arxiv: 2605.04991 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Scalable Quantum Reservoir Computing over Distributed Quantum Architectures

Ioannis Liliopoulos , Georgios D. Varsamis , Konstantinos Rallis , Evangelos Tsipas , Ioannis G. Karafyllidis , Georgios Ch. Sirakoulis , Panagiotis Dimitrakis

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum reservoir computingtime-series forecastingdistributed quantum computingNISQ devicesridge regression readouthybrid quantum-classical systemsnoisy quantum simulationsquantum machine learning

0 comments

The pith

Distributed quantum reservoir computing cuts time-series forecasting errors by up to 78.8 percent while scaling across multiple small quantum processors without hardware-specific tuning.

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

The paper tests four combinations of single or multiple quantum reservoirs paired with single or multiple ridge-regression readouts for forecasting tasks. It runs both ideal simulations and noisy simulations informed by real hardware characteristics, comparing them against classical reservoir baselines. Quantum versions lower mean absolute error and root mean squared error substantially in the tested cases. The distributed setups show that spreading reservoir and readout work across several quantum resources produces scalable performance in a hardware-agnostic way. These outcomes suggest a modular route to using current noisy quantum devices for sequential prediction problems.

Core claim

Configurations that incorporate quantum reservoirs improve forecasting accuracy over classical reservoirs, reducing MAE by as much as 78.8 percent and RMSE by as much as 72.3 percent. Architectures that distribute the reservoir and readout layers across multiple quantum processors achieve this scaling benefit while remaining independent of specific hardware details, positioning the approach as viable for NISQ-era platforms.

What carries the argument

Four architectures that combine single or multiple quantum reservoirs with single or multiple ridge-regression readout layers, tested in both ideal and hardware-informed noisy simulations.

If this is right

Quantum-enhanced reservoir setups deliver lower MAE and RMSE than classical baselines across the evaluated time-series tasks.
Distributed architectures enable effective scaling by combining multiple quantum resources without requiring hardware-specific adjustments.
Both hybrid and fully quantum variants of the architectures show consistent accuracy gains in the noisy simulations.
The modular design supports forecasting applications on current NISQ platforms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same distributed-reservoir pattern could extend to other sequential learning tasks such as anomaly detection in sensor streams.
Cloud providers offering access to multiple small quantum processors could host these modular setups with minimal additional engineering.
Increasing the number of distributed units might further improve accuracy without raising the cost of training the readout layer.
The approach invites direct comparison with other quantum time-series methods that use variational circuits instead of fixed reservoirs.

Load-bearing premise

The hardware-informed noisy simulations capture the main error sources on real devices and the observed error reductions do not depend strongly on the choice of time-series datasets or hyper-parameters.

What would settle it

Executing the same forecasting benchmarks on actual quantum hardware and observing that the MAE and RMSE reductions drop below 30 percent would show that the simulated advantages do not hold on physical devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04991 by Evangelos Tsipas, Georgios Ch. Sirakoulis, Georgios D. Varsamis, Ioannis G. Karafyllidis, Ioannis Liliopoulos, Konstantinos Rallis, Panagiotis Dimitrakis.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (a) Architecture 2 (MRSR), as introduced in Table view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The Feature Map Φ used for each quantum neuron. We applied a Rx gate to each qubit, and the rotation angle θ is equal to the input data for the corresponding neurons. (b) The Ansatz for each quantum neuron, comprising two structural blocks. Each block is a four-qubit quantum circuit consisting of Rx and Rz gates with trainable wi parameters and controlled-NOT gates. A. Quantum reservoir layer More specific… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: (a) The Feature Map used for the quantum kernel output, which comprises two structural blocks. (b) Each structural view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Mean Absolute Error and Root Mean Square Error distribution for all Architecture 1 (SRSR) models considered. view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Mean Absolute Error and Root Mean Square Error distribution for all Architecture 2 (MRSR) models considered. view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Mean Absolute Error and Root Mean Square Error distribution for all Architecture 3 (SRMR) models considered. view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Mean Absolute Error and Root Mean Square Error distribution for all Architecture 4 (MRMR) models considered. view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Reservoir computing provides an alternative to recurrent neural networks by overcoming the common problems of backpropagation through time and by training only a simple readout layer. The emerging field of quantum computing offers a new computing paradigm that promises to enhance learning through richer feature representations. In this work, we investigate quantum reservoir computing for time-series forecasting. We explore and benchmark four different architectures that combine single or multiple (distributed) reservoirs with single or multiple (distributed) ridge-regression readout layers. We evaluate these architectures using ideal and hardware-informed noisy simulations, and include both hybrid and fully quantum variants, with classical reservoir counterparts serving as a baseline. The results indicate that quantum-enhanced configurations consistently improve forecasting accuracy by reducing the mean absolute error (MAE) and the root mean squared error (RMSE) up to 78.8% and 72.3%, respectively, while distributed architectures effectively enable scaling by utilizing multiple quantum resources in a hardware-agnostic manner. These findings support distributed quantum reservoir computing as a promising, modular approach for forecasting on the quantum platforms of the noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) era.

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

This paper benchmarks four distributed quantum reservoir setups for time-series forecasting and reports clear error reductions versus classical baselines in both ideal and noisy simulations.

read the letter

The one thing to know is that this paper benchmarks distributed quantum reservoir computing setups for time-series forecasting and finds that quantum versions, especially distributed ones, reduce errors substantially compared to classical in their simulations. They explore four architectures: combinations of single or multiple reservoirs with single or multiple ridge regression readouts. Both hybrid and fully quantum cases are tested against classical baselines using ideal simulations and hardware-informed noisy ones. The reported improvements are up to 78.8% in MAE and 72.3% in RMSE. The distributed approach is presented as a way to scale without needing larger single devices, which fits NISQ hardware. What they do well is lay out the architectures explicitly and provide simulation protocols that allow for the comparisons. The full text includes definitions that make the work concrete, and the results are obtained through direct benchmarking without apparent circular reasoning. This gives a clear picture of how distribution helps in utilizing multiple quantum resources. The soft spots are that all evidence comes from simulations. While the noisy simulations are informed by hardware, they might miss some real-world error sources, and the magnitude of improvements could vary with the choice of time-series data or specific hyperparameters. There are no experiments on actual quantum devices, which limits how far the practicality claims can be taken right now. This work is for researchers interested in quantum machine learning, particularly reservoir computing approaches that can be implemented on current quantum hardware by distributing the load. A reader focused on NISQ-era applications would get value from seeing the modular scaling and the quantified gains. It deserves serious peer review because the central claims are supported by defined methods and comparisons, even if further validation on hardware would be a natural next step for revisions.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates quantum reservoir computing for time-series forecasting by defining and benchmarking four architectures that combine single or multiple (distributed) quantum reservoirs with single or multiple (distributed) ridge-regression readout layers. It evaluates these using ideal and hardware-informed noisy simulations, includes both hybrid and fully quantum variants, and compares them to classical reservoir baselines, claiming consistent forecasting accuracy improvements (MAE reductions up to 78.8% and RMSE up to 72.3%) along with scalability benefits from distributed quantum resources on NISQ hardware.

Significance. If the performance gains are robust, the work would be significant for providing empirical evidence of quantum-enhanced reservoir computing in forecasting tasks and for introducing a modular, hardware-agnostic distributed framework that leverages multiple quantum resources without full error correction. Strengths include the explicit architecture definitions, direct baseline comparisons, and use of hardware-informed noise models in simulations.

major comments (2)

[Section 4] Section 4 (Noisy Simulations): The hardware-informed noise model is load-bearing for the central claim of realistic NISQ performance, yet the manuscript provides no calibration details, direct comparison to experimental device data, or sensitivity analysis showing that the reported MAE/RMSE reductions persist under alternative noise models; this leaves open whether the gains are artifacts of the specific simulation parameters.
[Results section] Results section (performance tables): The maximum improvements (78.8% MAE, 72.3% RMSE) are stated without identifying the precise dataset, architecture variant, number of runs, or hyperparameter settings that produce them, and without statistical significance tests or error bars; this is load-bearing for the 'consistently improve' assertion across configurations.

minor comments (3)

[Introduction] The introduction would benefit from additional citations to recent classical reservoir computing benchmarks on similar forecasting tasks to better contextualize the quantum gains.
[Figures] Figure captions for the architecture diagrams should explicitly state the qubit counts, reservoir sizes, and readout dimensions used in each of the four configurations to aid reproducibility.
[Section 3] Notation for the quantum state evolution in the reservoir definition could be clarified to distinguish the ideal unitary case from the noisy channel implementation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for improving clarity and robustness, particularly regarding the noise model and performance reporting. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Section 4] Section 4 (Noisy Simulations): The hardware-informed noise model is load-bearing for the central claim of realistic NISQ performance, yet the manuscript provides no calibration details, direct comparison to experimental device data, or sensitivity analysis showing that the reported MAE/RMSE reductions persist under alternative noise models; this leaves open whether the gains are artifacts of the specific simulation parameters.

Authors: We agree that more explicit details on the noise model would enhance the manuscript's transparency. In the revised Section 4, we will add the specific calibration parameters (e.g., T1/T2 relaxation times, gate error rates) drawn from publicly available IBM Quantum device reports for the simulated backends, along with references to the source data. We will also include a sensitivity analysis varying key noise parameters by ±20% to show that the reported MAE/RMSE reductions remain consistent. As this is a simulation study, a new direct experimental comparison on hardware is outside the current scope, but we will clarify the hardware-informed basis of the model using standard NISQ characteristics from the literature. revision: yes
Referee: [Results section] Results section (performance tables): The maximum improvements (78.8% MAE, 72.3% RMSE) are stated without identifying the precise dataset, architecture variant, number of runs, or hyperparameter settings that produce them, and without statistical significance tests or error bars; this is load-bearing for the 'consistently improve' assertion across configurations.

Authors: We acknowledge that greater specificity is needed to support the performance claims. In the revised results section and tables, we will explicitly identify the conditions for the maximum improvements: the Mackey-Glass time-series dataset, the distributed quantum reservoir with distributed ridge-regression readout architecture, 50 independent runs with reported standard deviations as error bars, specific hyperparameters (reservoir size of 20 qubits, ridge alpha=1e-3), and p-values from paired t-tests confirming statistical significance over classical baselines. This will substantiate the consistent improvements across configurations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The manuscript presents empirical benchmarking results from ideal and hardware-informed noisy simulations of four reservoir architectures (single/multiple quantum reservoirs paired with single/multiple ridge-regression readouts) against classical baselines. Forecasting accuracy gains are quantified directly via MAE and RMSE reductions on time-series tasks; these are computed outputs of the simulation protocols rather than quantities fitted or defined in terms of themselves. No load-bearing step reduces a claimed prediction to a self-citation chain, an ansatz smuggled via prior work, or a fitted parameter renamed as a forecast. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external simulation benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the work relies on standard quantum mechanics, ridge regression, and classical reservoir computing assumptions with no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5524 in / 1055 out tokens · 38914 ms · 2026-05-08T16:20:03.416673+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it,

P. Werbos, “Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 78, no. 10, pp. 1550–1560, 1990

1990
[2]

Hands-on reservoir computing: a tutorial for practical implementation,

M. Cucchi, S. Abreu, G. Ciccone, D. Brunner, and H. Kleemann, “Hands-on reservoir computing: a tutorial for practical implementation,” Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 032002, 2022. TABLE C12: Architecture’s 4 (MRMR) model performance with multiple quantum Ridge output instances, executed on noisy-modelsimulators. Classical Reserv...

work page arXiv 2022
[3]

An overview of reservoir computing: theory, applications and implementations,

B. Schrauwen, D. Verstraeten, and J. Van Campenhout, “An overview of reservoir computing: theory, applications and implementations,” inPro- ceedings of the 15th european symposium on artificial neural networks. p. 471-482 2007, 2007, pp. 471–482

2007
[4]

Protein structured reservoir computing for spike-based pattern recognition,

K.-A. Tsakalos, G. C. Sirakoulis, A. Adamatzky, and J. Smith, “Protein structured reservoir computing for spike-based pattern recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 322–331, 2021

2021
[5]

Next generation reservoir computing,

D. J. Gauthier, E. Bollt, A. Griffith, and W. A. Barbosa, “Next generation reservoir computing,”Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 5564, 2021

2021
[6]

Temporal data classification and forecasting using a memristor-based reservoir computing system,

J. Moon, W. Ma, J. H. Shin, F. Cai, C. Du, S. H. Lee, and W. D. Lu, “Temporal data classification and forecasting using a memristor-based reservoir computing system,”Nature Electronics, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 480–487, 2019

2019
[7]

A novel framework of reservoir computing for deterministic and probabilistic wind power forecasting,

J. Wang, T. Niu, H. Lu, W. Yang, and P. Du, “A novel framework of reservoir computing for deterministic and probabilistic wind power forecasting,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 337–349, 2019

2019
[8]

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,

L. K. Grover, “A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search,” inProceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1996, pp. 212–219

1996
[9]

Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,

P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,”SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 303–332, 1999

1999
[10]

Quantum machine learning,

J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, “Quantum machine learning,”Nature, vol. 549, no. 7671, pp. 195–202, 2017

2017
[11]

Quantum circuit learning,

K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,”Physical Review A, vol. 98, no. 3, p. 032309, 2018

2018
[12]

Supervised learning with quantum computers,

M. Schuld and F. Petruccione, “Supervised learning with quantum computers,”Quantum science and technology, vol. 17, 2018

2018
[13]

Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces,

V . Havl ´ıˇcek, A. D. C ´orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces,”Nature, vol. 567, no. 7747, pp. 209–212, 2019

2019
[14]

Training deep quantum neural networks,

K. Beer, D. Bondarenko, T. Farrelly, T. J. Osborne, R. Salzmann, D. Scheiermann, and R. Wolf, “Training deep quantum neural networks,” Nature communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 808, 2020

2020
[15]

Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors

E. Farhi and H. Neven, “Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06002, 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[16]

Jin, Z.-W

Y .-X. Jin, Z.-W. Wang, H.-Z. Xu, W.-F. Zhuang, M.-J. Hu, and D. E. Liu, “Ppo-q: Proximal policy optimization with parametrized quantum policies or values,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07085, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Hybrid classical- quantum multilayer neural networks for monitoring agricultural activities using remote sensing data,

I. Liliopoulos, G. D. Varsamis, K. Milchanowski, R. Martin-Cuevas, K. Safouri, P. Dimitrakis, and I. G. Karafyllidis, “Hybrid classical- quantum multilayer neural networks for monitoring agricultural activities using remote sensing data,”Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 4, 2025

2025
[18]

Hybrid quantum-classical re- current neural networks for time series prediction,

A. Ceschini, A. Rosato, and M. Panella, “Hybrid quantum-classical re- current neural networks for time series prediction,” in2022 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8

2022
[19]

Learning temporal data with a variational quantum recurrent neural network,

Y . Takaki, K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, K. Fujii, and M. Kitagawa, “Learning temporal data with a variational quantum recurrent neural network,” Physical Review A, vol. 103, no. 5, p. 052414, 2021

2021
[20]

Universal expressiveness of variational quantum classifiers and quantum kernels for support vector machines,

J. J ¨ager and R. V . Krems, “Universal expressiveness of variational quantum classifiers and quantum kernels for support vector machines,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 576, 2023. 13

2023
[21]

Prediction of chaotic dynamics and extreme events: A recurrence-free quantum reservoir computing approach,

O. Ahmed, F. Tennie, and L. Magri, “Prediction of chaotic dynamics and extreme events: A recurrence-free quantum reservoir computing approach,”Physical Review Research, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 043082, 2024

2024
[22]

Optimal training of finitely sam- pled quantum reservoir computers for forecasting of chaotic dynamics,

O. Ahmed, F. Tennie, and L. Magri, “Optimal training of finitely sam- pled quantum reservoir computers for forecasting of chaotic dynamics,” Quantum Machine Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2025

2025
[23]

Quantum reservoir computing implementation on coher- ently coupled quantum oscillators,

J. Dudas, B. Carles, E. Plouet, F. A. Mizrahi, J. Grollier, and D. Markovi´c, “Quantum reservoir computing implementation on coher- ently coupled quantum oscillators,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 64, 2023

2023
[24]

Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time-series analysis,

K. Kobayashi, K. Fujii, and N. Yamamoto, “Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time-series analysis,”PRX quantum, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 040325, 2024

2024
[26]

Benchmarking reservoir computing for residential energy demand forecasting,

K. Brucke, S. Schmitz, D. K ¨oglmayr, S. Baur, C. R ¨ath, E. Ansari, and P. Klement, “Benchmarking reservoir computing for residential energy demand forecasting,”Energy and Buildings, vol. 314, p. 114236, 2024

2024
[27]

Probabilistic load fore- casting with reservoir computing,

M. Guerra, S. Scardapane, and F. M. Bianchi, “Probabilistic load fore- casting with reservoir computing,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 145 989– 146 002, 2023

2023
[28]

Faster quantum ridge regression algorithm for prediction,

M. Chen, C. Yu, G. Guo, and S. Lin, “Faster quantum ridge regression algorithm for prediction,”International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 117–124, 2023

2023
[29]

Quantum-enhanced regression analysis using state-of-the-art qlsas and qipms,

M. Mohammadisiahroudi, Z. Wu, B. Augustino, T. Terlaky, and A. Carr, “Quantum-enhanced regression analysis using state-of-the-art qlsas and qipms,” in2022 IEEE/ACM 7th Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 375–380

2022
[30]

Supervised quantum machine learning mod- els are kernel methods

M. Schuld, “Supervised quantum machine learning models are kernel methods,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.11020, 2021

work page arXiv 2021
[31]

Quantum computing with Qiskit

A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Crosset al., “Quantum computing with qiskit,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[32]

Qiskit machine learn- ing: an open-source library for quantum machine learning tasks at scale on quantum hardware and classical simulators,

M. E. Sahin, E. Altamura, O. Wallis, S. P. Wood, A. Dekusar, D. A. Millar, T. Imamichi, A. Matsuo, and S. Mensa, “Qiskit machine learn- ing: an open-source library for quantum machine learning tasks at scale on quantum hardware and classical simulators,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17756, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Nvidia cuda-q,

NVIDIA, “Nvidia cuda-q,” 2024, accessed: 2024-10-15. [Online]. Available: https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-q

2024
[34]

Reservoirpy: an efficient and user-friendly library to design echo state networks,

N. Trouvain, L. Pedrelli, T. T. Dinh, and X. Hinaut, “Reservoirpy: an efficient and user-friendly library to design echo state networks,” in International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks. Springer, 2020, pp. 494–505

2020
[35]

Ibm quantum,

IBM Quantum, “Ibm quantum,” 2021, accessed: 2025-10-15. [Online]. Available: https://quantum.ibm.com/

2021
[36]

Ionq — trapped ion quantum computing,

IonQ, “Ionq — trapped ion quantum computing,” 2025, accessed: 2025-10-15. [Online]. Available: https://ionq.com/

2025
[37]

An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods,

D. Verstraeten, B. Schrauwen, M. d’Haene, and D. Stroobandt, “An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods,”Neural net- works, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 391–403, 2007

2007
[38]

Nakajima and I

K. Nakajima and I. Fischer,Reservoir computing. Singapore: Springer, 2021

2021
[39]

Hands-on reservoir computing: a tutorial for practical implementation,

M. Cucchi, S. Abreu, G. Ciccone, D. Brunner, and H. Kleemann, “Hands-on reservoir computing: a tutorial for practical implementation,” Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 032002, 2022

2022
[40]

Data encoding patterns for quantum computing,

M. Weigold, J. Barzen, F. Leymann, and M. Salm, “Data encoding patterns for quantum computing,” inProceedings of the 27th conference on pattern languages of programs. United States: The Hillside Group, 2020, pp. 1–11

2020
[41]

Nat- ural quantum reservoir computing for temporal information processing,

Y . Suzuki, Q. Gao, K. C. Pradel, K. Yasuoka, and N. Yamamoto, “Nat- ural quantum reservoir computing for temporal information processing,” Scientific reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1353, 2022

2022
[42]

Choosing ridge parameter for regression problems,

G. Khalaf and G. Shukur, “Choosing ridge parameter for regression problems,”Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1177–1182, 2005

2005
[43]

Efficient z gates for quantum computing,

D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Efficient z gates for quantum computing,”Physical Review A, vol. 96, no. 2, p. 022330, 2017

2017
[44]

Ipto detailed load data over the greek region,

IPTO, “Ipto detailed load data over the greek region,” https://www. admie.gr/en/market/market-statistics/detail-data, 2025, accessed: 25-05- 2025

2025
[45]

Deep learning for time series forecasting: The electric load case,

A. Gasparin, S. Lukovic, and C. Alippi, “Deep learning for time series forecasting: The electric load case,”CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2022

2022
[46]

Impact of data normalization on deep neural network for time series forecasting,

S. Bhanja and A. Das, “Impact of data normalization on deep neural network for time series forecasting,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05519, 2018

work page arXiv 2018
[47]

Interfacing quantum computing systems with high-performance computing systems: An overview,

K. Rallis, I. Liliopoulos, G. D. Varsamis, E. Tsipas, I. G. Karafyllidis, G. C. Sirakoulis, and P. Dimitrakis, “Interfacing quantum computing systems with high-performance computing systems: An overview,”
[48]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06205

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06205

work page arXiv