������

‍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 [, ], and most notably the experiment in [].

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 ������, 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 [] 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 [].

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 .

In new work referred to in this article, we embrace “compositional interpretability” as proposed in [] 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” [, , ]. 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 [].

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 ������ quantum computers, for text circuits as described above. We know from our new paper [] 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 ������ 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 [].

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.