

“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.
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:

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].
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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
Quantum computing is increasingly moving from exploratory discussion to structured enterprise planning. As organizations begin to assess where and when quantum technologies may deliver real business impact, a new class of work is emerging: integrated roadmaps that connect algorithmic feasibility, hardware development, and commercial opportunity.
A recent white paper from SoftBank Corp. and Quantinuum represents one of the most comprehensive examples of this approach to date. Rather than treating quantum computing as a distant, abstract capability, the study constructs a detailed, quantitative framework for understanding how real-world use cases evolve as hardware matures—and what this means for enterprise strategy.
The SoftBank–Quantinuum white paper is broad in scope. It attempts to answer a fundamental question:
Which real-world problems can benefit from quantum computation, at what scale, with what accuracy requirements, and under what hardware conditions?
To address this, the study adopts a structured methodology that connects:
Two representative domains anchor the analysis:
These domains were selected because they combine industrial relevance with computational structures that scale poorly on classical systems but map naturally onto quantum approaches.
Quantum chemistry is closely tied to materials science, energy systems, and the development of sustainable technologies. TDA, by contrast, offers tools for understanding complex data structures in networks, finance, and large-scale systems—where identifying structure and anomalies is increasingly critical.
Together, they illustrate how quantum computing may create value across both deep scientific domains and high-impact data applications.
An important caveat is that the resulting roadmap assumes a widely-studied but inefficient error correcting code. As more error correcting codes come online, the resources required to run algorithms will shrink. That means that the timelines detailed in this work can be thought of as “worst case” scenarios, which adds to the value by setting out a clear limit.
A distinguishing feature of the work is its emphasis on implementation over abstraction. Rather than relying solely on theoretical models, the study explicitly constructs quantum circuits and executes them on Quantinuum’s Helios and H2 system.
A notable insight from the study is that quantum value creation will not follow a single linear path.
Instead, two complementary regimes are expected to emerge:
This dual-track structure is important: it shows that quantum computing is not a single “threshold technology,” but a spectrum of capabilities that unlock value at different stages of maturity.
The framework ultimately supports a broader strategic vision: the evolution of Quantum AI Data Centers—hybrid infrastructures where quantum processors operate alongside AI and classical HPC systems.
For enterprises, the implication is clear: quantum computing readiness is no longer about speculation. It is about structured preparation, disciplined modeling, and early engagement with the full stack of capabilities that will define the next generation of computational infrastructure.
Every year, The IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering – or IEEE Quantum Week – brings together engineers, scientists, researchers, students, and others to learn about advancements in quantum computing. This year’s conference, from September 13th - 18th in Toronto, Canada, will focus on translating research into real-world impact through the convergence of generative AI, distributed quantum systems, and quantum software engineering.
Throughout IEEE Quantum Week, our quantum experts will be on-site to share insights on upgrades to our hardware, enhancements to our software stack, our path to error correction, and more.
Meet our team at Booth #501 and join the below sessions to discover how Quantinuum is forging the path to fault-tolerant quantum computing with our integrated full-stack.
5:00 – 6:30pm | 800 Hall G
Quantum computing has passed the point where error correction is theoretical. What comes next depends on systems that hold logical performance steady and do real work at scale. On September 14th, join Quantinuum’s CEO Dr. Rajeeb Hazra for his keynote session on “Logically Speaking: The Next Era of Error Correction” where he will explore what the next era of quantum computing requires: shared definitions of logical performance, and benchmarks built on real workloads.
11:00 – 11:12am | Location: 601A/B
Workshop: QGenAI: Synergies between Quantum Computing and Generative Artificial Intelligence
Finding Compatible Datasets for Quantum Generative Modeling
Presenting Author: Chen-Yu Liu
1:00 – 1:20pm | Location: 701B
Workshop: Q3-Control: Integrated Systems for Quantum Computing, Sensing, and Networking
Cryo-ASICs for Scalable Control
Speaker: Dr. Patty Lee
2:30 – 3:30pm | Exhibit Hall (informal event)
Workshop: Q3-Control: Integrated Systems for Quantum Computing, Sensing, and Networking
The Quantum Spectrum
Speaker: Dr. Patty Lee
3:00 – 4:30pm | Location: 801A
Where Quantum-HPC Integration Actually Stands in 2026
Panelist: Neal Erickson
3:00 – 4:30pm | Location: 718A
From Research to Commercialization: Defining the Quantum Workforce for the Next Five Years
Panelist: Kortny Rolston-Duce
September 16th
10:00 – 11:30am | Location: 801B
Who Will Turn Quantum Computing into Value? Specialists, Domain Experts, and the Workforce Gap
Panelist: Enrico Rinaldi
10:00 – 11:30am | Location: 701B
International Workshop on Quantum Computing for Power Systems: From Optimization Algorithms to Grid-Scale Applications | Session 1
Organizer: Kortny Rolston-Duce
10:00 – 11:30am | Location: 714A
openQSE: Co-Designing the Quantum-HPC Software Stack from Applications to Control Systems | Session 1
Speaker: Neal Erickson
10:00 – 11:30am
The Impact of Qubit Connectivity on Quantum Advantage in Noisy IQP Circuits
Presenting Author: Leonardo Placidi
10:15 – 11:00 am | Location: 601A/B
Workshop: AI for Circuit Synthesis, Optimization, and Discovery
Automated near-term quantum algorithm discovery
Speaker: Konstantinos Meichanetzidis
11:00 – 11:15am | Location: 601A/B
Workshop: AI for Circuit Synthesis, Optimization, and Discovery
Fast Stabilizer State Preparation via AI-Optimized Graph Decimation
Presenting Author: Jasmine Brewer
1:00 – 1:15pm | Location: 601A/B
Workshop: AI for Circuit Synthesis, Optimization, and Discovery
Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Composition of Quantum Circuit Optimisation Passes
Speaker: Gabriel Matos
1:00 – 1:20am | 718B
Quantum Software 2.6: current challenges and headways in quantum software | Session 1
Quantum compilation and hybrid compilation
Speaker: Ross Duncan
1:00 – 2:30pm | Location: 714A
openQSE: Co-Designing the Quantum-HPC Software Stack from Applications to Control Systems | Session 2
Speaker: Phillipp Seitz
1:45 – 2:00pm | Location: 601A/B
Workshop: AI for Circuit Synthesis, Optimization, and Discovery
Graph-Theoretic Quantum Circuit Optimization with the ZX-Calculus and Gumbel AlphaZero
Speaker: Alexander Koziell-Pipe
2:00 – 2:15pm | Location: 601A/B
Workshop: AI for Circuit Synthesis, Optimization, and Discovery
Reusable Equivariant Neural Compilers for Matrix-Group Quantum Circuit Synthesis
Speaker: Richie Yeung
3:30 - 4:00pm | Location: 715B
Workshop: 4th Workshop on Quantum Computing for Natural Sciences: Technology and Applications
Quantum Algorithms
Speaker: Setso Metodi
10:00 – 11:30am | Location: 801B
Scalable QPU architectures
Panelist: Setso Metodi
AI + quantum computing: Quantinuum, NVIDIA, and Pfizer have combined transformer-based generative AI with quantum computing to automatically generate high-quality quantum chemistry circuits more efficiently than traditional optimization methods.
Practical pharma impact: The approach was used to prepare molecular ground states and validated on Quantinuum’s Helios hardware, demonstrating a path toward larger-scale computational chemistry and drug discovery.
Long-term vision: The team aims to build quantum foundation models that learn from increasingly complex quantum data, eventually enabling AI to design circuits for molecules too large for classical simulation.
Quantum computing has long promised a future that expands what we can do with compute — for example, in molecular simulation, materials discovery, or pharmaceuticals development. But between that promise and practical utility sits a stubborn bottleneck: quantum state preparation.
To run any algorithm on a quantum computer, you must first put the qubits in the right starting state. Think of it like setting up a Rube Goldberg machine- except in this case, you’re not sure exactly which initial setup will give you the results you want. This is what makes quantum state preparation so important: your choice of initial state dictates the accuracy and cost of the rest of the calculation.
We teamed up with NVIDIA and Pfizer to tackle this problem, with an eye towards developing meaningful industrial workflows. The result is a new generative quantum AI framework, called ADAPT-GQE, which we consider to be a canonical instance of GenQAI. ADAPT-GQE uses quantum data to train transformer models that ultimately synthesize quantum chemistry circuits faster, with better outcomes, in a sort of ‘virtuous cycle’.
Ultimately, this means we have developed a new interface between quantum computing and AI. By treating quantum circuit generation as a language modelling problem, we now have a system that can generate high-quality ground-state preparation circuits - with comparable or improved state preparation accuracy.
The goal of computational chemistry is to learn about chemical properties without performing expensive, time-consuming, and sometimes dangerous “wet-lab” experiments.
In principle, you can replace the majority of your physical experiments with computer simulations, saving billions of dollars and years of time.
In reality, computational chemistry is very tricky. To accurately simulate a chemical inside of a computer, you have to build it from the ground up. You start with a collection of atoms (in the case of imipramine, you have 19 Carbon atoms, 24 Hydrogen atoms, and 2 Nitrogen atoms). Then, like Nature’s ‘lego’, you assemble those atoms into a molecule: you set bond lengths, strengths, angles, interactions, and so on.
This is not straightforward: a single molecule can exist in many forms; with different angles, rotations, etc. We will call these different forms ‘conformations’.
Then, to actually estimate chemical properties, or to explore chemical reaction pathways, you have to reproduce the detailed physics that goes on at the atomic level: take your chosen conformation then figure out how each orbital is occupied, how the electrons are interacting with each other or the atomic nuclei, how is the addition of heat or a catalyst going to affect things.... it gets complicated, quickly.
Despite all this, computational chemistry is a powerhouse in pharmaceutical development. Right now, pharmaceutical companies save money and time by simulating as much as they can on computers, avoiding time consuming and expensive laboratory experiments. However, even with ~50 years of development, the existing classical methods have very real limitations.
This is where quantum computing comes in: this new computational paradigm can elide those limitations because it has many of the “hard parts” (like superposition or entanglement) natively encoded. Used correctly, quantum computing promises to break old barriers, further improving margins for pharma companies across the globe while contributing to meaningful, impactful, discoveries.
While quantum computational chemistry is one of the strongest candidates for near-term quantum advantage, current hardware is still in the earlier stages of development. With limited qubits and error rates, algorithm designers need to make every gate count, keep circuits shallow, and be able to tolerate some level of noise.
This is where generative AI enters the picture.
Instead of hand-designing chemistry circuits and laboriously experimenting to see how well they run, there is another idea: what if we trained an AI to solve the problems that quantum computational chemistry faces?
Using this approach, not only can we save time and resources; but we can shorten the timeline to realize practical results. With better state prep and other circuits, applications that were once considered far in the future come into view.
Our first attempt at this is called ADAPT-GQE. The central idea behind ADAPT-GQE is deceptively simple: instead of laboriously searching for good quantum circuits from scratch, train a transformer model to generate them directly.
Importantly, the framework is model-agnostic, which we showed by deploying it on complementary transformer architectures - Nemotron (a pretrained LLM) and Gemma (trained from scratch).
The initial goal here is to find the ‘ground state’ of the molecule imipramine (this is the electronic state with the smallest amount of energy stored inside it). To do this, you have to find the right ‘state preparation circuit’, as described above.
Until now, a leading method for finding the ground state with quantum computers was the ‘Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE)’, a hybrid quantum-classical approach. The VQE process starts with a ‘guess’ circuit for a particular conformation of the molecule. The quantum computer runs the circuit to measure the associated energy of the molecule. This result is fed back into a classical optimizer that then tweaks the circuit parameters, hopefully resulting in one with a lower molecular energy. This loop repeats until a minimum energy is found.
Unfortunately, VQE has a few severe limitations that make it infeasible for widespread use. The recently proposed ADAPT-VQE was a crucial step forward meant to address some of the issues with “plain” VQE. In ADAPT-VQE, instead of starting with a guess for the initial circuit, the process builds a circuit in steps by selecting operators from a pool(typically using gradient information) and optimizing. This approach can be more effective, but unfortunately still grows too large too quickly.
This is where the joint team jumped in.
Combining the best of all worlds, the team’s new framework, ADAPT-GQE, combines AI with the ADAPT-VQE to create something entirely new – and something that, so far, is a scalable, hardware-validated pathway toward automated quantum circuit synthesis.
First, transformers (in this case, Nemotron and Gemma) are trained via supervised fine-tuning on ADAPT-VQE data. In this way, the old method isn’t thrown away but is instead treated as a high-quality data-producing “oracle”.
Then, once the transformer has been initially trained, it defines a distribution over circuits, each one with some probability of corresponding to the ground state. This distribution can be used in a fine-tuning loop, for example, reinforcement learning. In reinforcement learning, the framework takes a circuit from that distribution, runs it, and measures the energy. It feeds the results back into the transformer, which adjusts its distribution. Over time, the model learns to prioritize circuits that prepare increasingly accurate ground states.
Crucially, reinforcement learning allows the system to surpass its original training data instead of merely imitating it. The model is no longer acting as a compressed lookup table for ADAPT-VQE. It begins exploring novel circuit configurations that may outperform the teacher algorithm itself. This is one of the most important conceptual shifts in the project.
In this case, instead of running all the initial circuits on Quantinuum’s Helios, the reinforcement learning circuits were run using NVIDIA accelerated computing and the CUDA-Q platform, simulating a quantum processor.
Finally, once the transformers are optimized via reinforcement learning, the best resulting circuits are validated for accuracy and feasibility, by running them using InQuanto and Nexus on Quantinuum’s newest hardware, Helios. With InQuanto v5.2, users can now interface directly with both the Helios quantum computer and the Selene quantum emulator through Nexus.
This powerful combination of InQuanto and Nexus enabled the execution one of the largest AI-generated quantum chemistry circuits to date on a quantum computer; helping to turn the promise of quantum computing into a practical tool for pharmaceutical development.
Looking farther in the future, the researchers envision something much larger than a single molecular benchmark.
For bigger and more complex molecules, ADAPT-VQE won’t work in the first place as the initial training “oracle”. In addition, the molecular energy calculations used in the reinforcement learning grow too large for classical systems simulating quantum computers, so the quantum processor becomes essential.
Luckily, this is not a problem. The ultimate goal of the ADAPT-GQE framework is to develop a “curriculum” for the transformers. This means instead of re-training them for every new molecule, you instead keep what you already learned, and expand your knowledge from there.
By initially teaching it on molecules that are smaller, and that can be fully simulated, you ensure it learns on good data that can be double checked using known methods. From there, you can carefully build up the complexity to see how the transformer learns. Eventually, you hope to train it on molecules that can’t be simulated classically, using purely quantum data, all the while getting closer to the complexity levels you’re chasing.
This penultimate result is called a ‘foundation model’, which is a massive AI neural network trained on vast, broad datasets that can be adapted to a wide variety of downstream tasks. In this case, the team is building the very ‘foundations’ of a model that can solve the ‘electronic structure problem’, which is the core computational challenge lying at the heart of quantum (and classical) computational chemistry.
What makes this work particularly interesting is that it treats quantum circuit generation as a language modeling problem: circuits become sequences, transformers learn distributions over those sequences, and reinforcement learning optimizes them against physical reward functions.
The result is an AI system capable of proposing quantum circuits that were never explicitly programmed by humans.
That does not mean generative AI is replacing physics or chemistry. Instead, it is becoming a new interface layer for navigating unimaginably large search spaces that traditional optimization methods struggle to explore efficiently.
For quantum chemistry, that could become transformative.
If successful, frameworks like ADAPT-GQE may eventually allow researchers to synthesize useful quantum circuits for molecular systems too large for classical computation, accelerating everything from materials discovery to pharmaceutical design.
The broader implication is difficult to ignore: foundation models may eventually extend beyond language, images, and code — and into the fabric of physical reality itself.