Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum reservoir computing in atomic lattices

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a uniform one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard chain with open boundaries performs quantum reservoir computing as well as or better than disordered systems, with the optimal dynamical regime depending on the task.

desk verdict A solid finite-size numerical study with a genuinely new observation—homogeneous open chains match or beat disordered ones—but the headline overstates the evidence and the Fock cutoff is checked too narrowly to support all regime rankings. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13401 v1 pith:4WUQNJGG submitted 2024-11-20 quant-ph

Guillem Llodrà , Pere Mujal , Roberta Zambrini , Gian Luca Giorgi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881V70
keywords quantumreservoircomputingBose-Hubbardmodeldisorder-freereservoirschaossuperfluid-Motttransitionshort-termmemoryNARMAtaskparitycheck
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that quantum reservoir computing does not need disorder: a one-dimensional chain of bosons described by the homogeneous Bose-Hubbard model, with open boundaries, can match or beat reservoirs with random couplings and more connected topologies. The right operating regime depends on the task: the quantum-chaotic regime (J/U ≈ 0.1) gives the best short-term memory and NARMA performance, while the superfluid regime (J/U ≫ 1) is better for the parity-check task; the Mott-insulator regime fails at memory tasks. Correctness would mean simpler, more practical QRC substrates in atomic lattices, with the dynamical regime—not disorder—as the main design lever. The paper also identifies the information dimension ⟨D̃1⟩ and the level-spacing ratio as diagnostics that track reservoir capability.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian H = -J Σ_j (b†_j b_{j+1} + h.c.) + (U/2) Σ_j n_j(n_j - 1), with the input injected by resetting the first site's state and the reservoir evolved as an erase-and-write CPTP map. Output is read from two sets of expectation values, ⟨a†_i a_j + h.c.⟩ and ⟨a†_i a_i a†_j a_j⟩, combined with temporal multiplexing into V = 10 virtual nodes. What carries the argument is the ratio J/U, which selects the dynamical regime, and the two chaoticity metrics ⟨r⟩ and ⟨D̃1⟩ that tie the regime to performance. The disorder comparison is made by randomizing couplings J_{j,j+1} with disorder strength δ = 0.3 and averaging over 10 realizations.

What would settle it

Re-run the NARMA(10) and parity-check tasks at J/U = 0.1 and in the superfluid regime with the cutoff raised to n_c = 4; if any reported capacity drops below the disordered chain's performance, the disorder-free ranking changes. Equivalently, measure the occupation probabilities after input injection: if sites with n > 3 carry non-negligible weight, the truncation is not exact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that optimal QRC performance can be achieved without relying on disordered systems, and specifically that for a one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard reservoir with open boundaries, introducing disorder in the coupling strength does not significantly enhance performance. Performance peaks are task-dependent: the quantum-chaotic phase (J/U = 0.1) excels at short-term memory and NARMA tasks, whereas the superfluid limit (J/U = $10^{3}$) is superior for the parity check. A homogeneous open chain outperforms both the periodic chain and the all-to-all network; for the periodic chain, disorder helps, but it cannot exceed the homogeneous open chain. The authors connect these capabilities to quantum-chaos diagnostics, especially the generalized fractal dimension ⟨D̃1⟩, which tracks the eigenstate spreading in Fock space.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results assume that a Fock-space cutoff of three particles per site reproduces exact dynamics, but this is verified only for one task (STM) at one interaction ratio (J/U = 0.1), leaving the other tasks, regimes, and topologies unchecked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Implementing QRC on a uniform optical lattice with open boundaries avoids the experimental difficulty of engineering random couplings.
  • Choosing J/U ≈ 0.1 for memory-heavy tasks and J/U ≫ 1 for nonlinear parity-type tasks gives a two-regime design rule.
  • The open-boundary homogeneous chain is a better substrate than periodic or all-to-all topologies for the tasks tested.
  • The correlation between ⟨D̃1⟩ and capacity suggests eigenstate multifractality can be used to pre-screen candidate reservoirs before running a full training protocol.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the disorder-free advantage may be a finite-size effect; the paper itself notes that larger reservoirs should be tested, and in the thermodynamic limit the homogeneous chain's symmetries could reduce feature independence.
  • Editorial inference: the erase-and-write scheme's dependence on the Fock cutoff suggests that for stronger interactions or larger inputs, higher occupancies may matter, so the reported regime rankings should be rechecked with a higher cutoff before experimental adoption.
  • Editorial inference: the same regime-diagnostic link (⟨r⟩, ⟨D̃1⟩) could be exported to other many-body reservoirs, such as Rydberg atom arrays, to predict whether they need disorder.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum reservoir computer based on a one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard chain with homogeneous couplings and open boundary conditions. An input is injected by resetting the first site to a superposition state, the chain evolves under the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian, and a ridge-regression readout is trained on time-multiplexed expectation values. The authors benchmark the reservoir on STM, parity check, and NARMA tasks and compare three dynamical regimes (Mott, chaotic, superfluid) as well as open, periodic, disordered, and all-to-all topologies. Their central claims are that the optimal regime is task-dependent (chaotic for STM/NARMA, superfluid for parity check) and that disorder, while helpful for periodic chains, does not significantly improve an open chain, so optimal performance in QRC can be achieved without relying on disordered systems.

Significance. The question is timely and the results, if correct, would challenge a common design heuristic in QRC. The protocol is specified in enough detail to be reproduced, the comparison with chaos indicators (<r> and <D1>) is a useful diagnostic, and the paper honestly reports finite-measurement noise and a limited cutoff check. The main limitations are that the numerical support covers only small systems (N=5-7) and that the central no-disorder conclusion rests on a narrow set of hyperparameters and a single disorder strength. The truncation concern is specific and fixable; if the additional checks confirm the present trends, the paper would be a valuable contribution to the QRC literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Fig. A2] The claim that the Fock-space cutoff n_c=3 is sufficient to accurately describe the exact evolution is supported only by an STM comparison between n_c=3 and n_c=4 at J/U=0.1 for open and periodic chains. Every reported capacity in Figs. 3-11 uses n_c=3, including the parity check and NARMA tasks, the disordered-chain averages, the all-to-all topology, and the superfluid (J/U=10^3) and Mott (J/U=10^-3) regimes. Because the input-injection map in Eq. (3) does not conserve total boson number, repeated injections can populate higher Fock states; in the superfluid regime, where U is small, states with n>=4 are energetically close to the truncated subspace and their neglect could bias exactly the regime ranking that the paper claims (e.g., superfluid vs chaotic in Fig. 7). Please extend the cutoff convergence test to the parity and NARMA tasks, to a disordered realization, and to the extreme J/U regimes, or provide direct evidence (e.g., the probability of occupations n>3) that the truncation error is negligible throughout.
  2. [Secs. IV.A-C and Fig. 7] The central negative result that disorder does not significantly enhance performance for open chains rests on a single disorder strength delta=0.3, 10 realizations, N=5-7 atoms, and three tasks, with no statistical test or effect-size statement. The error bars shown for the disorder sweep in Fig. 11 (for periodic vs open, delta up to 0.75) reveal considerable overlap at high disorder, which underscores how little power the delta=0.3 comparison has. Please report confidence intervals for the homogeneous-vs-disordered differences in Figs. 3b, 5b, 6, and 7, and ideally scan delta and system size; without this, the claim that disorder is unnecessary is an extrapolation beyond the shown data.
  3. [Fig. 3b and Sec. IV.A] The evolution time Delta t in [1,10] is optimized per regime and per task to achieve the best performance, but it is not stated whether Delta t was re-optimized for the disordered chain and for each disorder realization. If the same Delta t that is optimal for the homogeneous chain was used for the averaged disordered curves, part of the observed performance difference could simply be a suboptimal choice of hyperparameter for the disordered reservoir. Please state the protocol explicitly and, if Delta t was fixed, re-run the disorder comparison with Delta t optimized per realization (or at least per disorder strength).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VII] The concluding section refers to Bose-Habbard chains; this should read Bose-Hubbard.
  2. [Figs. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10] The disorder strength is denoted delta in Sec. IV and Fig. 3 but D in Figs. 6, 7, 9, and 10; please unify the notation.
  3. [Appendix B] The heading contains a typo ('V alidty') and the manuscript inconsistently uses both 'cut-off' and 'cutoff'; please standardize.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The sentence 'At tau=9 both performances reach C=0.35 after rounding up the third decimal point' is unclear and appears to be a leftover note; please remove or explain its purpose.
  5. [Sec. III.A] The delocalized ground state |psi>_C is written for a fixed total particle number, whereas the QRC protocol in Eq. (3) does not conserve particle number; the sentence should be phrased as an illustrative limit rather than an exact description of the reservoir state.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; central results are independent numerical benchmarks, with a robustness caveat on the Fock cutoff validation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The Bose-Hubbard reservoir is fixed (Eq. 1) and the QRC protocol (Eq. 3) is a standard erase-and-reset map; the only tuned parameter is the evolution time Δt, a conventional hyperparameter, and no Hamiltonian parameter is fitted to task targets. The chaos markers ⟨r⟩ and ⟨D1⟩ are taken from independent spectral analyses (Pausch et al., Refs. [71,72]) and are compared post hoc to task capacities, so the performance claims do not reduce to the markers. Self-citations such as [47], [48], and [92] are contextual; the load-bearing prior is Fujii and Nakajima's QRC scheme [36], which is external, and the chaotic-phase characterization is external. The paper's own stated limitation is that the n_c=3 Fock cutoff is validated only for the STM task at J/U=0.1 (Appendix B, Fig. A2), leaving parity, NARMA, disorder, superfluid/Mott, and all-to-all results dependent on an untested truncation; this is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 1 reflects the absence of load-bearing circularity despite minor self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard QRC protocol ingredients (erase-and-write input, linear readout, ridge regression) plus the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian. No new physical entities are introduced. The main hand-set quantities are the time step Delta_t (optimized per regime), the Fock cutoff, the disorder strength, and readout hyperparameters. The chaos-to-performance link inherits the static spectral analysis of Pausch et al. and assumes it carries over to the driven, open, finite-size reservoir.

free parameters (5)
  • Evolution time step Delta_t = Optimized within [1, 10] per regime, e.g. 10 for J/U=0.1 and 1 for J/U=10^3 in Fig. 4
    Controls how far input information spreads before the next reset; tuned to maximize task capacity, so part of the reported performance is optimized.
  • Fock cutoff n_c = 3, checked against 4 in Appendix B
    Truncates the infinite bosonic Hilbert space; necessary for simulation and validated only for STM at J/U=0.1.
  • Ridge regularization beta = 0.01
    Standard readout regularization; small effect on reported comparisons.
  • Virtual nodes V = 10
    Temporal multiplexing hyperparameter from Ref. [36]; fixed across results.
  • Disorder strength delta = 0.3 for open and periodic comparisons; also 0.75 in Fig. 11
    Coupling disorder sampled uniformly in [J(1-delta), J(1+delta)]; the no-disorder-advantage conclusion is tested only at this strength for the open chain.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with nearest-neighbor hopping and on-site repulsion governs the atomic lattice reservoir.
    Section II; standard optical-lattice model, but the paper does not include an experimental parameter mapping or noise channels.
  • domain assumption The erase-and-write update in Eq. (3), resetting site 1 to |psi_k> and tracing out its previous state, is a faithful CPTP description.
    Section III; assumes perfect state preparation and no measurement backaction beyond the partial trace.
  • domain assumption GOE/Poisson level-spacing statistics and the information dimension D1 of static eigenstates identify the dynamical regimes relevant for QRC.
    Section II and Fig. 1; static spectral markers are assumed to transfer to the driven, open reservoir used in the tasks.
  • ad hoc to paper Fock-space cutoff n_c=3 reproduces exact dynamics in all reported settings.
    Appendix B, Fig. A2; validated for STM at J/U=0.1, but assumed for PC, NARMA, disorder, and all-to-all cases.
  • domain assumption A linear readout trained by ridge regression with beta=0.01 is sufficient to extract task solutions from reservoir features.
    Section III, Eq. (5); standard QRC practice, not re-derived here.
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanical Born-rule expectation values and a central-limit measurement noise model with sigma=1/sqrt(N_m).
    Section V, Eq. (12); used for finite-measurement simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum reservoir computing in atomic lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WUQNJGG

@misc{pith2026241113401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum reservoir computing in atomic lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WUQNJGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13401}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum reservoir computing (QRC) exploits the dynamical properties of quantum systems to perform machine learning tasks. We demonstrate that optimal performance in QRC can be achieved without relying on disordered systems. Systems with all-to-all topologies and random couplings are generally considered to minimize redundancies and enhance performance. In contrast, our work investigates the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model with homogeneous couplings, where a chaotic phase arises from the interplay between coupling and interaction terms. Interestingly, we find that performance in different tasks can be enhanced either in the chaotic regime or in the weak interaction limit. Our findings challenge conventional design principles and indicate the potential for simpler and more efficient QRC implementations tailored to specific tasks in Bose-Hubbard lattices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13401 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We will see that this behavior has important [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of the Quantum Reservoir Computing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. FIG. 9. Performance overview of all tasks for a one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Performance overview of the linear STM task for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum Reservoir Computing: Recent Advances and Future Directions

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A comprehensive survey of quantum reservoir computing that proposes a common system model, a memory-architecture taxonomy, and resource-accounting standards, concluding that no broad quantum advantage is currently dem...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable supercon- ducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Quantum computational ad- vantage using photons

    Han-Sen Zhong, Hui Wang, Yu-Hao Deng, Ming-Cheng Chen, Li-Chao Peng, Yi-Han Luo, Jian Qin, Dian Wu, Xing Ding, Yi Hu, et al. Quantum computational ad- vantage using photons. Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Quantum computa- tional advantage with a programmable photonic pro- cessor

    Lars S Madsen, Fabian Laudenbach, Mohsen Falamarzi Askarani, Fabien Rortais, Trevor Vincent, Jacob FF Bulmer, Filippo M Miatto, Leonhard Neuhaus, Lukas G Helt, Matthew J Collins, et al. Quantum computa- tional advantage with a programmable photonic pro- cessor. Nature, 606(7912):75–81, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms

    Kishor Bharti, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Thi Ha Kyaw, Tobias Haug, Sumner Alperin-Lea, Abhinav Anand, Matthias Degroote, Hermanni Heimonen, Jakob S Kottmann, Tim Menke, et al. Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms. Reviews of Modern Physics , 94(1):015004, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Journal on Computing , 26(5):1484– 1509, 1997

    1997

  7. [7]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Comput- ing, STOC ’96, page 212–219, New York, NY, USA,

  8. [8]

    Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Si- mon C

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Si- mon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jar- rod R. McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Variational quantum al- gorithms. Nature Reviews Physics , 3(9):625–644, Sep 2021

    2021

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R

    Martin Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Kunal Sharma, Jacob Biamonte, Patrick J. Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R. McClean, Zo¨ e Holmes, and M. Cerezo. A review of barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Engineered dissipation to mitigate barren plateaus, 2023

    Antonio Sannia, Francesco Tacchino, Ivano Tavernelli, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. Engineered dissipation to mitigate barren plateaus, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Richard P. Feynman. Simulating physics with com- puters. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 21(6):467–488, Jun 1982

    1982

  4. [12]

    Brown, Giuseppe Car- leo, Lincoln D

    Ehud Altman, Kenneth R. Brown, Giuseppe Car- leo, Lincoln D. Carr, Eugene Demler, Cheng Chin, Brian DeMarco, Sophia E. Economou, Mark A. Eriks- son, Kai-Mei C. Fu, Markus Greiner, Kaden R.A. Hazzard, Randall G. Hulet, Alicia J. Koll´ ar, Ben- jamin L. Lev, Mikhail D. Lukin, Ru...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Practical quantum advantage in quan- tum simulation

    Andrew J Daley, Immanuel Bloch, Christian Kokail, Stuart Flannigan, Natalie Pearson, Matthias Troyer, and Peter Zoller. Practical quantum advantage in quan- tum simulation. Nature, 607(7920):667–676, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Quantum advantage and stability to errors in analogue quantum simulators

    Rahul Trivedi, Adrian Franco Rubio, and J Ignacio Cirac. Quantum advantage and stability to errors in analogue quantum simulators. Nature Communications, 15(1):6507, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and fu- ture challenges

    Benedikt Fauseweh. Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and fu- ture challenges. Nature Communications , 15(1):2123, Mar 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Bose- einstein condensation: A platform for quantum simula- tion experiments

    Yoshihisa Yamamoto and Yoshiro Takahashi. Bose- einstein condensation: A platform for quantum simula- tion experiments. In Principles and Methods of Quan- tum Information Technologies, pages 265–307. Springer, 2016. 12

    2016

  9. [17]

    Many-body physics with ultracold gases

    Immanuel Bloch, Jean Dalibard, and Wilhelm Zwerger. Many-body physics with ultracold gases. Rev. Mod. Phys., 80:885–964, Jul 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    On the theory of superfluidity

    N Bogoliubov. On the theory of superfluidity. J. Phys , 11(1):23, 1947

    1947

  11. [19]

    The theory of superfluidity of helium ii

    Lev Landau. The theory of superfluidity of helium ii. In An Introduction to the Theory of Superfluidity, pages 185–204. CRC Press, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Obser- vation of anisotropic superfluid density in an artificial crystal

    Junheng Tao, Mingshu Zhao, and IB Spielman. Obser- vation of anisotropic superfluid density in an artificial crystal. Physical Review Letters, 131(16):163401, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Superfluid fraction in an interacting spatially modulated bose-einstein condensate

    G Chauveau, C Maury, F Rabec, C Heintze, G Brochier, S Nascimbene, J Dalibard, J Beugnon, SM Roccuzzo, and S Stringari. Superfluid fraction in an interacting spatially modulated bose-einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 130(22):226003, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Vortex dynamics in the two-dimensional bcs-bec crossover

    Max Heyl, Kyosuke Adachi, Yuki M Itahashi, Yuji Nakagawa, Yuichi Kasahara, Emil JW List-Kratochvil, Yusuke Kato, and Yoshihiro Iwasa. Vortex dynamics in the two-dimensional bcs-bec crossover. Nature Commu- nications, 13(1):6986, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Crossover from bardeen-cooper-schrieffer to bose-einstein condensation and the unitary fermi gas

    Mohit Randeria and Edward Taylor. Crossover from bardeen-cooper-schrieffer to bose-einstein condensation and the unitary fermi gas. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys., 5(1):209–232, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Out-of- equilibrium states and quasi-many-body localization in polar lattice gases

    L Barbiero, C Menotti, A Recati, and L Santos. Out-of- equilibrium states and quasi-many-body localization in polar lattice gases. Physical Review B , 92(18):180406, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Many-body dynamical delocaliza- tion in a kicked one-dimensional ultracold gas

    Jun Hui See Toh, Katherine C McCormick, Xinxin Tang, Ying Su, Xi-Wang Luo, Chuanwei Zhang, and Subhadeep Gupta. Many-body dynamical delocaliza- tion in a kicked one-dimensional ultracold gas. Nature Physics, 18(11):1297–1301, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Chisholm, Elettra Neri, Cesar R

    Anika Fr¨ olian, Craig S. Chisholm, Elettra Neri, Cesar R. Cabrera, Ram´ on Ramos, Alessio Celi, and Leticia Tar- ruell. Realizing a 1d topological gauge theory in an optically dressed bec. Nature, 608(7922):293–297, Aug 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    A strontium quantum-gas microscope

    Sandra Buob, Jonatan H¨ oschele, Vasiliy Makhalov, An- tonio Rubio-Abadal, and Leticia Tarruell. A strontium quantum-gas microscope. PRX Quantum , 5:020316, Apr 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Christian Gross and Waseem S. Bakr. Quantum gas microscopy for single atom and spin detection. Nature Physics, 17(12):1316–1323, Dec 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Laustsen, Robert Heck, Romain M¨ uller, Jan J

    Ott´ o El ´ ıasson, Jens S. Laustsen, Robert Heck, Romain M¨ uller, Jan J. Arlt, Carrie A. Weidner, and Jacob F. Sherson. Spatial tomography of individual atoms in a quantum gas microscope. Phys. Rev. A , 102:053311, Nov 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold-atom quantum simulators

    Stefan Kuhr. Quantum-gas microscopes: a new tool for cold-atom quantum simulators. National Science Re- view, 3(2):170–172, 04 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Preiss, Ruichao Ma, M

    Philipp M. Preiss, Ruichao Ma, M. Eric Tai, Jonathan Simon, and Markus Greiner. Quantum gas microscopy with spin, atom-number, and multilayer readout. Phys. Rev. A, 91:041602, Apr 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Bakr, Jonathon I

    Waseem S. Bakr, Jonathon I. Gillen, Amy Peng, Simon F¨ olling, and Markus Greiner. A quantum gas micro- scope for detecting single atoms in a hubbard-regime optical lattice. Nature, 462(7269):74–77, Nov 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Unconventional computing 2007

    Andrew Adamatzky, Larry Bull, and B De Lacy Costello. Unconventional computing 2007 . Luniver Press, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Quantum neu- romorphic computing

    Danijela Markovi´ c and Julie Grollier. Quantum neu- romorphic computing. Applied physics letters , 117(15), 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Opportunities in quantum reser- voir computing and extreme learning machines

    Pere Mujal, Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Johannes Nokkala, Jorge Garc ´ ıa-Beni, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini. Opportunities in quantum reser- voir computing and extreme learning machines. Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies, 4(8):2100027, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine learning

    Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima. Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine learning. Physical Review Applied, 8(2):024030, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: A re- view

    Gouhei Tanaka, Toshiyuki Yamane, Jean Benoit H´ eroux, Ryosho Nakane, Naoki Kanazawa, Seiji Takeda, Hidetoshi Numata, Daiju Nakano, and Akira Hirose. Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: A re- view. Neural Networks, 115:100–123, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Physical reservoir computing—an in- troductory perspective

    Kohei Nakajima. Physical reservoir computing—an in- troductory perspective. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 59(6):060501, may 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Reservoir computing

    Kohei Nakajima and Ingo Fischer. Reservoir computing. Springer, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    echo state

    Herbert Jaeger. The “echo state” approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks-with an erratum note. Bonn, Germany: German National Research Cen- ter for Information Technology GMD Technical Report , 148(34):13, 2001

    2001

  33. [41]

    Echo state networks are universal

    Lyudmila Grigoryeva and Juan-Pablo Ortega. Echo state networks are universal. Neural Networks, 108:495– 508, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Dissi- pation as a resource for quantum reservoir computing

    Antonio Sannia, Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Miguel C So- riano, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. Dissi- pation as a resource for quantum reservoir computing. Quantum, 8:1291, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Gaussian states of continuous-variable quan- tum systems provide universal and versatile reservoir computing

    Johannes Nokkala, Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Gian Luca Giorgi, Valentina Parigi, Miguel C Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini. Gaussian states of continuous-variable quan- tum systems provide universal and versatile reservoir computing. Communications Physics, 4(1):53, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Quan- tum reservoir computing in finite dimensions

    Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na and Juan-Pablo Ortega. Quan- tum reservoir computing in finite dimensions. Phys. Rev. E, 107:035306, Mar 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Analytical evidence of nonlinearity in qubits and continuous-variable quantum reservoir computing

    Pere Mujal, Johannes Nokkala, Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C Soriano, and Roberta Zam- brini. Analytical evidence of nonlinearity in qubits and continuous-variable quantum reservoir computing. Journal of Physics: Complexity , 2(4):045008, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Nonlinear input transformations are ubiquitous in quantum reservoir computing

    L C G Govia, G J Ribeill, G E Rowlands, and T A Ohki. Nonlinear input transformations are ubiquitous in quantum reservoir computing. Neuromorphic Com- puting and Engineering , 2(1):014008, feb 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Dy- namical phase transitions in quantum reservoir comput- ing

    Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Gian Luca Giorgi, Johannes Nokkala, Miguel C Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini. Dy- namical phase transitions in quantum reservoir comput- ing. Physical Review Letters, 127(10):100502, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    In- formation processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems

    Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Johannes Nokkala, Gian Luca Giorgi, Roberta Zambrini, and Miguel C Soriano. In- formation processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems. Cognitive Computation , pages 1–12, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Retrieving past quantum features with deep hybrid classical-quantum reservoir computing

    Johannes Nokkala, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. Retrieving past quantum features with deep hybrid classical-quantum reservoir computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16961, 2024. 13

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    chaotic [51] or financial [52–54] time series predic- tions. Examples of static tasks, that can be realized also in absence of internal memory –a setting known as Quantum Extreme Learning Machine (QELM)– are entanglement detection [55] or ground-state finding [56] among others...

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Higher- order quantum reservoir computing

    Quoc Hoan Tran and Kohei Nakajima. Higher- order quantum reservoir computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08999, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Optimizing quantum noise-induced reservoir computing for nonlin- ear and chaotic time series prediction

    Daniel Fry, Amol Deshmukh, Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, Vladimir Rastunkov, and Vanio Markov. Optimizing quantum noise-induced reservoir computing for nonlin- ear and chaotic time series prediction. Scientific Re- ports, 13(1):19326, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Anticipating food price crises by reser- voir computing

    Laia Domingo, Mar Grande, Florentino Borondo, and Javier Borondo. Anticipating food price crises by reser- voir computing. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 174:113854, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Config- ured quantum reservoir computing for multi-task ma- chine learning

    Wei Xia, Jie Zou, Xingze Qiu, Feng Chen, Bing Zhu, Chunhe Li, Dong-Ling Deng, and Xiaopeng Li. Config- ured quantum reservoir computing for multi-task ma- chine learning. Science Bulletin , 68(20):2321–2329, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Quantum reservoir processing

    Sanjib Ghosh, Andrzej Opala, Micha l Matuszewski, Tomasz Paterek, and Timothy CH Liew. Quantum reservoir processing. npj Quantum Information, 5(1):35, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Op- timizing a quantum reservoir computer for time series prediction

    Aki Kutvonen, Keisuke Fujii, and Takahiro Sagawa. Op- timizing a quantum reservoir computer for time series prediction. Scientific reports, 10(1):14687, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Machine learning with controllable quantum dynamics of a nuclear spin ensemble in a solid

    Makoto Negoro, Kosuke Mitarai, Keisuke Fujii, Kohei Nakajima, and Masahiro Kitagawa. Machine learning with controllable quantum dynamics of a nuclear spin ensemble in a solid. arXiv:1806.10910, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Quantum reservoir computing for speckle disorder potentials

    Pere Mujal. Quantum reservoir computing for speckle disorder potentials. Condensed Matter, 7(1):17, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Pradel, Kenji Yasuoka, and Naoki Yamamoto

    Yudai Suzuki, Qi Gao, Ken C. Pradel, Kenji Yasuoka, and Naoki Yamamoto. Natural quantum reservoir com- puting for temporal information processing. Scientific Reports, 12(1):1353, Jan 2022

    2022

  52. [60]

    Nurdin, and Naoki Yamamoto

    Jiayin Chen, Hendra I. Nurdin, and Naoki Yamamoto. Temporal information processing on noisy quantum computers. Phys. Rev. Appl. , 14:024065, Aug 2020

    2020

  53. [61]

    Quantum reservoir computing with repeated measure- ments on superconducting devices

    Toshiki Yasuda, Yudai Suzuki, Tomoyuki Kubota, Kohei Nakajima, Qi Gao, Wenlong Zhang, Satoshi Shimono, Hendra I Nurdin, and Naoki Yamamoto. Quantum reservoir computing with repeated measure- ments on superconducting devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06706, 2023

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Temporal information processing induced by quantum noise

    Tomoyuki Kubota, Yudai Suzuki, Shumpei Kobayashi, Quoc Hoan Tran, Naoki Yamamoto, and Kohei Naka- jima. Temporal information processing induced by quantum noise. Phys. Rev. Res. , 5:023057, Apr 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Massimo Palma, Alessandro Ferraro, and Mauro Paternostro

    Alessia Suprano, Danilo Zia, Luca Innocenti, Salva- tore Lorenzo, Valeria Cimini, Taira Giordani, Ivan Palmisano, Emanuele Polino, Nicol` o Spagnolo, Fabio Sciarrino, G. Massimo Palma, Alessandro Ferraro, and Mauro Paternostro. Experimental property reconstruc- tion in a photo...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Microwave signal processing using an analog quantum reservoir computer

    Alen Senanian, Sridhar Prabhu, Vladimir Kremenetski, Saswata Roy, Yingkang Cao, Jeremy Kline, Tatsuhiro Onodera, Logan G Wright, Xiaodi Wu, Valla Fatemi, et al. Microwave signal processing using an analog quantum reservoir computer. Nature Communications, 15(1):7490, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Cantu, Hengyun Zhou, Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Kevin Bagnall, James I

    Milan Kornjaˇ ca, Hong-Ye Hu, Chen Zhao, Jonathan Wurtz, Phillip Weinberg, Majd Hamdan, Andrii Zh- danov, Sergio H. Cantu, Hengyun Zhou, Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Kevin Bagnall, James I. Basham, Joseph Campo, Adam Choukri, Robert DeAngelo, Paige Fred- erick, David Haines, Julian H...

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Khadijeh Najafi, Xun Gao, and Susanne F. Yelin. Quantum reservoir computing using arrays of rydberg atoms. PRX Quantum, 3:030325, Aug 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    H¨ ansch, and Immanuel Bloch

    Markus Greiner, Olaf Mandel, Tilman Esslinger, Theodor W. H¨ ansch, and Immanuel Bloch. Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms. Nature, 415(6867):39–44, Jan 2002

    2002

  60. [68]

    Matthew P. A. Fisher, Peter B. Weichman, G. Grin- stein, and Daniel S. Fisher. Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition. Phys. Rev. B , 40:546– 570, Jul 1989

    1989

  61. [69]

    Sherson, Christof Weitenberg, Manuel En- dres, Marc Cheneau, Immanuel Bloch, and Stefan Kuhr

    Jacob F. Sherson, Christof Weitenberg, Manuel En- dres, Marc Cheneau, Immanuel Bloch, and Stefan Kuhr. Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic mott insulator. Nature, 467(7311):68–72, Sep 2010

    2010

  62. [70]

    W. S. Bakr, A. Peng, M. E. Tai, R. Ma, J. Simon, J. I. Gillen, S. F¨ olling, L. Pollet, and M. Greiner. Prob- ing the superfluid–to–mott insulator transition at the single-atom level. Science, 329(5991):547–550, 2010

    2010

  63. [71]

    Chaos and ergodicity across the energy spectrum of interacting bosons

    Lukas Pausch, Edoardo G Carnio, Alberto Rodr ´ ıguez, and Andreas Buchleitner. Chaos and ergodicity across the energy spectrum of interacting bosons. Physical Re- view Letters, 126(15):150601, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    Observation of the mott insulator to superfluid crossover of a driven- dissipative bose-hubbard system

    Takafumi Tomita, Shuta Nakajima, Ippei Danshita, Yosuke Takasu, and Yoshiro Takahashi. Observation of the mott insulator to superfluid crossover of a driven- dissipative bose-hubbard system. Science Advances , 3(12), December 2017

    2017

  65. [73]

    Reservoir computing quality: connectivity and topology

    Matthew Dale, Simon O’Keefe, Angelika Sebald, Susan Stepney, and Martin A Trefzer. Reservoir computing quality: connectivity and topology. Natural Computing, 20:205–216, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Chaos in the bose–hubbard model and random two-body hamiltonians

    Lukas Pausch, Edoardo G Carnio, Andreas Buchleit- ner, and Alberto Rodr ´ ıguez. Chaos in the bose–hubbard model and random two-body hamiltonians. New Jour- nal of Physics , 23(12):123036, dec 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Forecasting chaotic systems with very low connec- tivity reservoir computers

    Aaron Griffith, Andrew Pomerance, and Daniel J Gau- thier. Forecasting chaotic systems with very low connec- tivity reservoir computers. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 29(12), 2019

    2019

  68. [76]

    Reservoir computing using networks of memristors: effects of topology and hetero- geneity

    JB Mallinson, ZE Heywood, RK Daniels, MD Arnold, PJ Bones, and SA Brown. Reservoir computing using networks of memristors: effects of topology and hetero- geneity. Nanoscale, 15(22):9663–9674, 2023

    2023

  69. [77]

    Breaking symme- tries of the reservoir equations in echo state networks

    Joschka Herteux and Christoph R¨ ath. Breaking symme- tries of the reservoir equations in echo state networks. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Sci- ence, 30(12), 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    14 Symmetry-aware reservoir computing

    Wendson AS Barbosa, Aaron Griffith, Graham E Row- lands, Luke CG Govia, Guilhem J Ribeill, Minh-Hai Nguyen, Thomas A Ohki, and Daniel J Gauthier. 14 Symmetry-aware reservoir computing. Physical Review E, 104(4):045307, 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    One-dimensional bose-hubbard model with nearest- neighbor interaction

    Till D K¨ uhner, Steven R White, and Hartmut Monien. One-dimensional bose-hubbard model with nearest- neighbor interaction. Physical Review B , 61(18):12474, 2000

    2000

  72. [80]

    Sym- metry kills the square in a multifunctional reservoir computer

    Andrew Flynn, Joschka Herteux, Vassilios A Tsa- chouridis, Christoph R¨ ath, and Andreas Amann. Sym- metry kills the square in a multifunctional reservoir computer. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Non- linear Science, 31(7), 2021

    2021

  73. [81]

    Transition from a strongly interacting 1d superfluid to a mott insulator

    Thilo St¨ oferle, Henning Moritz, Christian Schori, Michael K¨ ohl, and Tilman Esslinger. Transition from a strongly interacting 1d superfluid to a mott insulator. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 92:130403, Mar 2004

    2004

  74. [82]

    Dynamic proper- ties of the one-dimensional bose-hubbard model

    S Ejima, H Fehske, and F Gebhard. Dynamic proper- ties of the one-dimensional bose-hubbard model. Euro- physics Letters, 93(3):30002, 2011

    2011

  75. [83]

    K¨ ohl, H

    M. K¨ ohl, H. Moritz, T. St¨ oferle, C. Schori, and T. Esslinger. Superfluid to mott insulator transition in one, two, and three dimensions. Journal of Low Tem- perature Physics, 138(3):635–644, Feb 2005

    2005

  76. [84]

    I. B. Spielman, W. D. Phillips, and J. V. Porto. Mott- insulator transition in a two-dimensional atomic bose gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 98:080404, Feb 2007

    2007

  77. [85]

    Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature

    Vadim Oganesyan and David A Huse. Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature. Physical re- view b , 75(15):155111, 2007

    2007

  78. [86]

    Quantum chaos in the bose-hubbard model

    Andrey R Kolovsky and Andreas Buchleitner. Quantum chaos in the bose-hubbard model. Europhysics Letters, 68(5):632, 2004

    2004

  79. [87]

    From quantum chaos and eigenstate ther- malization to statistical mechanics and thermodynam- ics

    Luca D’Alessio, Yariv Kafri, Anatoli Polkovnikov, and Marcos Rigol. From quantum chaos and eigenstate ther- malization to statistical mechanics and thermodynam- ics. Advances in Physics , 65(3):239–362, 2016

    2016

  80. [88]

    H. A. Weidenm¨ uller and G. E. Mitchell. Random ma- trices and chaos in nuclear physics: Nuclear structure. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 81:539–589, May 2009

    2009

  81. [89]

    Probing symmetries of quantum many-body sys- tems through gap ratio statistics

    Olivier Giraud, Nicolas Mac´ e, Eric Vernier, and Fabien Alet. Probing symmetries of quantum many-body sys- tems through gap ratio statistics. Physical Review X , 12(1):011006, 2022

    2022

  82. [90]

    Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles

    Yasar Y Atas, Eugene Bogomolny, Olivier Giraud, and Guillame Roux. Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles. Physical review letters, 110(8):084101, 2013

    2013

  83. [91]

    Many-body multifractality throughout bosonic superfluid and mott insulator phases

    Jakob Lindinger, Andreas Buchleitner, and Alberto Rodr ´ ıguez. Many-body multifractality throughout bosonic superfluid and mott insulator phases. Physical review letters, 122(10):106603, 2019

    2019

  84. [92]

    Role of coherence in many-body quantum reservoir computing

    Ana Palacios, Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Miguel C Sori- ano, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. Role of coherence in many-body quantum reservoir computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17734 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Ridge regres- sion: applications to nonorthogonal problems

    Arthur E Hoerl and Robert W Kennard. Ridge regres- sion: applications to nonorthogonal problems. Techno- metrics, 12(1):69–82, 1970

    1970

  86. [94]

    Benchmarking the role of particle statistics in quantum reservoir computing

    Guillem Llodr` a, Christos Charalambous, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. Benchmarking the role of particle statistics in quantum reservoir computing. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 6(1):2200100, 2023

    2023

  87. [95]

    Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projec- tive measurements

    Pere Mujal, Rodrigo Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini. Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projec- tive measurements. npj Quantum Information , 9(1):16, 2023

    2023

  88. [96]

    Parameter es- timation in engineering and science

    James Vere Beck and Kenneth J Arnold. Parameter es- timation in engineering and science . James Beck, 1977

    1977

  89. [97]

    Scalable photonic platform for real-time quantum reservoir computing

    Jorge Garc ´ ıa-Beni, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini. Scalable photonic platform for real-time quantum reservoir computing. Physical Re- view Applied, 20(1):014051, 2023

    2023

  90. [98]

    Tackling sampling noise in physical systems for machine learning applications: Fundamental limits and eigentasks

    Fangjun Hu, Gerasimos Angelatos, Saeed A Khan, Marti Vives, Esin T¨ ureci, Leon Bello, Graham E Row- lands, Guilhem J Ribeill, and Hakan E T¨ ureci. Tackling sampling noise in physical systems for machine learning applications: Fundamental limits and eigentasks. Phys- ical Rev...

    2023

  91. [99]

    Hilbert space as a computa- tional resource in reservoir computing

    WD Kalfus, GJ Ribeill, GE Rowlands, HK Krovi, TA Ohki, and LCG Govia. Hilbert space as a computa- tional resource in reservoir computing. Physical Review Research, 4(3):033007, 2022

    2022

  92. [100]

    Quantum reservoir computing implementation on co- herently coupled quantum oscillators

    Julien Dudas, Baptiste Carles, Erwan Plouet, Frank Al- ice Mizrahi, Julie Grollier, and Danijela Markovi´ c. Quantum reservoir computing implementation on co- herently coupled quantum oscillators. npj Quantum In- formation, 9(1):64, 2023

    2023

  93. [101]

    The reservoir learning power across quantum many-body lo- calization transition

    Wei Xia, Jie Zou, Xingze Qiu, and Xiaopeng Li. The reservoir learning power across quantum many-body lo- calization transition. Frontiers of Physics, 17(3):33506, 2022

    2022

  94. [102]

    Variational quantum simulation using non- gaussian continuous-variable systems

    Paolo Stornati, Antonio Acin, Ulysse Chabaud, Alexan- dre Dauphin, Valentina Parigi, and Federico Cen- trone. Variational quantum simulation using non- gaussian continuous-variable systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15919, 2023

    arXiv

  95. [103]

    New results on recurrent network training: unifying the algorithms and accelerating convergence

    Amir F Atiya and Alexander G Parlos. New results on recurrent network training: unifying the algorithms and accelerating convergence. IEEE transactions on neural networks, 11(3):697–709, 2000

    2000

  96. [104]

    Information processing capacity of dynamical systems

    Joni Dambre, David Verstraeten, Benjamin Schrauwen, and Serge Massar. Information processing capacity of dynamical systems. Scientific reports, 2(1):514, 2012

    2012

  97. [106]

    Mattiotti, J

    F. Mattiotti, J. Dubail, D. Hagenm¨ uller, J. Schachen- mayer, J.-P. Brantut, and G. Pupillo. Multifractality in the interacting disordered tavis-cummings model. Phys. Rev. B, 109:064202, Feb 2024

    2024

  98. [1996]

    Association for Computing Machinery

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.