“Talking quantum circuits”
The central question that pre-occupies our team has been:
“How can quantum structures and quantum computers contribute to the effectiveness of AI?”
In previous work we have made notable advances in answering this question, and this article is based on our most recent work in the new papers [arXiv:2406.17583, arXiv:2408.06061], and most notably the experiment in [arXiv:2409.08777].
This article is one of a series that we will be publishing alongside further advances – advances that are accelerated by access to the most powerful quantum computers available.
Large language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are having an impact on society across many walks of life. However, as users have become more familiar with this new technology, they have also become increasingly aware of deep-seated and systemic problems that come with AI systems built around LLM’s.
The primary problem with LLMs is that nobody knows how they work - as inscrutable “black boxes” they aren’t “interpretable”, meaning we can’t reliably or efficiently control or predict their behavior. This is unacceptable in many situations. In addition, Modern LLMs are incredibly expensive to build and run, costing serious – and potentially unsustainable –amounts of power to train and use. This is why more and more organizations, governments, and regulators are insisting on solutions.
But how can we find these solutions, when we don’t fully understand what we are dealing with now?1
At Quantinuum, we have been working on natural language processing (NLP) using quantum computers for some time now. We are excited to have recently carried out experiments [arXiv: 2409.08777] which demonstrate not only how it is possible to train a model for a quantum computer in a scalable manner, but also how to do this in a way that is interpretable for us. Moreover, we have promising theoretical indications of the usefulness of quantum computers for interpretable NLP [arXiv:2408.06061].
In order to better understand why this could be the case, one needs to understand the ways in which meanings compose together throughout a story or narrative. Our work towards capturing them in a new model of language, which we call DisCoCirc, is reported on extensively in this previous blog post from 2023.
In new work referred to in this article, we embrace “compositional interpretability” as proposed in [arXiv:2406.17583] as a solution to the problems that plague current AI. In brief, compositional interpretability boils down to being able to assign a human friendly meaning, such as natural language, to the components of a model, and then being able to understand how they fit together2.
A problem currently inherent to quantum machine learning is that of being able to train at scale. We avoid this by making use of “compositional generalization”. This means we train small, on classical computers, and then at test time evaluate much larger examples on a quantum computer. There now exist quantum computers which are impossible to simulate classically. To train models for such computers, it seems that compositional generalization currently provides the only credible path.
1. Text as circuits
DisCoCirc is a circuit-based model for natural language that turns arbitrary text into “text circuits” [arXiv:1904.03478, arXiv:2301.10595, arXiv:2311.17892]. When we say that arbitrary text becomes ‘text-circuits’ we are converting the lines of text, which live in one dimension, into text-circuits which live in two-dimensions. These dimensions are the entities of the text versus the events in time.
To see how that works, consider the following story. In the beginning there is Alex and Beau. Alex meets Beau. Later, Chris shows up, and Beau marries Chris. Alex then kicks Beau.
The content of this story can be represented as the following circuit:
2. From text circuits to quantum circuits
Such a text circuit represents how the ‘actors’ in it interact with each other, and how their states evolve by doing so. Initially, we know nothing about Alex and Beau. Once Alex meets Beau, we know something about Alex and Beau’s interaction, then Beau marries Chris, and then Alex kicks Beau, so we know quite a bit more about all three, and in particular, how they relate to each other.
Let’s now take those circuits to be quantum circuits.
In the last section we will elaborate more why this could be a very good choice. For now it’s ok to understand that we simply follow the current paradigm of using vectors for meanings, in exactly the same way that this works in LLMs. Moreover, if we then also want to faithfully represent the compositional structure in language3, we can rely on theorem 5.49 from our book Picturing Quantum Processes, which informally can be stated as follows:
If the manner in which meanings of words (represented by vectors) compose obeys linguistic structure, then those vectors compose in exactly the same way as quantum systems compose.4
In short, a quantum implementation enables us to embrace compositional interpretability, as defined in our recent paper [arXiv:2406.17583].
3. Text circuits on our quantum computer
So, what have we done? And what does it mean?
We implemented a “question-answering” experiment on our Quantinuum quantum computers, for text circuits as described above. We know from our new paper [arXiv:2408.06061] that this is very hard to do on a classical computer due to the fact that as the size of the texts get bigger they very quickly become unrealistic to even try to do this on a classical computer, however powerful it might be. This is worth emphasizing. The experiment we have completed would scale exponentially using classical computers – to the point where the approach becomes intractable.
The experiment consisted of teaching (or training) the quantum computer to answer a question about a story, where both the story and question are presented as text-circuits. To test our model, we created longer stories in the same style as those used in training and questioned these. In our experiment, our stories were about people moving around, and we questioned the quantum computer about who was moving in the same direction at the end of the stories. A harder alternative one could imagine, would be having a murder mystery story and then asking the computer who was the murderer.
And remember - the training in our experiment constitutes the assigning of quantum states and gates to words that occur in the text.
4. Compositional generalization
The major reason for our excitement is that the training of our circuits enjoys compositional generalization. That is, we can do the training on small-scale ordinary computers, and do the testing, or asking the important questions, on quantum computers that can operate in ways not possible classically. Figure 4 shows how, despite only being trained on stories with up to 8 actors, the test accuracy remains high, even for much longer stories involving up to 30 actors.
Training large circuits directly in quantum machine learning, leads to difficulties which in many cases undo the potential advantage. Critically - compositional generalization allows us to bypass these issues.
5. Real-world comparison: ChatGPT
We can compare the results of our experiment on a quantum computer, to the success of a classical LLM ChatGPT (GPT-4) when asked the same questions.
What we are considering here is a story about a collection of characters that walk in a number of different directions, and sometimes follow each other. These are just some initial test examples, but it does show that this kind of reasoning is not particularly easy for LLMs.
The input to ChatGPT was:
What we got from ChatGPT:
Can you see where ChatGPT went wrong?
ChatGPT’s score (in terms of accuracy) oscillated around 50% (equivalent to random guessing). Our text circuits consistently outperformed ChatGPT on these tasks. Future work in this area would involve looking at prompt engineering – for example how the phrasing of the instructions can affect the output, and therefore the overall score.
Of course, we note that ChatGPT and other LLM’s will issue new versions that may or may not be marginally better with ‘question-answering’ tasks, and we also note that our own work may become far more effective as quantum computers rapidly become more powerful.
6. What’s next?
We have now turned our attention to work that will show that using vectors to represent meaning and requiring compositional interpretability for natural language takes us mathematically natively into the quantum formalism. This does not mean that there doesn't exist an efficient classical method for solving specific tasks, and it may be hard to prove traditional hardness results whenever there is some machine learning involved. This could be something we might have to come to terms with, just as in classical machine learning.
At Quantinuum we possess the most powerful quantum computers currently available. Our recently published roadmap is going to deliver more computationally powerful quantum computers in the short and medium term, as we extend our lead and push towards universal, fault tolerant quantum computers by the end of the decade. We expect to show even better (and larger scale) results when implementing our work on those machines. In short, we foresee a period of rapid innovation as powerful quantum computers that cannot be classically simulated become more readily available. This will likely be disruptive, as more and more use cases, including ones that we might not be currently thinking about, come into play.
Interestingly and intriguingly, we are also pioneering the use of powerful quantum computers in a hybrid system that has been described as a ‘quantum supercomputer’ where quantum computers, HPC and AI work together in an integrated fashion and look forward to using these systems to advance our work in language processing that can help solve the problem with LLM’s that we highlighted at the start of this article.
1 And where do we go next, when we don’t even understand what we are dealing with now? On previous occasions in the history of science and technology, when efficient models without a clear interpretation have been developed, such as the Babylonian lunar theory or Ptolemy’s model of epicycles, these initially highly successful technologies vanished, making way for something else.
2 Note that our conception of compositionality is more general than the usual one adopted in linguistics, which is due to Frege. A discussion can be found in [arXiv: 2110.05327].
3 For example, using pregroups here as linguistic structure, which are the cups and caps of PQP.
4 That is, using the tensor product of the corresponding vector spaces.
About Quantinuum
Quantinuum, the world’s largest integrated quantum company, pioneers powerful quantum computers and advanced software solutions. Quantinuum’s technology drives breakthroughs in materials discovery, cybersecurity, and next-gen quantum AI. With over 500 employees, including 370+ scientists and engineers, Quantinuum leads the quantum computing revolution across continents.
Typically, Quantum Error Detection (QED) is viewed as a short-term solution—a non-scalable, stop-gap until full fault tolerance is achieved at scale.
That’s just changed, thanks to a serendipitous discovery made by our team. Now, QED can be used in a much wider context than previously thought. Our team made this discovery while studying the contact process, which describes things like how diseases spread or how water permeates porous materials. In particular, our team was studying the quantum contact process (QCP), a problem they had tackled before, which helps physicists understand things like phase transitions. In the process (pun intended), they came across what senior advanced physicist, Eli Chertkov, described as “a surprising result.”
While examining the problem, the team realized that they could convert detected errors due to noisy hardware into random resets, a key part of the QCP, thus avoiding the exponentially costly overhead of post-selection normally expected in QED.
To understand this better, the team developed a new protocol in which the encoded, or logical, quantum circuit adapts to the noise generated by the quantum computer. They quickly realized that this method could be used to explore other classes of random circuits similar to the ones they were already studying.
The team put it all together on System Model H2 to run a complex simulation, and were surprised to find that they were able to achieve near break-even results, where the logically encoded circuit performed as well as its physical analog, thanks to their clever application of QED. Ultimately, this new protocol will allow QED codes to be used in a scalable way, saving considerable computational resources compared to full quantum error correction (QEC).
Researchers at the crossroads of quantum information, quantum simulation, and many-body physics will take interest in this protocol and use it as a springboard for inventing new use cases for QED.
Stay tuned for more, our team always has new tricks up their sleeves.
Learn mode about System Model H2 with this video:
By Konstantinos Meichanetzidis
When will quantum computers outperform classical ones?
This question has hovered over the field for decades, shaping billion-dollar investments and driving scientific debate.
The question has more meaning in context, as the answer depends on the problem at hand. We already have estimates of the quantum computing resources needed for Shor’s algorithm, which has a superpolynomial advantage for integer factoring over the best-known classical methods, threatening cryptographic protocols. Quantum simulation allows one to glean insights into exotic materials and chemical processes that classical machines struggle to capture, especially when strong correlations are present. But even within these examples, estimates change surprisingly often, carving years off expected timelines. And outside these famous cases, the map to quantum advantage is surprisingly hazy.
Researchers at Quantinuum have taken a fresh step toward drawing this map. In a new theoretical framework, Harry Buhrman, Niklas Galke, and Konstantinos Meichanetzidis introduce the concept of “queasy instances” (quantum easy) – problem instances that are comparatively easy for quantum computers but appear difficult for classical ones.
From Problem Classes to Problem Instances
Traditionally, computer scientists classify problems according to their worst-case difficulty. Consider the problem of Boolean satisfiability, or SAT, where one is given a set of variables (each can be assigned a 0 or a 1) and a set of constraints and must decide whether there exists a variable assignment that satisfies all the constraints. SAT is a canonical NP-complete problem, and so in the worst case, both classical and quantum algorithms are expected to perform badly, which means that the runtime scales exponentially with the number of variables. On the other hand, factoring is believed to be easier for quantum computers than for classical ones. But real-world computing doesn’t deal only in worst cases. Some instances of SAT are trivial; others are nightmares. The same is true for optimization problems in finance, chemistry, or logistics. What if quantum computers have an advantage not across all instances, but only for specific “pockets” of hard instances? This could be very valuable, but worst-case analysis is oblivious to this and declares that there is no quantum advantage.
To make that idea precise, the researchers turned to a tool from theoretical computer science: Kolmogorov complexity. This is a way of measuring how “regular” a string of bits is, based on the length of the shortest program that generates it. A simple string like 0000000000 can be described by a tiny program (“print ten zeros”), while the description of a program that generates a random string exhibiting no pattern is as long as the string itself. From there, the notion of instance complexity was developed: instead of asking “how hard is it to describe this string?”, we ask “how hard is it to solve this particular problem instance (represented by a string)?” For a given SAT formula, for example, its polynomial-time instance complexity is the size of the smallest program that runs in polynomial time and decides whether the formula is satisfiable. This smallest program must be consistently answering all other instances, and it is also allowed to declare “I don’t know”.
In their new work, the team extends this idea into the quantum realm by defining polynomial-time quantum instance complexity as the size of the shortest quantum program that solves a given instance and runs on polynomial time. This makes it possible to directly compare quantum and classical effort, in terms of program description length, on the very same problem instance. If the quantum description is significantly shorter than the classical one, that problem instance is one the researchers call “queasy”: quantum-easy and classically hard. These queasy instances are the precise places where quantum computers offer a provable advantage – and one that may be overlooked under a worst-case analysis.
Why “Queasy”?
The playful name captures the imbalance between classical and quantum effort. A queasy instance is one that makes classical algorithms struggle, i.e. their shortest descriptions of efficient programs that decide them are long and unwieldy, while a quantum computer can handle the same instance with a much simpler, faster, and shorter program. In other words, these instances make classical computers “queasy,” while quantum ones solve them efficiently and finding them quantum-easy. The key point of these definitions lies in demonstrating that they yield reasonable results for well-known optimisation problems.
By carefully analysing a mapping from the problem of integer factoring to SAT (which is possible because factoring is inside NP and SAT is NP-complete) the researchers prove that there exist infinitely many queasy SAT instances. SAT is one of the most central and well-studied problems in computer science that finds numerous applications in the real-world. The significant realisation that this theoretical framework highlights is that SAT is not expected to yield a blanket quantum advantage, but within it lie islands of queasiness – special cases where quantum algorithms decisively win.
Algorithmic Utility
Finding a queasy instance is exciting in itself, but there is more to this story. Surprisingly, within the new framework it is demonstrated that when a quantum algorithm solves a queasy instance, it does much more than solve that single case. Because the program that solves it is so compact, the same program can provably solve an exponentially large set of other instances, as well. Interestingly, the size of this set depends exponentially on the queasiness of the instance!
Think of it like discovering a special shortcut through a maze. Once you’ve found the trick, it doesn’t just solve that one path, but reveals a pattern that helps you solve many other similarly built mazes, too (even if not optimally). This property is called algorithmic utility, and it means that queasy instances are not isolated curiosities. Each one can open a doorway to a whole corridor with other doors, behind which quantum advantage might lie.
A North Star for the Field
Queasy instances are more than a mathematical curiosity; this is a new framework that provides a language for quantum advantage. Even though the quantities defined in the paper are theoretical, involving Turing machines and viewing programs as abstract bitstrings, they can be approximated in practice by taking an experimental and engineering approach. This work serves as a foundation for pursuing quantum advantage by targeting problem instances and proving that in principle this can be a fruitful endeavour.
The researchers see a parallel with the rise of machine learning. The idea of neural networks existed for decades along with small scale analogue and digital implementations, but only when GPUs enabled large-scale trial and error did they explode into practical use. Quantum computing, they suggest, is on the cusp of its own heuristic era. “Quristics” will be prominent in finding queasy instances, which have the right structure so that classical methods struggle but quantum algorithms can exploit, to eventually arrive at solutions to typical real-world problems. After all, quantum computing is well-suited for small-data big-compute problems, and our framework employs the concepts to quantify that; instance complexity captures both their size and the amount of compute required to solve them.
Most importantly, queasy instances shift the conversation. Instead of asking the broad question of when quantum computers will surpass classical ones, we can now rigorously ask where they do. The queasy framework provides a language and a compass for navigating the rugged and jagged computational landscape, pointing researchers, engineers, and industries toward quantum advantage.
From September 16th – 18th, Quantum World Congress (QWC) brought together visionaries, policymakers, researchers, investors, and students from across the globe to discuss the future of quantum computing in Tysons, Virginia.
Quantinuum is forging the path to universal, fully fault-tolerant quantum computing with our integrated full-stack. With our quantum experts were on site, we showcased the latest on Quantinuum Systems, the world’s highest-performing, commercially available quantum computers, our new software stack featuring the key additions of Guppy and Selene, our path to error correction, and more.
Highlights from QWC
Dr. Patty Lee Named the Industry Pioneer in Quantum
The Quantum Leadership Awards celebrate visionaries transforming quantum science into global impact. This year at QWC, Dr. Patty Lee, our Chief Scientist for Hardware Technology Development, was named the Industry Pioneer in Quantum! This honor celebrates her more than two decades of leadership in quantum computing and her pivotal role advancing the world’s leading trapped-ion systems. Watch the Award Ceremony here.
Keynote with Quantinuum's CEO, Dr. Rajeeb Hazra
At QWC 2024, Quantinuum’s President & CEO, Dr. Rajeeb “Raj” Hazra, took the stage to showcase our commitment to advancing quantum technologies through the unveiling of our roadmap to universal, fully fault-tolerant quantum computing by the end of this decade. This year at QWC 2025, Raj shared the progress we’ve made over the last year in advancing quantum computing on both commercial and technical fronts and exciting insights on what’s to come from Quantinuum. Access the full session here.
Panel Session: Policy Priorities for Responsible Quantum and AI
As part of the Track Sessions on Government & Security, Quantinuum’s Director of Government Relations, Ryan McKenney, discussed “Policy Priorities for Responsible Quantum and AI” with Jim Cook from Actions to Impact Strategies and Paul Stimers from Quantum Industry Coalition.
Fireside Chat: Establishing a Pro-Innovation Regulatory Framework
During the Track Session on Industry Advancement, Quantinuum’s Chief Legal Officer, Kaniah Konkoly-Thege, and Director of Government Relations, Ryan McKenney, discussed the importance of “Establishing a Pro-Innovation Regulatory Framework”.