Rank candidate materials before any are made
The same measurement that ranked four photoresist formulations in the right order on a quantum processor applies to battery and lightweight materials, airframe and propulsion materials, formulation additives and excipients: candidates ranked with the energy gap each ranking rests on, before synthesis.
Impact
The problem
In every one of these industries the next candidate is chosen by making it and testing it: a pilot batch, a bench quarter, a coupon test. The energy differences that decide the ranking are often below what the test resolves.
Our approach
Candidate structures or active spaces are modelled with our chemistry solver and ranked on quantum hardware as same-run comparisons, so the machine’s shared errors cancel and the ranking holds at sub-percent energy differences. The measurement to date is on the photoresist screen; the other material classes are the same lane with the same status.
The evidence
- Formulation ranking: four of four in exact order, every energy difference within 0.3% (IBM Heron, 156 qubits).
- Energies read as frequencies: 0.0029% against 0.53% for the standard read on the same chip; same-run comparisons at 0.33 mHa against a 19.5 mHa median.
- Live with a formulation partner on long-acting injectables.
- Not claimed: a measured ranking on a battery, airframe or excipient set yet; those are the same lane, listed as live because the measurement is the same, with the first screen on your candidates as the engagement.
Status: Quantum hardware + Simulation. Ranking measured on quantum hardware on the photoresist screen; other material classes are the same lane and carry the same status until their own screen runs.