Predicting Chaotic Systems with Quantum Echo-state Networks

Erik Connerty; Ethan Evans; Gerasimos Angelatos; Vignesh Narayanan

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 17 references

Predicting Chaotic Systems with Quantum Echo-state Networks

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum echo-state network with only a few readout qubits predicts the chaotic Lorenz system with lower error than an equal-sized classical echo-state network, and the circuit can run continuously without re-initialization.

desk verdict A coherent QESN architecture with a useful no-reset mechanism, but the central performance comparison is undermined by a feature-count mismatch and optimistic evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07910 v1 pith:LSYY6XND submitted 2024-12-10 quant-ph cs.ET

Erik Connerty , Ethan Evans , Gerasimos Angelatos , Vignesh Narayanan This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcs.ET

keywords quantumecho-statenetworkreservoircomputingtime-seriespredictionLorenzsystemchaosmeasure-and-resetNISQmachinelearning

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

This paper proposes a quantum circuit that acts as an echo-state network, a type of recurrent neural network whose random reservoir learns a high-dimensional embedding. The circuit is designed to run indefinitely by measuring and resetting only the readout qubits, preserving a fading memory over long time horizons. In simulations of the chaotic Lorenz system, the authors report that the quantum reservoir predicts the y and z variables from the single x signal with lower root-mean-square error than a classical echo-state network with the same number of reservoir nodes. They also find that using the full measurement probability distribution as regression features outperforms using Pauli expectation values. The work aims to show that small noisy quantum devices are capable of competitive time-series forecasting.

What carries the argument

The QESN circuit is the central object: a parameterized quantum circuit with randomly initialized, sparsely connected weights, split into memory and readout registers. The input is embedded through a sliding context window that maps to three Euler angles per qubit via a fully connected classical layer; repeated circuit blocks of single-qubit rotations, CNOT gates, and controlled RY, RX, RZ rotations create nonlinear combinations of current and past inputs. Mid-circuit measurement and deterministic reset of the readout qubits supplies the echo-state property, the fading-memory feature that makes reservoir states depend on recent inputs. The regression features are the full probability distribution over the readout computational basis, combined with a classical elastic-net fit.

What would settle it

Rerun the Lorenz prediction task with a classical echo-state network whose reservoir has $2^{{number of readout qubits}}$ nodes (the dimension of the quantum feature space), selecting hyperparameters on a held-out validation set and averaging over many seeds; if the classical network matches or beats the QESN's test RMSE, the reported quantum advantage collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's own claim, stated in its comparison section, is that a noiseless simulated quantum echo-state network (QESN) consistently yields a large performance gain over a classical echo-state network when the classical reservoir's node count is fixed to the number of readout qubits in the QESN. On the chaotic Lorenz system the authors show that with only the x(t) signal as input, the QESN predicts the y(t) and z(t) components with lower test RMSE than the equal-sized classical reservoir. They further claim that the circuit, which interleaves data-reuploaded rotations with entangling gates and randomly sparse weights, can be run indefinitely by measuring and resetting only the readout register, preserving a fading memory over long horizons. The paper also reports that using the full measured probability distribution as regression features outperforms using Pauli expectation values, and that results collected under a realistic IBM Fez noise model are degraded but still promising for near-term hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that picking the best seed and tuning the elastic-net regularization directly on the test set gives a fair estimate of predictive performance, and that a classical echo-state network capped at 2–8 reservoir nodes is the right baseline to compare against.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the result holds, a quantum reservoir of only a few qubits can substitute for a much larger classical reservoir in forecasting chaotic signals, lowering the hardware budget for reservoir computing.
The measure-and-reset design means the circuit need not be stopped or re-initialized, so long-horizon streaming prediction on NISQ devices is in principle possible.
Using full probability distributions as features is a low-cost way to extract more information from each quantum measurement, and should be preferred over expectation values in similar QESN setups.
The noise-model results suggest that current NISQ hardware can still sustain useful predictions, though with degraded accuracy, supporting further attempts on real devices.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported advantage may stem from the quantum feature space's dimension (2^{readout qubits}) rather than from intrinsic quantum effects; a classical reservoir with an equal number of random nonlinear features could be a stronger baseline than the one used in the paper.
The indefinite-run design is not specific to the Lorenz system; extending it to other chaotic systems or PDE forecasting is a direct next step, but the paper demonstrates only this one benchmark.
Because the QESN trains only the classical readout, the architecture should be robust to barren plateaus in the trained stage; the main tunable quantum resource is the random initialization and sparsity of the reservoir, which deserves separate study.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read: this is a workshop-style preprint with a coherent QESN architecture, but the central performance claim is not supported by the evidence as presented. The specific circuit—context-window Euler-angle embedding, sparse random two-qubit gates, data re-uploading, and measure-and-reset readout—is a reasonable incremental combination of known ideas, and the claim that the circuit can run indefinitely without reinitialization is the most interesting part. The Lorenz results show the reservoir is doing something sensible, and including a realistic Fez-like noise model is a plus.

The soft spot is the comparison in Figure 4. The classical ESN is capped at nq/2 reservoir nodes, while the QESN's distribution recovery produces 2^(nq/2) features. At 16 qubits that's 256 features versus 8 nodes. A classical random feature map with 256 nonlinear features might match or beat the QESN on the same task, so the attributed 'expressivity of qubits over bits' is not established. The reported numbers are also optimistic: the authors select the best of several seeds and tune elastic-net regularization directly on test error (stated in Data Handling and Training and the Table 1 caption), and there are no confidence intervals or ablations of c, r, and kappa. That makes the actual gap against any proper baseline unknown.

The 'predicting chaotic systems' framing overstates the task: it is same-time estimation of y(t) and z(t) from x(t), not forecasting. That is still a legitimate reservoir-computing task, but the title oversells it.

None of this is fatal to the architecture idea. The measure-and-reset fading memory from Hu et al. is applied sensibly, and the self-citation there is appropriate. The paper just needs a re-evaluation: validation-based hyperparameter selection, seed-averaged metrics, and a capacity-matched classical baseline—ideally a random feature map with the same dimension as the QESN distribution. If the QESN advantage survives that, it's a useful result.

Who's it for: people working in quantum reservoir computing and NISQ time-series, who will read it for the architecture. I would not cite it in its current form, but it deserves a serious referee, and a major revision could make it a solid paper.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum echo-state network (QESN) architecture based on a measure-and-reset readout, context-window data embedding, data re-uploading, and sparse random entanglement. The authors simulate the QESN on a Lorenz system prediction task (x(t) as input, y(t) and z(t) as targets), comparing expectation-value and full-probability-distribution readouts under noiseless and noisy models, and benchmarking against a classical ESN and linear regression. The central empirical claim is that the QESN achieves lower test RMSE than a classical ESN when the number of readout qubits equals the number of reservoir nodes, which the authors attribute to the expressivity of qubits over bits.

Significance. If the central empirical claim were validated, the architecture would be a practical blueprint for recurrent quantum reservoir computing on near-term hardware, particularly because the circuit runs indefinitely without re-initialization. The manuscript has concrete strengths: a clear pseudocode specification (Algorithm 1), a physically motivated measure-and-reset mechanism building on Hu et al. (2024), and the inclusion of a realistic IBM Fez noise model. However, the main claim is not currently supported: the QESN comparison is not capacity-matched, and the evaluation protocol is optimistically biased. I do not see a circularity problem, since the readout is fitted on training data and evaluated on test data; the issues are the uncontrolled feature dimension and the test-set-based tuning, both of which are openly described in the manuscript.

major comments (2)

[Comparison with Classical Techniques / Figure 4] The comparison between the QESN and the classical ESN is not apples-to-apples because the feature dimensions differ by an exponential factor. As stated in 'Results and Analysis', the QESN distribution readout uses 2^(nq/2) features, while the classical ESN uses only nq/2 reservoir nodes. For nq = 16, this is 256 features versus 8 nodes. The performance gap in Figure 4 could therefore be explained by the number of nonlinear features rather than by quantum reservoir dynamics. To support the claim that qubits provide 'inherent expressivity over bits', the authors must compare against a classical reservoir with a comparable number of nonlinear features, for example a classical ESN with 2^(nq/2) nodes or a random nonlinear feature map of the same dimension. This is load-bearing because the stated advantage over the classical ESN is the paper's primary empirical result.
[Data Handling and Training / Table 1 caption] The evaluation protocol is not a valid estimate of generalization. The paper states that elastic net parameters are tuned 'with the goal being to minimize test error rate', and the Table 1 caption reports that 'the best run from each category was used'. This selection of the best seed and direct optimization on test error injects an optimistic bias into every reported RMSE value in Table 1 and Figure 4. The authors should split the data into training, validation, and test sets, select hyperparameters on the validation set, and report the mean and standard deviation (or confidence intervals) of the RMSE over multiple random seeds. Without this, the reported performance gains are not statistically grounded.

minor comments (6)

[System Architecture / Algorithm 1] The definitions of the pairing sets P and M are ambiguous; the pseudocode refers to P1, P2 and M1, M2 but the mapping from these indices to physical qubit pairs is not specified. Please clarify with explicit indexing.
[System Architecture] The sentence 'Randomly initialized weights gates play an important role' contains a typo; it should read 'Randomly initialized weight gates'.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption writes '2^nq/2 Hilbert space'; this should be formatted as 2^(nq/2) to avoid ambiguity.
[Data Handling and Training] The number of random seeds tested is not specified; the phrase 'several seeds' is too vague, and without this information the reader cannot assess the variability of the results.
[Comparison with Classical Techniques] The classical ESN baseline is underspecified: the text does not report the reservoir size (beyond the node count), spectral radius, leakage rate, sparsity, or how the elastic net regularization was tuned. This information is necessary for reproducibility.
[Figure 4] The 'Linear Regression' baseline is not described; it is unclear whether it uses the same context-window features as the QESN. Please specify the feature set used for this baseline.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; but the reported Test RMSE values are tuned and best-seeded directly on the test set, so the headline QESN-vs-ESN advantage is partly a fitted statistic rather than an independent prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Data Handling and Training; Results and Analysis (Table 1 caption); Comparison with Classical Techniques]
"Elastic net regularization was used to prevent overfitting for each test case, with the parameters being tuned separately for each different test case with the goal being to minimize test error rate. ... The best run from each category was used, and the elastic net regularization parameters were tuned for each bin to get lower test loss."

The Test RMSE values in Table 1 and the QESN point in Figure 4 are produced by minimizing the very quantity they report: elastic-net parameters are tuned 'to get lower test loss' and the 'best run' from several seeds is selected per bin. Thus the quoted test errors are minima over the search space of seeds and hyperparameters, not independent out-of-sample measurements. The subsequent claim of a 'large performance gain' over the classical ESN compares this selected minimum against a classical run that was not given the same test-set selection, so the reported gain is partly forced by the evaluation protocol rather than being an independent predictive result.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation-level circularity: the QESN circuit is constructed from random weights, input rotations, and entangling gates, and the readout is fitted by least squares with elastic-net regularization on a 6,900-point training split and evaluated on a 3,000-point test split; the test inputs are not used to set the readout weights. The measure-and-reset fading-memory mechanism is imported from Hu et al. (2024), which includes one of the present authors, but that is an externally published and experimentally supported result rather than an unverified assertion specific to this paper, so it is not counted as circular. The identified circular step is confined to the performance evaluation: the reported Test RMSE values are minima over seeds and elastic-net settings chosen to minimize test error, so the headline comparison against the classical ESN is a fitted/selected statistic. The unequal feature dimension (2^(nq/2) distribution probabilities versus nq/2 classical reservoir nodes) is a confound in the comparison, but it is an experimental-design issue, not a self-referential derivation, and is not counted as circularity here.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on several unreported hyperparameters and on the cited fading-memory mechanism. Because the architecture is simulated and built from standard gates, no new physical entity is postulated.

free parameters (7)

context window length c = not reported
Controls how much past input is embedded into the qubit rotations each step; no value or sensitivity analysis is given.
number of re-uploading blocks r = not reported
Tunable hyperparameter that sets circuit nonlinearity; value not stated, so the reported RMSE cannot be reproduced.
sparsity parameter kappa = not reported
Determines which entangling gates are removed; value not stated.
elastic net regularization parameters = tuned per test case
Explicitly tuned on each test case to minimize test error, making reported results optimistic and configuration-dependent.
random weight initialization distribution and scaling = unspecified
Weights are random but scaled by nq, c, r and centered in (0, pi]; exact distribution is not specified, so the reservoir cannot be recreated.
washout length = 300
Chosen to let the reservoir settle; standard practice but not varied in the reported experiments.
number of shots = 60,000
Chosen for statistical robustness; affects noise in the measured features and is not varied.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Measure-and-reset of readout qubits preserves a time-invariant fading memory (echo-state property), following Hu et al. 2024.
Invoked in Proposed Method and System Architecture as the basis for running the circuit indefinitely; not re-derived or verified for this specific circuit.
domain assumption Data re-uploading with r repeated blocks introduces sufficient nonlinearity and nonlinear combinations of past and current inputs.
Assumed in Proposed Method and Algorithm 1; no proof or ablation of r is given.
standard math Lorenz system with sigma=10, beta=8/3, rho=28 is a valid chaotic benchmark and the numerical integration produces the ground truth.
Standard benchmark; simulation details such as integrator and step size are not reported.
domain assumption Aer noiseless simulation and the IBM Fez noise model faithfully represent execution on current quantum hardware.
Used to support the NISQ-ready conclusion; no hardware experiments are shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting Chaotic Systems with Quantum Echo-state Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSYY6XND

@misc{pith2026241207910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting Chaotic Systems with Quantum Echo-state Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSYY6XND}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07910}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advancements in artificial neural networks have enabled impressive tasks on classical computers, but they demand significant computational resources. While quantum computing offers potential beyond classical systems, the advantages of quantum neural networks (QNNs) remain largely unexplored. In this work, we present and examine a quantum circuit (QC) that implements and aims to improve upon the classical echo-state network (ESN), a type of reservoir-based recurrent neural networks (RNNs), using quantum computers. Typically, ESNs consist of an extremely large reservoir that learns high-dimensional embeddings, enabling prediction of complex system trajectories. Quantum echo-state networks (QESNs) aim to reduce this need for prohibitively large reservoirs by leveraging the unique capabilities of quantum computers, potentially allowing for more efficient and higher performing time-series prediction algorithms. The proposed QESN can be implemented on any digital quantum computer implementing a universal gate set, and does not require any sort of stopping or re-initialization of the circuit, allowing continuous evolution of the quantum state over long time horizons. We conducted simulated QC experiments on the chaotic Lorenz system, both with noisy and noiseless models, to demonstrate the circuit's performance and its potential for execution on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07910 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Proposed QESN framework. Data is input as a sliding context window over time through a fully connected classical layer, and then passed through a dynamic quantum reservoir that is repeatedly sampled to generate a probability distribution over the 2 nq 2 Hilbert space at each time step. With the collected probability distributions, a classical least-squares optimization process fits the reservoir states to a target s… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Test prediction from X to Y component in the Aer simulator with 16 qubits. less Aer simulator was first used to test our algorithm using differing even number of qubits from 4 to 16. An NVIDIA Qubits Expectation Distribution Distribution Value w. Noise 4 Qubits Training RMSE .1124 .1177 .1468 Test RMSE .1112 .1185 .2016 6 Qubits Training RMSE .0986 .0616 .1193 Test RMSE .0963 .064 .1315 8 Qubits Training RMSE .0822… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Test prediction from X to Z component in the Aer simulator with 16 qubits. Comparison with Classical Techniques A classical ESN was trained and tested in direct comparison to the QESN. While there is always room for better hyperparameter tuning, in our results we consistently observed a large performance gain on the noiseless QESN simulation in comparison to the classical ESN when the number of classical ESN rese… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Test set loss with classical reservoir, basic linear regression, and QESN architecture. Conclusions We have proposed a novel QESN circuit that performs well on the difficult task of time-series prediction in our experiments. This leads us to believe NISQ hardware is …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

write newline

" write newline "" initialize.prev.this.status FUNCTION begin.bib " write newline preamble empty 'skip preamble write newline if " thebibliography " longest.label * " " * write newline " [1] #1 " write newline " url@samestyle " write newline " " write newline " [2] #2 " write newline " =0pt " write newline " " ALTinterwordstretchfactor * " " * write newli...
[4]

Chu, C.; Chia, N.-H.; Jiang, L.; and Chen, F. 2022. QMLP: An Error-Tolerant Nonlinear Quantum MLP Architecture using Parameterized Two-Qubit Gates. arXiv:2206.01345

arXiv 2022
[5]

Dudas, J.; Carles, B.; Plouet, E.; Mizrahi, F.; Grollier, J.; and Markovic, D. 2023. Quantum reservoir computing implementation on coherently coupled quantum oscillators. npj Quantum Information, 9

work page 2023
[6]

N.; Cook, M.; Bradshaw, Z

Evans, E. N.; Cook, M.; Bradshaw, Z. P.; and LaBorde, M. L. 2024. Learning with SASQuaTCh: a Novel Variational Quantum Transformer Architecture with Kernel-Based Self-Attention. arXiv:2403.14753

arXiv 2024
[7]

S.; Kumar, A.; Singh, H.; Singh, M.; Kaur, K.; Usman, M.; and Buyya, R

Gill, S. S.; Kumar, A.; Singh, H.; Singh, M.; Kaur, K.; Usman, M.; and Buyya, R. 2022. Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions. Software: Practice and Experience, 52(1): 66--114

work page 2022
[8]

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

work page 2022

Show all 17 references

[9]

A.; Bronn, N

Hu, F.; Khan, S. A.; Bronn, N. T.; Angelatos, G.; Rowlands, G. E.; Ribeill, G. J.; and T \"u reci, H. E. 2024. Overcoming the coherence time barrier in quantum machine learning on temporal data. Nature Communications, 15(1): 7491

2024
[10]

Jaeger, H. 2001. ‘The ‘echo state’approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks,’’German Nat. Res. Center Inf. Technol., GMD Rep, 148: 43

2001
[11]

D.; Ribeill, G

Kalfus, W. D.; Ribeill, G. J.; Rowlands, G. E.; Krovi, H. K.; Ohki, T. A.; and Govia, L. C. G. 2022. Hilbert space as a computational resource in reservoir computing. Phys. Rev. Res., 4: 033007

2022
[12]

H.; Zhou, H.; Bravo, R

Kornja c a, M.; Hu, H.-Y.; Zhao, C.; Wurtz, J.; Weinberg, P.; Hamdan, M.; Zhdanov, A.; Cantu, S. H.; Zhou, H.; Bravo, R. A.; et al. 2024. Large-scale quantum reservoir learning with an analog quantum computer. arXiv:2407.02553

2024 arXiv
[13]

Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Han, R.; Shi, S.; Li, J.; Shang, R.; Zheng, H.; Zhong, G.; and Gu, Y. 2023. Quantum recurrent neural networks for sequential learning. Neural Networks, 166: 148--161

2023
[14]

Miao, W.; Narayanan, V.; and Li, J.-S. 2022. Interpretable design of reservoir computing networks using realization theory. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(9): 6379--6389

2022
[15]

L.; Soriano, M

Mujal, P.; Mart \'i nez-Pe \ n a, R.; Giorgi, G. L.; Soriano, M. C.; and Zambrini, R. 2023. Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projective measurements. npj Quantum Information, 9(1): 16

2023
[16]

Pérez-Salinas, A.; Cervera-Lierta, A.; Gil-Fuster, E.; and Latorre, J. I. 2020. Data re-uploading for a universal quantum classifier. Quantum, 4: 226

2020
[17]

J.; Nurdin, H

Zhu, C.; Ehlers, P. J.; Nurdin, H. I.; and Soh, D. 2024. Practical and Scalable Quantum Reservoir Computing. arXiv:2405.04799

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

write newline

" write newline "" initialize.prev.this.status FUNCTION begin.bib " write newline preamble empty 'skip preamble write newline if " thebibliography " longest.label * " " * write newline " [1] #1 " write newline " url@samestyle " write newline " " write newline " [2] #2 " write newline " =0pt " write newline " " ALTinterwordstretchfactor * " " * write newli...

[4] [4]

Chu, C.; Chia, N.-H.; Jiang, L.; and Chen, F. 2022. QMLP: An Error-Tolerant Nonlinear Quantum MLP Architecture using Parameterized Two-Qubit Gates. arXiv:2206.01345

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Dudas, J.; Carles, B.; Plouet, E.; Mizrahi, F.; Grollier, J.; and Markovic, D. 2023. Quantum reservoir computing implementation on coherently coupled quantum oscillators. npj Quantum Information, 9

work page 2023

[6] [6]

N.; Cook, M.; Bradshaw, Z

Evans, E. N.; Cook, M.; Bradshaw, Z. P.; and LaBorde, M. L. 2024. Learning with SASQuaTCh: a Novel Variational Quantum Transformer Architecture with Kernel-Based Self-Attention. arXiv:2403.14753

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

S.; Kumar, A.; Singh, H.; Singh, M.; Kaur, K.; Usman, M.; and Buyya, R

Gill, S. S.; Kumar, A.; Singh, H.; Singh, M.; Kaur, K.; Usman, M.; and Buyya, R. 2022. Quantum computing: A taxonomy, systematic review and future directions. Software: Practice and Experience, 52(1): 66--114

work page 2022

[8] [8]

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

work page 2022