arxiv: 2605.01253 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Evaluating quantum circuits in the reservoir computing paradigm

Gaurav Rudra Malik , Amit Kumar Jaiswal , S. Aravinda , Sunil Kumar Mishra

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 15:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum reservoir computingbrickwall circuitsergodic dynamicsdual-unitary gatestime-series predictionfading memory capacityKrylov space analysis

0 comments

The pith

Structured brickwall quantum circuits made from two-qubit gates can serve as effective reservoirs for temporal processing tasks.

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

The paper investigates replacing Hamiltonian-based dynamics in quantum reservoir computing with structured circuits whose layout itself produces the needed ergodic behavior. It tests brickwall arrangements of two-qubit gates, first with random unitaries, then with dual-unitary gates whose ergodicity can be tuned, and finally with non-random gates that obey a solvability condition and exceed random gates in effective randomness. Performance is measured by fading memory capacity and prediction accuracy on standard synthetic time-series data, with Krylov-space methods used to forecast which circuits will work well. The central result is that these minimal, Hamiltonian-independent circuit reservoirs can match or exceed conventional approaches in task efficiency.

Core claim

Brickwall circuits composed of two-qubit gates generate global ergodic dynamics through their arrangement alone. This property supports reservoir computing performance that is independent of any specific Hamiltonian. Systematic comparisons show that dual-unitary gates allow controlled study of the ergodicity-performance link, while solvable non-random gates surpass Haar-random unitaries in randomness metrics. Krylov-space analytics reliably predict which circuits will deliver sufficient task performance, and validation on synthetic datasets confirms competitive fading memory capacity and prediction accuracy.

What carries the argument

Brickwall arrangement of two-qubit gates, whose layout produces global ergodicity that extracts computational utility with minimal setup.

If this is right

Tunable ergodicity in dual-unitary gates permits direct mapping between circuit properties and reservoir metrics.
Solvable non-random gates can deliver higher effective randomness than Haar-random two-qubit gates.
Krylov-space analysis provides a practical pre-screening tool for selecting high-performing circuit reservoirs.
The Hamiltonian-independent design reduces experimental overhead for implementing quantum reservoirs on hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same circuit construction could be tested on real quantum devices to check whether the predicted performance survives noise and limited connectivity.
Because the reservoir is defined by gate layout rather than continuous-time evolution, it may integrate more easily with gate-based quantum algorithms than Hamiltonian-based reservoirs do.
The approach suggests that classical reservoir computing ideas can be ported to discrete-time quantum circuits without requiring analog quantum simulation hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The global ergodic behavior of the circuit arises directly from the brickwall gate arrangement and is what enables useful reservoir performance without reference to any Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which a non-ergodic circuit layout produces equal or higher prediction accuracy and memory capacity than the brickwall arrangement on the same synthetic time-series benchmarks would undermine the claimed necessity of the ergodic property.

read the original abstract

Reservoir computing is a framework which is primarily used for temporal information processing, using the intrinsic dynamics of an underlying physical system. The framework, in a quantum setup, is implemented using ergodic dynamics associated with Hamiltonian models. The computational power of the reservoir is closely tied to this underlying dynamical nature, and to probe this further, we study the effectiveness of a reservoir that is made using structured brickwall circuits built from two-qubit gates. Here, the global ergodic nature of the circuit model results from the said arrangement, which has an important role in extracting useful performance with a minimal setup that is independent of an associated Hamiltonian. We focus on the nature of the gates used in this setup and evaluate the resulting reservoir performance, correlating the same with known results on the dynamical nature of the circuit in question. As a baseline, we analyse brickwall circuits composed of Haar-random two-qubit gates, before moving on to dual-unitaries, where tunable ergodic properties allow us to systematically investigate its relationship with reservoir performance. We further consider a class of non-random two-qubit gates obeying a specific solvability condition, wherein the associated dynamics surpasses the equivalent circuit made up of two qubit Haar random unitaries in terms of randomness. Finally, we consider examples of Krylov space analytics, which allow for a reliable prediction of effective circuit reservoirs for sufficient task performance. Using the introduced metrics we validate the reservoir for time-series prediction using standard synthetic data sets to evaluate the fading memory capacity and accuracy for prediction tasks. Our results indicate that structured quantum circuits would serve as effective models that yield better and efficient task performance in reservoir computing applications.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Brickwall circuits with dual-unitary and solvable gates give a workable Hamiltonian-free route to quantum reservoirs, but the ergodicity claim tracks gate properties more than topology.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper tests brickwall circuits made from two-qubit gates as quantum reservoirs for time-series tasks. They run baselines with Haar-random gates, then dual-unitary gates where ergodicity can be tuned, and a set of solvable gates that produce more circuit randomness than Haar. Krylov-space methods are used to pick promising circuits ahead of time, and the setups are checked on synthetic data for fading memory and prediction accuracy. Some of the structured versions look better than the random baseline in their tests.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates structured brickwall quantum circuits built from two-qubit gates as reservoirs in quantum reservoir computing. It claims that the brickwall topology itself produces global ergodicity independently of any Hamiltonian, enabling effective and efficient performance on temporal tasks. The authors compare Haar-random gates as baseline, dual-unitary gates with tunable ergodicity, and solvable gates whose dynamics exceed Haar randomness; they correlate reservoir performance with known dynamical properties, employ Krylov-space analytics for prediction, and validate fading-memory capacity plus prediction accuracy on standard synthetic datasets. The headline conclusion is that such structured circuits yield better task performance than alternatives.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, the work would supply a Hamiltonian-independent construction for quantum reservoirs whose ergodicity is controlled by topology and gate family, offering a minimal-setup route to tunable reservoir computing. Explicit correlation of performance metrics with established circuit dynamics and the use of Krylov analytics for a priori prediction of effective reservoirs are concrete strengths that could be cited in follow-up studies.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the global ergodic nature of the circuit model results from the said arrangement' and is 'independent of an associated Hamiltonian' is load-bearing for the headline claim yet is not isolated from gate choice. The reported experiments vary the two-qubit gate set (Haar, dual-unitary, solvable), each of which is already known to control mixing and ergodicity on finite-depth circuits. A control comparison using identical gate families on non-brickwall topologies is required to establish that the performance advantage is attributable to the global structure rather than local gate expressivity.
[Abstract] Validation on synthetic datasets: the abstract states that 'using the introduced metrics we validate the reservoir for time-series prediction' and that the circuits 'yield better and efficient task performance,' but no error bars, number of independent runs, or statistical significance tests are referenced. Because these quantitative claims are the sole empirical support for the conclusion that structured circuits are superior, the absence of such quantification prevents verification of the reported advantage.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract introduces 'Krylov space analytics' as allowing 'reliable prediction of effective circuit reservoirs' but does not indicate which observables or truncation criteria are used; a single clarifying sentence would improve readability without altering the technical content.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'the global ergodic nature of the circuit model results from the said arrangement' and is 'independent of an associated Hamiltonian' is load-bearing for the headline claim yet is not isolated from gate choice. The reported experiments vary the two-qubit gate set (Haar, dual-unitary, solvable), each of which is already known to control mixing and ergodicity on finite-depth circuits. A control comparison using identical gate families on non-brickwall topologies is required to establish that the performance advantage is attributable to the global structure rather than local gate expressivity.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation on isolating the contribution of the brickwall topology. Our claim concerns independence from a continuous-time Hamiltonian, with the discrete brickwall arrangement (alternating layers of two-qubit gates) providing the global ergodicity and mixing, as supported by the circuit's structure rather than any specific Hamiltonian evolution. We deliberately vary the gate families within this fixed brickwall topology precisely to correlate reservoir performance with established dynamical features: Haar-random gates as a baseline, dual-unitary gates for tunable ergodicity, and solvable gates whose dynamics exceed Haar randomness. This design allows us to link performance metrics directly to known circuit properties without invoking Hamiltonian models. We agree that explicit controls using the same gate sets on non-brickwall topologies (e.g., random or sequential circuits) would further isolate topology effects from gate expressivity. Our study prioritizes the brickwall model for its minimal-setup efficiency and compatibility with existing dynamical results; such controls were not performed. In the revised manuscript we will clarify the precise scope of the 'independent of Hamiltonian' phrasing, add a dedicated discussion paragraph on topology versus gate contributions with supporting references, and note the limitation. This constitutes a partial revision focused on textual clarification and context. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract] Validation on synthetic datasets: the abstract states that 'using the introduced metrics we validate the reservoir for time-series prediction' and that the circuits 'yield better and efficient task performance,' but no error bars, number of independent runs, or statistical significance tests are referenced. Because these quantitative claims are the sole empirical support for the conclusion that structured circuits are superior, the absence of such quantification prevents verification of the reported advantage.

Authors: We agree that robust statistical reporting is essential for the empirical claims. The results on fading-memory capacity and time-series prediction accuracy were obtained from numerical simulations of the brickwall circuits on standard synthetic benchmarks, yet the manuscript does not report error bars, the number of independent realizations, or significance testing. This omission limits verifiability of the stated performance advantages. In the revised manuscript we will augment all relevant figures and tables with error bars derived from multiple independent runs (specifying the exact number of circuit realizations, typically 20–50 depending on the gate family), include standard deviations, and add statistical significance tests (e.g., paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests) comparing the different gate families. These additions will directly support the quantitative statements in the abstract and main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; performance validated on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper evaluates structured brickwall quantum circuits as reservoirs by measuring their performance on standard external time-series prediction tasks using synthetic datasets, fading memory capacity, and prediction accuracy. These metrics are computed directly against held-out data rather than being derived from or fitted to the circuit's own dynamical properties. Claims about global ergodicity arising from the brickwall arrangement are correlated with independently known results on gate families (Haar, dual-unitary, solvable), without the target performance or ergodicity reducing to a self-definition, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain within the paper. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard assumptions from quantum information theory and reservoir computing; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Brickwall arrangements of two-qubit gates produce global ergodic dynamics sufficient for reservoir computing
Invoked to justify Hamiltonian-independent performance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5601 in / 1227 out tokens · 63205 ms · 2026-05-09T15:10:45.401180+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Neural networks and deep learn- ing,

Michael A. Nielsen, “Neural networks and deep learn- ing,” (2015)

2015
[2]

Mitarai, M

Kosuke Mitarai, Makoto Negoro, Masahiro Kitagawa, and Keisuke Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Physical Review A98,032309(2018), arXiv:1803.00745[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[3]

Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors

Edward Farhi and Hartmut Neven, “Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors,” (2018),10.48550/arXiv.1802.06002, arXiv:1802.06002 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.06002 2018
[4]

Circuit-centric quantum classifiers,

Maria Schuld, Alex Bocharov, Krysta M. Svore, and Nathan Wiebe, “Circuit-centric quantum classifiers,” Physical Review A101,032308(2020), arXiv:1804.00633 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[5]

Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces,

Vojt ˇech Havl´ıˇcek, Antonio D. C ´orcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W. Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces,” Nature567,209–212(2019), arXiv:1804.11326[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[6]

Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,

Marcello Benedetti, Erika Lloyd, Stefan Sack, and Mattia Fiorentini, “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,” Quantum Science and Technology4, 043001(2019), arXiv:1906.07682[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[7]

Hierarchical quantum classifiers,

Edward Grant, Marcello Benedetti, Shuxiang Cao, An- drew Hallam, Joshua Lockhart, Vid Stojevic, Andrew G. Green, and Simone Severini, “Hierarchical quantum classifiers,” npj Quantum Information4,65(2018), arXiv:1804.03680[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[8]

Differentiable learning of quantum circuit born machines,

Jin-Guo Liu and Lei Wang, “Differentiable learning of quantum circuit born machines,” Physical Review A98, 062324(2018), arXiv:1804.04168[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08641 , year=

Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers and Nathan Killoran, “Quan- tum generative adversarial networks,” Physical Review A98,012324(2018), arXiv:1804.08641[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[10]

Adversarial quantum circuit learning for pure state approximation,

Marcello Benedetti, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, and Simone Severini, “Adversarial quantum circuit learning for pure state approximation,” New Journal of Physics21,043023(2019), arXiv:1806.00463[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[11]

Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” Nature Communications9,4812(2018), arXiv:1803.11173[quant- ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[12]

Expressibility and entangling capability of parameter- ized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical al- gorithms,

Sukin Sim, Peter D. Johnson, and Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entangling capability of parameter- ized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical al- gorithms,” Advanced Quantum Technologies2,1900070 (2019), arXiv:1905.10876[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[13]

Quantum natural gradient,

James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, and Giuseppe Carleo, “Quantum natural gradient,” Quantum4,269 (2020), arXiv:1909.02108[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[14]

Structure optimization for parame- terized quantum circuits,

Mateusz Ostaszewski, Edward Grant, and Mar- cello Benedetti, “Structure optimization for parame- terized quantum circuits,” Quantum5,391(2021), arXiv:1905.09692[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. Mc- Clean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,” Na- ture Reviews Physics3,625–644(2021), arXiv:2012.09265 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[16]

echo state

Herbert Jaeger,The “echo state” approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks, Tech. Rep. GMD Report 148(German National Research Center for Information Technology,2001)

2001
[17]

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 Computation14,2531–2560(2002)

2002
[18]

Harnessing nonlin- earity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless communication,

Herbert Jaeger and Harald Haas, “Harnessing nonlin- earity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless communication,” Science304,78–80(2004)

2004
[19]

Optimization and applications of echo state networks with leaky-integrator neurons,

Herbert Jaeger, Mantas Luko ˇseviˇcius, Dan Popovici, and Udo Siewert, “Optimization and applications of echo state networks with leaky-integrator neurons,” Neural Networks20,335–352(2007)

2007
[20]

An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods,

David Verstraeten, Benjamin Schrauwen, Michiel D’Haene, and Dirk Stroobandt, “An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods,” Neural Networks20,391–403(2007)

2007
[21]

Reservoir computing approaches to recurrent neural network train- ing,

Mantas Luko ˇseviˇcius and Herbert Jaeger, “Reservoir computing approaches to recurrent neural network train- ing,” Computer Science Review3,127–149(2009)

2009
[22]

Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine 18 learning,

Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima, “Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine 18 learning,” Phys. Rev. Appl.8,024030(2017)

2017
[23]

Quantum reservoir processing,

Sanjib Ghosh, Andrzej Opala, Michał Matuszewski, Tomasz Paterek, and Timothy C. H. Liew, “Quantum reservoir processing,” npj Quantum Information5,35 (2019), arXiv:1811.10335[cond-mat.dis-nn]

work page arXiv 2019
[24]

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 Applied11, 034021(2019)

2019
[25]

Natural quantum reservoir comput- ing for temporal information processing,

Yudai Suzuki, Qi Gao, Ken C. Pradel, Kenji Yasuoka, and Naoki Yamamoto, “Natural quantum reservoir comput- ing for temporal information processing,” Scientific Re- ports12,1353(2022), arXiv:2107.05808[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[26]

Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projective 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 projective measurements,” npj Quantum Information9,16(2023), arXiv:2205.06809[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[27]

High-accuracy temporal prediction via experimental quantum reservoir computing in correlated spins,

Yanjun Hou, Juncheng Hua, Ze Wu, Wei Xia, Yuquan Chen, Xiaopeng Li, Zhaokai Li, Xinhua Peng, and Jiangfeng Du, “High-accuracy temporal prediction via experimental quantum reservoir computing in correlated spins,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136,120602(2026)

2026
[28]

Quantum reservoir computing for re- alized volatility forecasting,

Qingyu Li, Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay, Abolfazl Bayat, and Ali Habibnia, “Quantum reservoir computing for re- alized volatility forecasting,” Phys. Rev. Res.8,023028 (2026)

2026
[29]

Edge of many- body quantum chaos in quantum reservoir computing,

Kaito Kobayashi and Yukitoshi Motome, “Edge of many- body quantum chaos in quantum reservoir computing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136,040602(2026)

2026
[30]

Random quantum circuits,

Matthew P . A. Fisher, Vedika Khemani, Adam Nahum, and Sagar Vijay, “Random quantum circuits,” Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics14,335–379(2023)

2023
[31]

Solu- tion of a minimal model for many-body quantum chaos,

Amos Chan, Andrea De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, “Solu- tion of a minimal model for many-body quantum chaos,” Phys. Rev. X8,041019(2018)

2018
[32]

Oper- ator spreading in random unitary circuits,

Adam Nahum, Sagar Vijay, and Jeongwan Haah, “Oper- ator spreading in random unitary circuits,” Phys. Rev. X 8,021014(2018)

2018
[33]

Out-of-time-order correlators of nonlocal block-spin and random observables in inte- grable and nonintegrable spin chains,

Rohit Kumar Shukla, Arul Lakshminarayan, and Sunil Kumar Mishra, “Out-of-time-order correlators of nonlocal block-spin and random observables in inte- grable and nonintegrable spin chains,” Phys. Rev. B105, 224307(2022)

2022
[34]

Exactly solvable quantum many-body dynamics from space-time duality,

Bruno Bertini, Pieter W. Claeys, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Exactly solvable quantum many-body dynamics from space-time duality,” Rev. Mod. Phys.98,025001(2026)

2026
[35]

Exact correlation functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1+1 dimensions,

Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Exact correlation functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123,210601(2019)

2019
[36]

Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quan- tum circuits,

Lorenzo Piroli, Bruno Bertini, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Tomaˇz Prosen, “Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quan- tum circuits,” Physical Review B101,094304(2020), arXiv:1911.11175[cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page arXiv 2020
[37]

Opera- tor entanglement in local quantum circuits i: Chaotic dual-unitary circuits,

Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Opera- tor entanglement in local quantum circuits i: Chaotic dual-unitary circuits,” SciPost Physics8,067(2020), arXiv:1909.07407[cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page arXiv 2020
[38]

Oper- ator entanglement in local quantum circuits ii: Soli- tons in chains of qubits,

Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Oper- ator entanglement in local quantum circuits ii: Soli- tons in chains of qubits,” SciPost Physics8,068(2020), arXiv:1909.07410[cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page arXiv 2020
[39]

From dual-unitary to quantum bernoulli cir- cuits: Role of the entangling power in constructing a quantum ergodic hierarchy,

S. Aravinda, Suhail Ahmad Rather, and Arul Lakshmi- narayan, “From dual-unitary to quantum bernoulli cir- cuits: Role of the entangling power in constructing a quantum ergodic hierarchy,” Phys. Rev. Res.3,043034 (2021)

2021
[40]

Quantum reservoir complexity by the krylov evolution approach,

Laia Domingo, F. Borondo, Gast ´on Scialchi, Augusto J. Roncaglia, Gabriel G. Carlo, and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Quantum reservoir complexity by the krylov evolution approach,” Phys. Rev. A110,022446(2024)

2024
[41]

Engi- neering quantum reservoirs through krylov complexity, expressivity, and observability,

Saud ˇCindrak, Lina Jaurigue, and Kathy L ¨udge, “Engi- neering quantum reservoirs through krylov complexity, expressivity, and observability,” Phys. Rev. Res.7,043190 (2025)

2025
[42]

From krylov complexity to observability: Capturing phase space dimension with applications in quantum reservoir computing,

Saud Cindrak, Kathy Ludge, and Lina Jaurigue, “From krylov complexity to observability: Capturing phase space dimension with applications in quantum reservoir computing,” Phys. Rev. Res.7, L042039(2025)

2025
[43]

Efficiency of pro- ducing random unitary matrices with quantum circuits,

Ludovic Arnaud and Daniel Braun, “Efficiency of pro- ducing random unitary matrices with quantum circuits,” Phys. Rev. A78,062329(2008)

2008
[44]

Random quan- tum circuits are approximate2-designs,

Aram W. Harrow and Richard A. Low, “Random quan- tum circuits are approximate2-designs,” Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics291,257–302(2009)

2009
[45]

Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,

Fernando G. S. L. Brand ˜ao, Aram W. Harrow, and Michał Horodecki, “Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,” Communications in Mathematical Physics346,397–434(2016)

2016
[46]

Random quantum circuits are ap- proximate unitaryt-designs in depthO nt5+o(1) ,

Jonas Haferkamp, “Random quantum circuits are ap- proximate unitaryt-designs in depthO nt5+o(1) ,” Quantum6,795(2022)

2022
[47]

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 Quantum5,040325(2024)

2024
[48]

Dissipa- tion as a resource for Quantum Reservoir Computing,

Antonio Sannia, Rodrigo Mart ´ınez-Pe˜na, Miguel C. Sori- ano, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini, “Dissipa- tion as a resource for Quantum Reservoir Computing,” Quantum8,1291(2024)

2024
[49]

Harnessing quan- tum backaction for time-series processing,

Giacomo Franceschetto, Marcin Płodzie ´n, Maciej Lewen- stein, Antonio Ac´ın, and Pere Mujal, “Harnessing quan- tum backaction for time-series processing,” Phys. Rev. X 16,021002(2026)

2026
[50]

Measurement-driven quantum advantages in shallow circuits,

Chenfeng Cao and Jens Eisert, “Measurement-driven quantum advantages in shallow circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 136,080601(2026)

2026
[51]

Quantifying operator spreading and chaos in krylov subspaces with quantum state recon- struction,

Abinash Sahu, Naga Dileep Varikuti, Bishal Kumar Das, and Vaibhav Madhok, “Quantifying operator spreading and chaos in krylov subspaces with quantum state recon- struction,” Phys. Rev. B108,224306(2023)

2023
[52]

Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos,

E. Rabinovici, A. S ´anchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Sonner, “Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022,151(2022)

2022
[53]

Krylov localization and suppression of complexity,

E. Rabinovici, A. S ´anchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Son- ner, “Krylov localization and suppression of complexity,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022,211(2022)

2022
[54]

Krylov com- plexity in open quantum systems,

Chang Liu, Haifeng Tang, and Hui Zhai, “Krylov com- plexity in open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033085(2023). 19

2023
[55]

Operator growth and krylov construction in dissipative open quantum sys- tems,

Aranya Bhattacharya, Pratik Nandy, Pingal Pratyush Nath, and Himanshu Sahu, “Operator growth and krylov construction in dissipative open quantum sys- tems,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022,81(2022)

2022
[56]

Krylov subspace methods for quantum dynamics with time- dependent generators,

Kazutaka Takahashi and Adolfo del Campo, “Krylov subspace methods for quantum dynamics with time- dependent generators,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134,030401 (2025)

2025
[57]

Integrability-to-chaos transition through the krylov approach for state evolution,

Gast ´on F. Scialchi, Augusto J. Roncaglia, and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Integrability-to-chaos transition through the krylov approach for state evolution,” Phys. Rev. E109, 054209(2024)

2024
[58]

Speed limits and scrambling in krylov space,

Ankit Gill and Tapobrata Sarkar, “Speed limits and scrambling in krylov space,” Phys. Rev. B111,184307 (2025)

2025
[59]

Krylov space dynamics of ergodic and dynamically frozen floquet systems,

Luke Staszewski, Asmi Haldar, Pieter W. Claeys, and Alexander Wietek, “Krylov space dynamics of ergodic and dynamically frozen floquet systems,” Physical Re- view B113,165144(2026), arXiv:2510.19824[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[60]

Krylov complexity and trotter transitions in uni- tary circuit dynamics,

Philippe Suchsland, Roderich Moessner, and Pieter W. Claeys, “Krylov complexity and trotter transitions in uni- tary circuit dynamics,” Phys. Rev. B111,014309(2025)

2025
[61]

Exploring quantum ergodicity of unitary evolution through the krylov approach,

Gast ´on F. Scialchi, Augusto J. Roncaglia, Carlos Pineda, and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Exploring quantum ergodicity of unitary evolution through the krylov approach,” Phys. Rev. E111,014220(2025)

2025
[62]

Entan- gling power of quantum evolutions,

Paolo Zanardi, Christof Zalka, and Lara Faoro, “Entan- gling power of quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. A62, 030301(2000)

2000
[63]

Suzuki, H

Ryotaro Suzuki, Hosho Katsura, Yosuke Mitsuhashi, To- mohiro Soejima, Jens Eisert, and Nobuyuki Yoshioka, “More global randomness from less random local gates,” (2024), arXiv:2410.24127[quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[64]

Creating ensembles of dual unitary and max- imally entangling quantum evolutions,

Suhail Ahmad Rather, S. Aravinda, and Arul Lakshmi- narayan, “Creating ensembles of dual unitary and max- imally entangling quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125,070501(2020)

2020
[65]

Dependence of krylov complexity satura- tion on the initial operator and state,

Sreeram PG, J. Bharathi Kannan, Ranjan Modak, and S. Aravinda, “Dependence of krylov complexity satura- tion on the initial operator and state,” Phys. Rev. E112, L032203(2025)

2025
[66]

Assess- ing the saturation of krylov complexity as a measure of chaos,

Bernardo L. Espa ˜nol and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Assess- ing the saturation of krylov complexity as a measure of chaos,” Phys. Rev. E107,024217(2023)

2023
[67]

Information processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems,

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 Computation15,1440–1451(2023)

2023
[68]

Maximum ve- locity quantum circuits,

Pieter W. Claeys and Austen Lamacraft, “Maximum ve- locity quantum circuits,” Phys. Rev. Res.2,033032(2020)

2020
[69]

Growth of entan- glement of generic states under dual-unitary dynamics,

Alessandro Foligno and Bruno Bertini, “Growth of entan- glement of generic states under dual-unitary dynamics,” Phys. Rev. B107,174311(2023)

2023
[70]

Maximal entangle- ment velocity implies dual unitarity,

Tianci Zhou and Aram W. Harrow, “Maximal entangle- ment velocity implies dual unitarity,” Phys. Rev. B106, L201104(2022)

2022
[71]

Entan- glement structure for a finite system under dual-unitary dynamics,

Gaurav Rudra Malik, Rohit Kumar Shukla, Sudhanva Joshi, S. Aravinda, and Sunil Kumar Mishra, “Entan- glement structure for a finite system under dual-unitary dynamics,” Phys. Rev. B113,064307(2026)

2026
[72]

Entanglement of quantum evolutions,

Paolo Zanardi, “Entanglement of quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. A63,040304(2001)

2001
[73]

Quantum dynamics as a physical re- source,

Michael A. Nielsen, Christopher M. Dawson, Jennifer L. Dodd, Alexei Gilchrist, Duncan Mortimer, Tobias J. Os- borne, Michael J. Bremner, Aram W. Harrow, and Andrew Hines, “Quantum dynamics as a physical re- source,” Phys. Rev. A67,052301(2003)

2003
[74]

Temporal entangle- ment barriers in dual-unitary clifford circuits with mea- surements,

Jiangtian Yao and Pieter W. Claeys, “Temporal entangle- ment barriers in dual-unitary clifford circuits with mea- surements,” Phys. Rev. Res.6,043077(2024)

2024
[75]

Evaluating quantum circuits in the reservoir computing paradigm,

Gaurav Rudra Malik, Amit Kumar Jaiswal, S. Aravinda, and Sunil Kumar Mishra, “Evaluating quantum circuits in the reservoir computing paradigm,” (2026), gitHub repository referencing arXiv preprint. Appendix A: Mixing Rate and role of local unitaries in dual-unitary circuits The class of dual-unitary circuits is such that the cor- relation function on the ...

2026