Quentir Medicine Monitor
Evidence-based insights for quantum medicine. Published by Quentir Systems LLC · November 12, 2026.
A medical physicist at Samsung Medical Center in Seoul has built a quantum circuit that simulates protons slowing down in tissue and has used it to test quantum amplitude estimation, the quantum method that promises to reach a given precision with far fewer samples than ordinary random sampling. The circuit worked in simulation. At the size a real treatment plan would need, it would cost about one million logical gates per call. Under the most favorable assumptions in the paper, that is 160 times more than a quantum computer could spend per call and still finish ahead of a graphics card.
Kwangzoo Chung, of the hospital's Department of Radiation Oncology and the paper's sole author, posted the work to arXiv on 10 November 2026 and has submitted it to Physics in Medicine & Biology. It has not yet been peer reviewed. For a radiation oncology department, the most useful part follows the circuit: three tests that any claim of quantum speed-up for Monte Carlo dose calculation has to pass, worked out with explicit numbers.
Proton therapy delivers most of its dose at the end of the beam's path, in a narrow region called the Bragg peak, and stops there. That property spares tissue behind the tumor, and it makes the exact range of the beam a safety question. Monte Carlo simulation, which follows millions of individual protons through a model of the patient, is the reference method for checking that range. Its error shrinks only with the square root of the number of simulated protons, so each extra decimal digit of precision costs a hundredfold more computing. Quantum amplitude estimation shrinks the error in proportion to the number of calls, a near-quadratic gain that Ashley Montanaro proved in 2015 for Monte Carlo methods whose output has bounded variance.
What Kwangzoo Chung built: a quantum walk that reproduces the Bragg peak
Earlier quantum proposals for radiation transport handled photons or neutral particles and carried no energy variable, so they could not represent how a proton loses energy step by step. Chung's circuit adds an energy register. At each step a fresh "coin" qubit, whose rotation depends on the proton's remaining energy, decides whether the proton loses one or two units of energy as it advances. Range straggling, the spread in where individual protons stop, then follows from the circuit itself.
In exact simulation on a classical computer, the circuit produced a Bragg-shaped depth profile that agreed with a classical Monte Carlo run of the same rules to within 0.27 percent. Chung then posed one clinically shaped question to it: the probability that a proton travels beyond a set depth near the distal edge of the beam. He estimated that probability with maximum-likelihood amplitude estimation on reduced instances of 11 and 14 qubits. The error fell almost in proportion to the number of calls, with a fitted exponent of 0.93 against 0.49 for ordinary sampling, and at the largest budget tested it was 4.8 times smaller than sampling at the same number of calls.
No quantum hardware was used and no noise was modeled. The physics is one-dimensional and leaves out multiple Coulomb scattering and nuclear interactions, both of which shape a clinical depth-dose curve. The model's ratio of peak dose to entrance dose cannot exceed 1.69, where measured proton curves reach roughly 3 to 5.
Why a full dose map fails the first test on any hardware
The first test concerns the shape of the answer. A treatment-planning system needs the dose in every voxel of the patient, on the order of a million values, and one batch of classical Monte Carlo histories fills all of them at once. Amplitude estimation returns one number per run, so a dose map needs a separate run for every voxel. On a grid of 128 by 128 by 128 voxels at a 1 percent target, Chung counts 7.0 billion oracle calls against the 10 million protons that a GPU dose engine described by Xun Jia, Harald Paganetti and colleagues in 2012 uses for about 1 percent relative statistical uncertainty, which the preprint cites at 6 to 22 seconds. The quantum route loses by a factor of 700, or 14 if only the 2 percent of voxels that carry high dose are scored. The two sides are not counted the same way: each quantum voxel is charged an absolute error while the GPU figure is a relative uncertainty, which the paper notes favors the quantum side, and the classical count uses the one-standard-deviation convention of dose reporting. Matching the classical count to the same 95 percent confidence as the quantum estimate lowers the factor of 700 to 181, and the paper reports that no conclusion changes.
This test counts calls only and uses no hardware parameter, so on the paper's accounting faster quantum computers do not change its outcome. Chung's conclusion is direct: full dose maps are not a target for amplitude estimation. The Padova and Veneto Institute of Oncology team whose qubit encoding of a prostate radiotherapy plan we covered on 6 November chose plan optimization as its target. That team also ran every computation on classical machines.
Quantum pillar: computing. Technology readiness: TRL 2 of 9. The method exists as a circuit design and a resource estimate tested only in classical simulation of a simplified one-dimensional beam, with no quantum hardware run, no patient data and no clinical study.
How the 1.0 million gate count rules out clinical scale for single range values
Single numbers such as a distal range value, a mean dose to a small organ or an input to a complication-risk model suit amplitude estimation better. The second test asks how many such numbers a plan needs. Classical Monte Carlo scores ten of them from the same batch; amplitude estimation repeats ten times. At a 1 percent target the quantum route is 13.3 times worse, and it only breaks even at an absolute error of about 0.0007 in the estimated probability, far finer than the 1 to 2 percent uncertainty at which clinical dose engines normally run.
The third test converts both sides to wall-clock time on an error-corrected quantum computer. Chung derives the cost of one oracle call from the circuit for a clinical geometry: about 1.0 million logical gates on 415 qubits, or 35 million once the error-correction cost of its rotations is counted. Against a classical engine running one million protons per second, the quantum route never draws level at any precision a dose calculation would use, even with a logical gate time of 0.1 microseconds, which the paper describes as roughly two orders of magnitude beyond current superconducting hardware. To break even at an absolute error of 0.00001 under that optimistic clock, the gate budget per call would have to fall to about 6,400, which is 160 times below the derived count and 5,400 times below the count with rotation costs included.
Recent hardware progress in error correction does not close this gap. Quantinuum's distance-7 color-code result of 19 October 2026 improved the logical error rate per round. Chung's third test turns on the number of logical gates per call and the time each one takes.
Where the cost sits, and which claims a hospital buyer can now check
The paper locates the excess. The energy-dependent coin takes 77 percent of the gates in each step and every arbitrary-angle rotation. Approximating it with eight linear segments and coarsening the depth grid to 5 millimeter bins cuts the count to about 240,000 gates per call, still 38 times above the break-even figure. Chung writes that the remaining factor will require "a different transport formulation, not a better implementation" of the present circuit.
Two classical comparisons limit what the estimation result shows. The one-dimensional model as built is itself a classical random walk, so an ordinary computer can calculate its depth distribution exactly, with no statistical error, in fewer than 13,000 simple updates; for that model exact calculation outperforms both sampling and amplitude estimation. The three tests therefore apply to the three-dimensional problem that the clinical-scale register sizes represent, where Monte Carlo sampling is the usual method, and the gate counts for that problem are an extrapolation from the one-dimensional circuit. Chung also notes an untested competitor in three dimensions. A deterministic Boltzmann solver for proton beams, published in 2025, computes depth doses in 5 to 11 milliseconds on a single processor, and the preprint does not compare amplitude estimation against it in three dimensions.
For range verification, the uncertainty that Harald Paganetti's 2012 review in Physics in Medicine & Biology identified as a central quality-assurance concern in proton therapy, the paper gives buyers specific questions to ask. A vendor or research partner offering quantum acceleration of dose calculation should state what single number it estimates and how many such numbers a plan needs, which classical method it beats, and how many logical gates one call costs at a stated gate time. Chung sets these out as a four-item checklist and observes that the first three questions involve no hardware assumption, so a proposal that fails one of them cannot be rescued by better machines. The paper itself mentions speed-up factors of 8 to 15 reported for radiotherapy dose estimation without such a resource statement, and calls them hard to evaluate.
Sources
Primary source: Kwangzoo Chung, Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, arXiv preprint 2611.13475 of 10 November 2026, submitted to Physics in Medicine & Biology. Also drawn on: Montanaro on quantum speed-up of Monte Carlo methods (2015), Jia, Paganetti and colleagues on GPU proton dose calculation (2012), Paganetti on range uncertainties in proton therapy (2012), and earlier Quentir coverage.