Machine learning for sample-based quantum diagonalization: a review of generative configuration recovery and the classical-simulability frontier
Abstract
Sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD), equivalently quantum-selected configuration interaction (QSCI), has become a centre of gravity of pre-fault-tolerant quantum chemistry: a processor samples electronic configurations and the Hamiltonian is diagonalized classically in the resulting subspace. Accuracy is governed entirely by which configurations enter it -- a machine-learning selection problem, made acute by a coupon-collector bottleneck. We review the generative and learned selectors by what each generates and the signal it exploits, and identify one gap: no reward-proportional generative-flow-network proposer has been built for tail discovery. On the field's central question -- whether the quantum sampler beats classical selected CI -- the negative verdict is not ours to claim: priority belongs to Reinholdt et al. [JCTC 21, 6811 (2025)], and polynomial-time classical estimation of the flagship circuits has reinforced it. We state that verdict at the precision a falsifiable claim requires -- it concerns reproducible, same-active-space comparisons on molecular electronic structure -- and weigh the claims outside those qualifiers. We show that alpha-string weights are not invariant under rotations inside degenerate orbital shells, so determinant counts are undefined until the orbital gauge is declared. We distil a ten-element benchmarking standard and apply it to our own deposit, which returned defects that changed numbers printed here and retracted one from v1. FCI-exact experiments confirm one prediction and refute another: the single generative advantage we find keeps no consistent sign along the dissociation coordinate at device-calibrated noise and reverses under a symmetric readout model. It does beat a noise-matched classical recovery loop on N2 by a margin five seeds cannot resolve, and loses by over a factor of two to a classical selector that needs no sampler.
Related
- Electronic configuration vectors provide transferable elemental representations for machine learning across the periodic table
- An Investigation into the Kinetic Persistence of TiO2 Polymorphs Using Machine-Learning-Driven Pathfinding in Crystal Configuration Space.
- When do machine-learning potentials need a configuration-dependent kernel? Learning long-range interactions with Fourier neural operators
- Generative design of high-fidelity microstructures using physics-aware machine learning.
- Machine Learning-Empowered Electromagnetic Wave Absorbing Materials: From Forward Prediction to Generative Inverse Design
BibTeX
@misc{vargas2026machine,
title = {{Machine learning for sample-based quantum diagonalization: a review of generative configuration recovery and the classical-simulability frontier}},
author = {Nicolás Bonilla Vargas},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2608.05314},
eprint = {2608.05314},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05314},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Machine learning for sample-based quantum diagonalization: a review of generative configuration recovery and the classical-simulability frontier
AU - Nicolás Bonilla Vargas
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/18
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2608.05314
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05314
AB - Sample-based quantum diagonalization (SQD), equivalently quantum-selected configuration interaction (QSCI), has become a centre of gravity of pre-fault-tolerant quantum chemistry: a processor samples electronic configurations and the Hamiltonian is diagonalized classically in the resulting subspace. Accuracy is governed entirely by which configurations enter it -- a machine-learning selection problem, made acute by a coupon-collector bottleneck. We review the generative and learned selectors by what each generates and the signal it exploits, and identify one gap: no reward-proportional generative-flow-network proposer has been built for tail discovery. On the field's central question -- whether the quantum sampler beats classical selected CI -- the negative verdict is not ours to claim: priority belongs to Reinholdt et al. [JCTC 21, 6811 (2025)], and polynomial-time classical estimation of the flagship circuits has reinforced it. We state that verdict at the precision a falsifiable claim requires -- it concerns reproducible, same-active-space comparisons on molecular electronic structure -- and weigh the claims outside those qualifiers. We show that alpha-string weights are not invariant under rotations inside degenerate orbital shells, so determinant counts are undefined until the orbital gauge is declared. We distil a ten-element benchmarking standard and apply it to our own deposit, which returned defects that changed numbers printed here and retracted one from v1. FCI-exact experiments confirm one prediction and refute another: the single generative advantage we find keeps no consistent sign along the dissociation coordinate at device-calibrated noise and reverses under a symmetric readout model. It does beat a noise-matched classical recovery loop on N2 by a margin five seeds cannot resolve, and loses by over a factor of two to a classical selector that needs no sampler.
ER -