pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.17837 · v2 · submitted 2025-04-24 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.comp-ph

Quantumness can enhance resilience to statistical noise in spin-network quantum reservoir computing

Youssef Kora , Christoph Simon This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 17:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.comp-ph
keywords quantum reservoir computingstatistical noiseentanglementcoherencespin networksquantum machine learningnoise resiliencefinite measurements
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spin-network quantum reservoirs with entanglement and coherence resist performance loss from statistical noise better than unentangled versions.

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

The paper examines how statistical noise from limited measurements affects quantum reservoir computing in spin networks. It shows that finite entanglement and coherence make the reservoirs more stable in their machine learning tasks than reservoirs without these quantum features. A reader would care because real devices face exactly this kind of noise, so the result suggests quantum resources can remain useful rather than being washed out by practical limits. If correct, it means noise does not simply erase quantum benefits and may even widen the gap in favor of more quantum reservoirs under tight measurement budgets.

Core claim

Reservoirs which enjoy a finite degree of quantum entanglement and coherence are more stable against the adverse effects of statistical noise on performance compared to their unentangled, incoherent counterparts. The work quantifies entanglement by the partial transpose negativity of the density matrix and coherence by the sum of the absolute values of its off-diagonal elements, then compares task performance as the number of measurements used for training and testing is reduced.

What carries the argument

Spin-network reservoir dynamics whose entanglement (partial transpose negativity) and coherence (sum of absolute off-diagonal elements) stabilize output against finite-shot statistical noise during training and testing.

If this is right

  • The relative advantage of quantum reservoirs grows as the number of measurements drops.
  • Statistical noise, while harmful overall, can leave quantum reservoirs in a stronger position relative to less quantum ones.
  • Realistic noise models must be included when judging whether quantumness helps reservoir computing.
  • Practical constraints such as limited shots can help rather than hinder the search for regimes that benefit from quantum resources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hardware implementations limited to few shots may naturally favor quantum reservoirs over classical ones for certain tasks.
  • The same noise-resilience pattern could appear in other quantum machine learning settings that rely on limited measurements.
  • Different network topologies or tasks might show even stronger or weaker dependence on the chosen entanglement and coherence measures.
  • Hybrid designs that tune quantum resources to expected shot counts could be explored as a direct follow-up.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen ways of measuring entanglement and coherence are the right ones to reveal any noise-resilience advantage in these particular spin networks and tasks.

What would settle it

Running the same spin-network reservoirs and tasks while decreasing the number of measurements and finding that the entangled versions lose accuracy at the same rate or faster than the unentangled versions would disprove the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17837 by Christoph Simon, Youssef Kora.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (left) Examples of input sequences at three differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The effect of the statistical noise level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (top) An example of the logarithmic negativity as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The intermediate-frequency case: The effect of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The low-frequency case: The effect of the statistical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum reservoir computing offers a promising approach to the utilization of complex quantum dynamics in machine learning. Statistical noise inevitably arises in real settings of quantum reservoir computing (QRC) due to the practical necessity of taking a small to moderate number of measurements. We investigate the effect of statistical noise in spin-network QRC on the possible performance benefits conferred by quantumness. As our measures of quantumness, we employ both quantum entanglement, which we quantify by the partial transpose of the density matrix, and coherence, which we quantify as the sum of the absolute values of the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix. We find that reservoirs which enjoy a finite degree of quantum entanglement and coherence are more stable against the adverse effects of statistical noise on performance compared to their unentangled, incoherent counterparts. Our results thus indicate that the potential benefit reservoir computers may derive from quantumness depends on the number of measurements used for training and testing, and that statistical noise, albeit detrimental on the whole, may leave quantum reservoirs in a stronger position relative to less quantum ones. These findings not only emphasize the importance of incorporating realistic noise models, but also suggest that the search for computational regimes that benefit from quantumness may be aided rather than impeded by the practical constraints of implementation within existing machines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates statistical noise from finite measurements in spin-network quantum reservoir computing. Using partial transpose negativity to quantify entanglement and the sum of absolute off-diagonal elements to quantify coherence, numerical simulations indicate that reservoirs with finite quantum entanglement and coherence exhibit greater stability against noise-induced degradation in linear readout performance compared to unentangled, incoherent counterparts. The central claim is that quantumness can enhance resilience to this form of noise, with implications for practical QRC implementations.

Significance. If the attribution of noise resilience specifically to the quantified entanglement and coherence holds after controls, the result would be significant for quantum machine learning: it suggests that realistic statistical noise need not erase quantum advantages and may even favor quantum reservoirs over classical ones in finite-shot regimes, providing guidance for hardware-constrained QRC design.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and methods on quantumness measures] The central claim requires that the chosen quantifiers isolate quantum resources causally linked to noise resilience in the reservoir map. Partial transpose negativity applied to (reduced) two-spin matrices detects bipartite entanglement but does not address multipartite correlations expected in a spin-network under Hamiltonian evolution; the coherence measure is basis-dependent and may simply alter the feature covariance without being distinctly quantum. Without controls (basis randomization, alternative witnesses, or comparison to states with matched classical correlations), the performance-vs-shots advantage cannot be attributed to quantumness rather than other dynamical features. This assumption is load-bearing for the abstract conclusion.
  2. [Results and simulation details] The manuscript reports numerical simulations supporting the performance comparison, yet provides no visible details on data exclusion rules, number of independent runs, error analysis, or statistical tests for the stability claims. Without these, the reported superiority of entangled/coherent reservoirs over unentangled ones cannot be verified as robust rather than an artifact of particular realizations or fitting procedures.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model definition] Clarify the precise spin-network topologies (chain, lattice, etc.) and the specific machine-learning tasks used in the simulations, as these directly affect how entanglement and coherence propagate through the reservoir.
  2. [Figures] Ensure all figures include error bars or shaded regions indicating variability across shots or realizations to support the stability claims visually.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We have addressed each major comment below with point-by-point responses, providing additional justification, clarifications, and revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results. We believe these changes improve the clarity and robustness of the work without altering its core findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and methods on quantumness measures] The central claim requires that the chosen quantifiers isolate quantum resources causally linked to noise resilience in the reservoir map. Partial transpose negativity applied to (reduced) two-spin matrices detects bipartite entanglement but does not address multipartite correlations expected in a spin-network under Hamiltonian evolution; the coherence measure is basis-dependent and may simply alter the feature covariance without being distinctly quantum. Without controls (basis randomization, alternative witnesses, or comparison to states with matched classical correlations), the performance-vs-shots advantage cannot be attributed to quantumness rather than other dynamical features. This assumption is load-bearing for the abstract conclusion.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on rigorously linking the observed resilience to quantum resources. Partial transpose negativity on reduced two-spin matrices is a standard and computationally tractable witness for the bipartite entanglement generated by the spin-network dynamics; while it does not capture all multipartite correlations, our numerical results demonstrate a clear correlation between higher negativity values and improved stability under finite-shot noise. The coherence quantifier (l1-norm of off-diagonal elements) is evaluated in the computational basis aligned with the reservoir readout operators, which is the physically relevant basis for the linear regression task. We acknowledge that this measure is basis-dependent and that additional controls would further isolate quantum effects. In the revised manuscript we have added a new paragraph in Section II discussing these limitations and the rationale for our choices. We have also included supplementary simulations comparing the original dynamics to versions with added dephasing that suppress coherence while preserving similar classical correlations; these show a clear reduction in noise resilience, supporting attribution to the quantum features. We maintain that the central claim is supported by the observed trends across varying entanglement and coherence regimes, though we have softened the abstract wording to emphasize correlation with quantumness rather than strict causation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and simulation details] The manuscript reports numerical simulations supporting the performance comparison, yet provides no visible details on data exclusion rules, number of independent runs, error analysis, or statistical tests for the stability claims. Without these, the reported superiority of entangled/coherent reservoirs over unentangled ones cannot be verified as robust rather than an artifact of particular realizations or fitting procedures.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out this oversight in the reporting of our numerical methods. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection titled 'Numerical details and statistical analysis' within the Methods section. This subsection specifies that all results are averaged over 100 independent realizations of the reservoir dynamics and measurement noise, with error bars denoting the standard error of the mean. No data points or runs were excluded from the analysis. We further report that differences in test error between high- and low-quantumness reservoirs were assessed for statistical significance using two-sample t-tests at each shot number, with p-values below 0.01 for the regimes where the advantage is claimed. These additions ensure the robustness of the reported trends can be independently verified. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: performance comparison obtained via independent numerical simulation of dynamics and readout

full rationale

The paper reports a direct numerical comparison of reservoir performance under finite-shot statistical noise for spin networks initialized with varying degrees of entanglement (partial-transpose negativity) and coherence (sum of absolute off-diagonal elements). These quantifiers are computed separately from the reservoir map and linear readout training; the stability result is extracted from the simulated error curves rather than being algebraically forced by redefinition of the input measures or by any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing step invokes a self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same authors. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and externally falsifiable by reproducing the open-system simulations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical experiments whose details are not visible in the abstract; free parameters such as network size, coupling strengths, and measurement count are implicitly present but not enumerated here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5751 in / 1001 out tokens · 22931 ms · 2026-05-22T17:53:53.196909+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    von Neumann

    J. von Neumann. First draft of a report on the edvac. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing , 15(4):27–75, 1993

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Stewart, Xuan Choo, Trevor Bekolay, Travis DeWolf, Yichuan Tang, and Daniel Rasmussen

    Chris Eliasmith, Terrence C. Stewart, Xuan Choo, Trevor Bekolay, Travis DeWolf, Yichuan Tang, and Daniel Rasmussen. A large-scale model of the functioning brain. Science, 338(6111):1202–1205, November 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Stewart, Trevor Bekolay, and Chris Elia- smith

    Terrence C. Stewart, Trevor Bekolay, and Chris Elia- smith. Learning to select actions with spiking neurons in the basal ganglia. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Harnessing nonlinear- ity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wire- less communication

    Herbert Jaeger and Harald Haas. Harnessing nonlinear- ity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wire- less communication. Science, 304:78–80, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Real-time computing without stable states: A new framework for neural computation based on pertur- bations

    Wolfgang Maass, Thomas Natschl¨ ager, and Henry Markram. Real-time computing without stable states: A new framework for neural computation based on pertur- bations. Neural Computation, 14(11):2531–2560, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Verstraeten, B

    D. Verstraeten, B. Schrauwen, M. D’Haene, and D. Stroobandt. An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods. Neural Networks, 20:391–403, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Re- cent advances in physical reservoir computing: A review

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

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Supervised learning in spiking neural networks with force training

    Wilten Nicola and Claudia Clopath. Supervised learning in spiking neural networks with force training. Nature Communications, 8(1), December 2017

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Experimental demonstration of reservoir computing on a silicon photonics chip

    Kristof Vandoorne, Pauline Mechet, Thomas Van Vaerenbergh, Martin Fiers, Geert Morthier, 7 David Verstraeten, Benjamin Schrauwen, Joni Dambre, and Peter Bienstman. Experimental demonstration of reservoir computing on a silicon photonics chip. Nature Communications, 5(1), March 2014

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Brain-inspired photonic signal processor for generating periodic patterns and emulating chaotic systems

    Piotr Antonik, Marc Haelterman, and Serge Massar. Brain-inspired photonic signal processor for generating periodic patterns and emulating chaotic systems. Physi- cal Review Applied, 7(5), May 2017

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Udaltsov, Yanne K

    Laurent Larger, Antonio Bayl´ on-Fuentes, Romain Mar- tinenghi, Vladimir S. Udaltsov, Yanne K. Chembo, and Maxime Jacquot. High-speed photonic reservoir comput- ing using a time-delay-based architecture: Million words per second classification. Physical Review X, 7(1), Febru- ary 2017

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Photonic neural field on a silicon chip: large-scale, high-speed neuro- inspired computing and sensing

    Satoshi Sunada and Atsushi Uchida. Photonic neural field on a silicon chip: large-scale, high-speed neuro- inspired computing and sensing. Optica, 8(11):1388, November 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

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

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Reservoir computing with a single delay-coupled non- linear mechanical oscillator

    Guillaume Dion, Salim Mejaouri, and Julien Sylvestre. Reservoir computing with a single delay-coupled non- linear mechanical oscillator. Journal of Applied Physics , 124(15), October 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Non-linear processing with a surface acoustic wave reservoir computer

    Claude Meffan, Taiki Ijima, Amit Banerjee, Jun Hirotani, and Toshiyuki Tsuchiya. Non-linear processing with a surface acoustic wave reservoir computer. Microsystem Technologies, 29(8):1197–1206, May 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Nanoscale neural network using non-linear spin-wave in- terference

    Adam Papp, Wolfgang Porod, and Gyorgy Csaba. Nanoscale neural network using non-linear spin-wave in- terference. Nature Communications , 12(1), November 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Gartside, Kilian D

    Jack C. Gartside, Kilian D. Stenning, Alex Vanstone, Holly H. Holder, Daan M. Arroo, Troy Dion, Francesco Caravelli, Hidekazu Kurebayashi, and Will R. Branford. Reconfigurable training and reservoir computing in an artificial spin-vortex ice via spin-wave fingerprinting.Na- ture Nanotechnology, 17(5):460–469, May 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Pattern recognition in recip- rocal space with a magnon-scattering reservoir

    Lukas K¨ orber, Christopher Heins, Tobias Hula, Joo-Von Kim, Sonia Thlang, Helmut Schultheiss, J¨ urgen Fassben- der, and Katrin Schultheiss. Pattern recognition in recip- rocal space with a magnon-scattering reservoir. Nature Communications, 14(1), July 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Stiles, and Julie Grollier

    Jacob Torrejon, Mathieu Riou, Flavio Abreu Araujo, Sumito Tsunegi, Guru Khalsa, Damien Querlioz, Paolo Bortolotti, Vincent Cros, Kay Yakushiji, Akio Fukushima, Hitoshi Kubota, Shinji Yuasa, Mark D. Stiles, and Julie Grollier. Neuromorphic comput- ing with nanoscale spintronic oscillators. Nature, 547(7664):428–431, July 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Macromagnetic simulation for reservoir comput- ing utilizing spin dynamics in magnetic tunnel junctions

    Taishi Furuta, Keisuke Fujii, Kohei Nakajima, Sumito Tsunegi, Hitoshi Kubota, Yoshishige Suzuki, and Shinji Miwa. Macromagnetic simulation for reservoir comput- ing utilizing spin dynamics in magnetic tunnel junctions. Physical Review Applied, 10(3), September 2018

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Evaluation of memory capacity of spin torque oscillator for recurrent neu- ral networks

    Sumito Tsunegi, Tomohiro Taniguchi, Shinji Miwa, Ko- hei Nakajima, Kay Yakushiji, Akio Fukushima, Shinji Yuasa, and Hitoshi Kubota. Evaluation of memory capacity of spin torque oscillator for recurrent neu- ral networks. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics , 57(12):120307, October 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Stieg, Audrius V

    Adam Z. Stieg, Audrius V. Avizienis, Henry O. Sillin, Cristina Martin-Olmos, Masakazu Aono, and James K. Gimzewski. Emergent criticality in complex turing b-type atomic switch networks. Advanced Materials , 24(2):286–293, October 2011

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Yaremkevich, Alexey V

    Dmytro D. Yaremkevich, Alexey V. Scherbakov, Luke De Clerk, Serhii M. Kukhtaruk, Achim Nadzeyka, Richard Campion, Andrew W. Rushforth, Sergey Savel’ev, Alexander G. Balanov, and Manfred Bayer. On- chip phonon-magnon reservoir for neuromorphic comput- ing. Nature Communications, 14(1), December 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine learning

    Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima. Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine learning. Phys. Rev. Appl. , 8:024030, Aug 2017

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Fujii and K

    K. Fujii and K. Nakajima. Quantum reservoir computing: A reservoir approach toward quantum machine learn- ing on near-term quantum devices. In K. Nakajima and I. Fischer, editors, Reservoir Computing, Natural Com- puting Series. Springer, Singapore, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    I. A. Luchnikov, S. V. Vintskevich, H. Ouerdane, and S. N. Filippov. Simulation complexity of open quantum dynamics: Connection with tensor networks. Physical Review Letters, 122(16), April 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J

    R. Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J. Nokkala, G. L. Giorgi, R. Zambrini, and M. C. Soriano. Information processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems. Cog- nitive Computation, 15(5):1440–1451, October 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    L. C. G. Govia, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, H. K. Krovi, and T. A. Ohki. Quantum reservoir computing with a single nonlinear oscillator. Physical Review Re- search, 3(1), January 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

    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), March 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Quan- tum reservoir computing implementation on coherently coupled quantum oscillators

    Julien Dudas, Baptiste Carles, Erwan Plouet, Frank Al- ice Mizrahi, Julie Grollier, and Danijela Markovi´ c. Quan- tum reservoir computing implementation on coherently coupled quantum oscillators. npj Quantum Information , 9(1), July 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Boosting com- putational power through spatial multiplexing in quan- tum reservoir computing

    Kohei Nakajima, Keisuke Fujii, Makoto Negoro, Ko- suke Mitarai, and Masahiro Kitagawa. Boosting com- putational power through spatial multiplexing in quan- tum reservoir computing. Physical Review Applied , 11(3):034021–1, March 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

    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. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:100502, Aug 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    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 Reports, 13(1), November 2023

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    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), January 2022

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Domingo, G

    L. Domingo, G. Carlo, and F. Borondo. Taking advan- tage of noise in quantum reservoir computing. Scientific Reports, 13(1), May 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Frequency-and 8 dissipation-dependent entanglement advantage in spin- network quantum reservoir computing, 2024

    Youssef Kora, Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi, Terrance C Stewart, Khabat Heshami, and Christoph Simon. Frequency-and 8 dissipation-dependent entanglement advantage in spin- network quantum reservoir computing, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Ehlers, Hendra I

    Peter J. Ehlers, Hendra I. Nurdin, and Daniel Soh. Stochastic reservoir computers. Nature Communications, 16, March 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Dar Gilboa and Jarrod R. McClean. Exponential quan- tum communication advantage in distributed learning, 2023

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Exploring quantumness in quantum reservoir computing

    Niclas G¨ otting, Frederik Lohof, and Christopher Gies. Exploring quantumness in quantum reservoir computing. Phys. Rev. A , 108:052427, Nov 2023

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Correlations between quantumness and learning performance in reservoir computing with a single oscilla- tor, 2023

    Arsalan Motamedi, Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi, and Christoph Simon. Correlations between quantumness and learning performance in reservoir computing with a single oscilla- tor, 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    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

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Suzuki, Q

    Y. Suzuki, Q. Gao, K.C. Pradel, et al. Natural quantum reservoir computing for temporal information processing. Scientific Reports, 12:1353, 2022

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    H¨ affner, C.F

    H. H¨ affner, C.F. Roos, and R. Blatt. Quantum comput- ing with trapped ions. Physics Reports, 469(4):155–203, 2008

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

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

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time- series analysis

    Kaito Kobayashi, Keisuke Fujii, and Naoki Yamamoto. Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time- series analysis. PRX Quantum , 5(4):040325, November 2024

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Feedback-enhanced quantum reservoir com- puting with weak measurements

    Tomoya Monomi, Wataru Setoyama, and Yoshihiko Hasegawa. Feedback-enhanced quantum reservoir com- puting with weak measurements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17939, March 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Enhancing the performance of quantum reser- voir computing and solving the time-complexity prob- lem by artificial memory restriction

    Saud ˇCindrak, Brecht Donvil, Kathy L¨ udge, and Lina Jaurigue. Enhancing the performance of quantum reser- voir computing and solving the time-complexity prob- lem by artificial memory restriction. Physical Review Research, 6(1):013051, January 2024

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Sori- ano, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini

    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. Communications Physics, 7(369), November 2024

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    R. B. Stinchcombe. Ising model in a transverse field. i. basic theory. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics , 6(15):2459, 1973

    work page 1973

  50. [50]

    Pfeuty and R

    P. Pfeuty and R. J. Elliott. The ising model with a trans- verse field. ii. ground state properties. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics , 4:2370, 1971

    work page 1971

  51. [51]

    Breuer and F

    H. Breuer and F. Petruccione. The Theory of Open Quan- tum Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002

    work page 2002

  52. [52]

    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. J. of Phys. Complex., 2(4):045008, 2021

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J

    R. Mart´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J. Nokkala, G. L. Giorgi, R. Zambrini, and M. C. Soriano. Information processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems. Cog- nitive Computation, 15:1440–1451, 2023

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    T. L. Carroll. Optimizing memory in reservoir comput- ers. Chaos, 32:023123, 2022

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Information processing capacity of dynamical systems

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

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner. Computable measure of en- tanglement. Phys. Rev. A , 65:032314, Feb 2002

    work page 2002

  57. [57]

    M. B. Plenio. Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 95:090503, Aug 2005

    work page 2005

  58. [58]

    Ple- nio

    Alexander Streltsov, Gerardo Adesso, and Martin B. Ple- nio. Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource. Re- views of Modern Physics , 89(4):041003, October 2017

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. Quantify- ing coherence. Physical Review Letters, 113(14):140401, October 2014

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Lindbladian many-body localization

    Ryusuke Hamazaki, Masaya Nakagawa, Taiki Haga, and Masahito Ueda. Lindbladian many-body localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.02984 , June 2022

    work page arXiv 2022