offline RL cache-only mode, FMO2 exact reconstruction, QPU manifest generation (QWC grouping), and code import sanity.

Full Pipeline

The Phase 3 pipeline is a 3-stage hybrid GPU→GPU→QPU workflow:

Stage 1: Energy Cache Precompute (B200)

# On qBraid B200 instance — generates rl_energy_cache.sqlite
bash scripts/launch_b200_training.sh cache

Stage 2: Offline RL Training (L40S, no CUDA-Q required)

python src/gqe/models/train_rl_dapo.py \
    --molecules h2_0.74 lih_1.6_full \
    --qd-mode \
    --energy-cache results/train/rl_energy_cache.sqlite \
    --cache-only \
    --epochs 50 \
    --out results/train/h_cgqe_rl_dapo_phase3.pt

Key flags:

• --energy-cache: Path to SQLite file from Stage 1. DedupCache / PersistentEnergyCache loads precomputed energies.
• --cache-only: Skips CUDA-Q; uncached circuits get HF penalty. Prefer without --cache-only (write-through) when CUDA-Q is available so novel circuits get real energies. On qBraid: bash scripts/train_rl.sh full.

Stage 3: FMO2 3-Fragment Scaling (Genuine Qubit Reduction)

# Generate 3-fragment iodobenzene Hamiltonians (monomers 4q, dimers 8q, parent 12q)
python scripts/generate_fmo2_fragments.py

# Run FMO2 exact + H-cGQE + L-BFGS-B
python scripts/run_fmo2_scaling.py
python scripts/run_fmo2_lbfgs.py

# Submit dimer/monomer circuits to Rigetti Cepheus QPU
python scripts/submit_fmo2_qpu.py --submit

# Retrieve QPU results + SQD post-processing
python scripts/retrieve_and_sqd.py --meta results/qpu/fmo2_cepheus_submission_meta.json \
    --hamiltonians results/data/fragments/dimers.json \
    --out results/qpu/fmo2_cepheus_sqd_results.json

Key result: 12q parent recovered from max 8q circuits (33% qubit reduction). Fragmentation error: 11.3 mHa (nonzero → non-tautological).

Stage 4: Bi-Level QPU Validation (L-BFGS-B Optimized Circuits)

# Submit L-BFGS-B optimized + zero-theta circuits to Cepheus
python scripts/submit_lbfgs_qpu.py --submit --include-zero-theta

# Retrieve + SQD
python scripts/retrieve_and_sqd.py --meta results/qpu/lbfgs_cepheus_submission_meta.json \
    --hamiltonians results/data/hamiltonians_gic2026/hamiltonians.json \
    --out results/qpu/lbfgs_cepheus_sqd_results.json

Bi-level pipeline: RL discovers operator topology (outer loop) → L-BFGS-B optimizes continuous angles (inner loop) → QPU executes → SQD recovers energy.

Stage 5: QPU Manifest Generation (Legacy)

python scripts/phase3/generate_qpu_manifests.py \
    --molecules h2_0.74 lih_1.6_full \
    --hamiltonians results/data/hamiltonians_merged.json \
    --optimized results/eval/h_cgqe_uccsd_optimized.json \
    --out-dir results/qpu/manifests \
    --shots 4096

Outputs per-molecule JSON manifests with QWC-grouped QASM 2.0 measurement circuits, ready for qBraid submission to Rigetti Cepheus.

Key Components

Reproducibility

• Energy cache: SQLite file ensures deterministic rewards across training runs
• MAP-Elites archives: JSON-serialized per-molecule elite circuit libraries
• Chemical accuracy target: ≤ 1.6 mHa (~1 kcal/mol) vs CASCI/FCI within the stated active space
• QPU cost transparency: Per-manifest cost estimates (0.0425 credits/shot + 30 credits/task on Cepheus)

---

Citation

@software{conditional_gqe,
  title  = {Conditional-GQE: Scalable Generative Quantum Eigensolver with RL, QSCI, and FMO2},
  author = {{Ryoushi Quantum Buddies}},
  url    = {https://github.com/Quantum-Buddies/Conditional_GQE},
  year   = {2026}
}

License

MIT — © 2025–2026 Ryoushi Quantum Buddies

Acknowledgments

NVIDIA CUDA-Q · Mitsubishi Chemical Group · AIST · qBraid · PySCF · OpenFermion · Park & Walsh (Chemeleon2, arXiv:2511.07158) · Nakaji et al. (GQE, arXiv:2401.09253)