Generative Krylov Subspace Representations for Scalable Quantum Eigensolvers
Changwon Lee, Daniel K. Park

TL;DR
This paper introduces GenKSR, a classical generative framework that models Krylov subspace processes to efficiently predict ground state energies of quantum systems, reducing quantum resource requirements.
Contribution
GenKSR is the first to learn a classical generative model of Krylov subspace methods, enabling energy estimation for unseen Hamiltonians without additional quantum experiments.
Findings
Successfully models quantum measurement distributions conditioned on Hamiltonians.
Generates accurate Krylov subspace samples for unseen Hamiltonians.
Reduces quantum circuit executions needed for energy predictions.
Abstract
Predicting ground state energies of quantum many-body systems is one of the central computational challenges in quantum chemistry, physics, and materials science. Krylov subspace methods, such as Krylov Quantum Diagonalization and Sample-based Krylov Quantum Diagonalization, are promising approaches for this task on near-term quantum computers. However, both require repeated quantum circuit executions for each Krylov subspace and for every new Hamiltonian, posing a major bottleneck under noisy hardware constraints. We introduce Generative Krylov Subspace Representations (GenKSR), a framework that learns a classical generative representation of the entire Krylov diagonalization process. To enable effective modeling of quantum systems, GenKSR leverages a conditional generative model framework. We investigate two representative backbone architectures, the standard Transformer and the Mamba…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
1. Clear and timely problem framing. The paper targets a bottleneck in NISQ-era Krylov methods: every new Hamiltonian and every higher Krylov dimension costs new quantum shots. Turning this into an offline-learn-once, infer-many pipeline is a sensible strategy. 2. Experiments on real hardware. Simulated 15-qubit Heisenberg and a real 20-qubit IBM experiment provide a fairly convincing story that the approach is not simulator-only. The fact that they can learn the noise and regenerate it for test
1. The Hamiltonian families are closely related (1D Heisenberg/XXZ). It remains unclear how well GenKSR transfers across lattice geometries, boundary conditions, anisotropies, and initial states. An explicit OOD Hamiltonian evaluation would strengthen the generalization claim. 2. Lack of ablations on conditioning. It is informative to disentangle contributions from (i) Hamiltonian encoder, (ii) time-step embedding forms, and (iii) Mamba depth/width. 3. The complexity motivation for replacing Tra
1. The paper is well-structured, outlining the limitations of existing Krylov methods, introducing the proposed GenKSR framework, and systematically validating it with both simulation and real hardware experiment. 2. The framework demonstrates a valuable extrapolation capability, successfully predicting energy convergence for larger Krylov dimensions than those it was trained on. 3. A significant strength is the validation of the model on a 20-qubit quantum processor, showing that GenKSR can
1. The paper frames GenKSR as a new paradigm. However, the core methodology—training a conditional generative model on quantum measurement data to predict properties—is a well-established technique that is to learn a classical distribution of the quantum state from a number of measurement results. The novelty merely lies in its application to the Krylov diagonalization process (i.e., conditioning on Hamiltonian parameters $x$ and evolution time $t_l$). 2. A justification for the work is the us
This paper is well written and has a very interesting core idea. It uses recent advances in generative modelling to tackle a very pertinent problem in quantum algorithms. I also like that they included some results from IBM's NISQ machine.
The main weakness I see is the lack of good experiments and comparisons with other methods. All the experiments in the paper are on 1D models. This is especailly concerning because the generative model used here also has a auto-regressive structure mimicking the 1D topology. Also, 1D models are pretty easily solvable using DMRG, making them uninteresting candidates for illustration. To make the results of the paper truly interesting, it has to be benchmarked on a suite of 2D problems. For the pr
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture · Machine Learning in Materials Science · Quantum many-body systems
