Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 160 references

No quantum reservoir has beaten a well-matched classical one.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:02 UTC pith:RUONI6GZ

load-bearing objection A competent, well-organized survey that gives QRC a usable system model and reporting protocol; its negative advantage claim is defensible but rests partly on preprints, which the paper itself handles honestly.

arxiv 2607.18552 v1 pith:RUONI6GZ submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph cs.LG

Quantum Reservoir Computing: Recent Advances and Future Directions

Shehbaz Tariq , Muhammad Talha , Arshid Ali , Muhammad Diyan , Symeon Chatzinotas This is my paper
classification quant-ph cs.LG MSC 81P6868T05
keywords quantum reservoir computingquantum machine learningecho state networksquantum advantageNISQ hardwaretemporal information processingresource accountingbenchmarking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This survey argues that the common justification for quantum reservoir computing (QRC) — the exponentially large Hilbert space of a quantum system — does not by itself confer computational power. Memory, nonlinearity, and usable expressivity arise from the joint action of input encoding, quantum evolution, observables, measurement, and a classical readout, not from state-space dimension alone. Organizing the field around a unified system model and a taxonomy of memory mechanisms, the authors compare spin, photonic, superconducting, bosonic, and neutral atom implementations. Their central conclusion is that current results establish task-specific feasibility but not a broad quantum advantage over well-matched classical reservoirs. The paper then prescribes the resource accounting, matched baselines, and reproducibility standards needed to make any future advantage claim testable.

Core claim

The survey's central discovery is a negative result about the evidence base: after classifying the literature by a processing chain (preprocessing, encoding, reservoir evolution, measurement, finite sampling, readout) and by the primary locus of temporal memory, the authors find that no current demonstration supplies the complete chain of matched classical baselines, full quantum-execution accounting, and reproducibility needed to claim quantum advantage. They state directly: 'Current results do not establish a broad quantum advantage over well matched classical reservoirs.' They further separate advantage claims into empirical, scaling, and formal levels, and argue that the field currently

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'QRC predictor' of Definition 1: a map that composes classical preprocessing, quantum encoding, reservoir evolution, measurement (including finite sampling), and a trained classical readout. It makes explicit where memory resides, where nonlinearity enters, and what each stage costs, allowing different physical substrates and operating protocols to be compared by computational role rather than by nominal Hilbert space dimension. A second organizing device is the taxonomy of memory mechanisms — intrinsic recurrent state, measurement feedback, recurrence-free classical window, and memoryless quantum extreme learning machine — which determines transfer between input st

Load-bearing premise

The survey's conclusion depends on the completeness and accuracy of the cited literature — including many unrefereed preprints and in-press articles — so a missed or misclassified demonstration of quantum advantage could overturn the negative result.

What would settle it

Take any claimed QRC advantage (for instance, the neutral atom, spin, or circuit QED demonstrations) and rerun it against a tuned classical reservoir with the same training data, matched preprocessing, comparable trainable-parameter count, and a full count of quantum executions, shots, and sequence replays. A statistically significant, reproducible improvement that survives this accounting would refute the survey's central claim. A simpler observation would be a peer-reviewed QRC study that reports the complete resource accounting and still beats a well-matched classical baseline on a task fam

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any QRC advantage claim must be tested against a well-matched classical reservoir tuned under a comparable search budget; otherwise the comparison is uninterpretable.
  • Physical scale — qubit count, atom count, or optical mode count — is not evidence of usable feature dimension; reports must include shot counts, sequence replays, measurement settings, and classical postprocessing cost.
  • Recurrence-free quantum cores that encode a classical window and reset per sample expose more parallelism, but their temporal memory lives in the classical window, and that classical cost must be counted.
  • Distinguishing empirical, scaling, and formal advantage levels gives the field a concrete target: a formal advantage requires a task family, a classical comparison class, a computational assumption, and an efficient quantum measurement procedure.
  • The paper's minimum reporting protocol, if adopted, would make cross-platform QRC comparisons possible for the first time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the negative conclusion holds, the near-term practical value of QRC is likely as a feature extractor inside hybrid classical workloads rather than a standalone rival to tuned classical reservoirs.
  • The taxonomy suggests a testable prediction: reservoirs whose memory is supplied by a classical window plus a memoryless quantum core should reach reproducible, scalable performance earlier than state-retaining reservoirs, because they avoid destructive-measurement sequence replays.
  • Existing hardware demonstrations (neutral atom, spin/NMR, circuit QED) could be re-run under the paper's resource accounting with matched classical baselines; surviving advantages would identify where genuine quantum benefit may lie.
  • The paper's ideal-versus-sampled feature distinction implies that many published capacities are optimistic; reported memory and expressivity figures should be discounted until finite-shot estimation is included.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This survey proposes a common system model for quantum reservoir computing (QRC) that traces an input through preprocessing, quantum encoding, reservoir dynamics, measurement, and classical readout. On this basis it introduces a taxonomy organized by the primary locus of temporal memory — intrinsic quantum state, measurement feedback, classical memory with a reinitialized quantum core, and memoryless QELM — reviews hardware platforms and applications while separating experiments from simulations, analyzes software/HPC and resource costs, and concludes that current results do not establish a broad quantum advantage over well-matched classical reservoirs. The paper's main deliverable is not a new theorem but a framework and reporting standard for evaluating QRC claims.

Significance. If the assessment holds, the survey provides a valuable corrective to the common appeal to exponential Hilbert-space dimension as a proxy for computational power, and it gives the field a concrete resource-accounting and benchmarking vocabulary. The mathematical backbone — CPTP maps, Lindblad evolution, ridge regression, finite-shot variance — is standard and correctly applied. The authors are commendably careful in distinguishing hardware experiments from simulations and in reporting per-study limitations; Section 7's replay-cost expression and reporting checklist are concrete and actionable. The negative conclusion is appropriately hedged and is supported by the surveyed evidence.

minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.2, Tables 4–5] The central negative claim is about 'current results,' but the paper does not state its literature coverage window, search strategy, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. Please add a short paragraph specifying the databases/queries, the last search date, and how the E/N (experiment vs. numerical) labels in Tables 4–5 were assigned. This would make the survey's completeness auditable and would let the reader know whether the conclusion is about the surveyed set or the entire literature.
  2. [§6.4, Table 5] The adversarial robustness row cites [128], which is an author-affiliated paper, without disclosure. Given the survey's own emphasis on unbiased comparison, please add a conflict-of-interest or self-citation note and state how that study was assessed relative to the other rows.
  3. [§7.2, Eq. (30)] The replay cost C_replay counts input-interval evolutions. If virtual nodes are used, the actual number of reservoir-channel applications is V times this count, and washout steps are excluded from the displayed expression. Please clarify the counting convention in the text so that the formula cannot be misread as the full evolution-step count.
  4. [§5.4] The discussion of [69] correctly distinguishes the 110 shots-per-data-point value (finite-sample simulation) from the hardware protocol. This distinction is important; consider adding a table footnote or a repeated explicit statement in the main text to prevent readers from conflating the two numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the survey's conclusion is an evidence synthesis. One minor non-load-bearing self-citation ([128]) is noted.

full rationale

This paper is a survey and taxonomy, not a derivation of new predictions. The central claim—'Current results do not establish a broad quantum advantage over well matched classical reservoirs'—is a synthesis of the cited literature and is explicitly hedged in §9 and the abstract. The system model in §2 is a classification/accounting framework: Equations (1)–(30) define concepts (encoding, reservoir channel, feature sampling, replay cost) but no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The only author-overlapping reference is [128], used in §6.4 as one application example ('A simulated Rydberg reservoir has been evaluated... reports higher clean and robust accuracy than the tested classical models [128]'), immediately followed by the caveat that 'It is an empirical comparison, not a general robustness guarantee.' This self-citation is not load-bearing: the survey's negative conclusion does not depend on it, and the paper itself flags its evidence limits (e.g., §7.1: 'The complete code and raw device controls were not public because of provider restrictions'; Table 5: 'Hardware shot limits require an aggregated feature ranking...'). The main risk is completeness/classification of a fast-moving preprint literature, which is an inductive risk, not circularity. Score 2 reflects the single minor self-citation; no circular step was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no new free parameters or physical entities; it formalizes existing QRC practice into a system model and taxonomy. Its axioms are standard quantum mechanics, classical reservoir theory, and standard ML methodology.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Density operators are Hermitian, positive semidefinite, unit-trace operators on the reservoir Hilbert space.
    Section 2.1, Eq. 3 and surrounding text. Standard quantum mechanics background.
  • domain assumption Quantum evolution is described by completely positive trace-preserving (CPTP) maps, including Lindblad master equations for Markovian open systems.
    Section 2.3, Eq. 17. The survey assumes Markovian open evolution for most reservoir models, noting non-Markovianity as a separate research direction (§4.6, §8.2).
  • domain assumption The echo state property and fading memory property are defined in terms of trace-norm convergence and weighted continuity, consistent with classical reservoir theory.
    Section 3.1. The survey adopts these classical definitions for quantum reservoirs without new proof.
  • standard math The readout is trained via ridge regression (Eq. 29), and model selection uses separate train/validation/test splits.
    Section 2.5. Standard machine learning practice.
  • standard math Measurement outcomes are governed by POVMs and quantum instruments, and finite-shot estimation has variance (1-z²)/S.
    Section 2.4, Eqs. 20-24. Standard quantum measurement theory.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 35573 in / 12433 out tokens · 130852 ms · 2026-08-01T15:02:19.670509+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum reservoir computing (QRC) uses the dynamics of a fixed or weakly tuned quantum system to transform temporal and sequential inputs into measured features, while training is typically confined to a classical readout. This separation reduces reliance on repeated quantum parameter updates and avoids the barren plateaus associated with variational circuit training. Its computational power is often attributed to the exponentially large Hilbert space of the quantum system. However, the memory, nonlinearity, and expressivity that determine what a reservoir can actually compute depend jointly on the input encoding, quantum evolution, observables, measurement, and readout, not on Hilbert space dimension alone. On hardware, these capabilities are further constrained by finite sampling, hardware noise, measurement backaction, and the cost of estimating observables, so a large state space alone does not guarantee useful computation. In this survey, we develop a common system model that connects these components and use it to organize QRC foundations, computational properties, reservoir architectures, operating protocols, and physical implementations. We examine spin, photonic, superconducting, bosonic, neutral atom, and other analog platforms, together with applications, software and high performance computing support, benchmarking, and reproducibility. The analysis distinguishes hardware demonstrations from simulations and identifies the assumptions and resources that govern comparisons across implementations. Current results do not establish a broad quantum advantage over well matched classical reservoirs. We therefore specify the resource accounting, benchmark standards, and theoretical criteria needed to evaluate claims of quantum advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18552 by Arshid Ali, Muhammad Diyan, Muhammad Talha, Shehbaz Tariq, Symeon Chatzinotas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Organization and analytical flow of the survey. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Integrated QRC stack. Classical preprocessing maps application data to inputs accepted by the quantum interface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Timeline of representative QRC experiments, models, and related physical reservoir studies from 2018 to 2026. Color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

160 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aadhi, L

    A. Aadhi, L. Di Lauro, B. Fischer, P. Dmitriev, I. Alamgir, et al. 2025. Scalable photonic reservoir computing for parallel machine learning tasks.Nat. Commun. 17, 1 (Dec. 2025), 1225. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-67983-z

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-67983-z 2025

  2. [2]

    Abdallah Aaraba, Soumaya Cherkaoui, Ola Ahmad, and Shengrui Wang. 2026. QuaRK: A Quantum Reservoir Kernel for Time Series Learning. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2602.13531

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13531 2026

  3. [3]

    A. H. Abbas, Hend Abdel-Ghani, and Ivan S. Maksymov. 2024. Classical and Quantum Physical Reservoir Computing for Onboard Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Perspective.Dynamics4, 3 (Aug. 2024), 643–670. doi:10.3390/ dynamics4030033

    2024

  4. [4]

    Mohab Abdalla, Guy Van Der Sande, Apostolos Argyris, Fabio Pavanello, Miguel Cornelles Soriano, et al. 2026. Photonic reservoir computing: A the- matic review.J. of Physics: Photonics8, 2 (April 2026), 022003. doi:10.1088/2515- 7647/ae2e67

    doi:10.1088/2515- 2026

  5. [5]

    Osama Ahmed, Felix Tennie, and Luca Magri. 2024. Prediction of chaotic dy- namics and extreme events: A recurrence-free quantum reservoir computing ap- proach.Physical Rev. Res.6, 4 (Nov. 2024), 043082. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch. 6.043082

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch 2024

  6. [6]

    Osama Ahmed, Felix Tennie, and Luca Magri. 2025. Optimal training of finitely sampled quantum reservoir computers for forecasting of chaotic dynamics. Quantum Mach. Intell.7, 1 (Feb. 2025), 31. doi:10.1007/s42484-025-00261-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s42484-025-00261-9 2025

  7. [7]

    Osama Ahmed, Felix Tennie, and Luca Magri. 2025. Robust quantum reservoir computers for forecasting chaotic dynamics: generalized synchronization and stability.Proc. Roy. Soc. A: Math., Physical and Eng. Sciences481, 2324 (Oct. 2025), 20250550. doi:10.1098/rspa.2025.0550

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Diego Alvarez-Estevez. 2025. Benchmarking Quantum Machine Learning Kernel Training for Classification Tasks.IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng.6 (2025), 1–15. doi:10.1109/TQE.2025.3541882

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Luke Antoncich, Yuben Moodley, Ugo Varetto, Jingbo Wang, Jonathan Wurtz, et al. 2026. Quantum Reservoir Computing with Neutral Atoms on a Small, Complex, Medical Dataset. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.14641

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.14641 2026

  10. [10]

    Cerezo, Piotr Czarnik, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J

    Andrew Arrasmith, M. Cerezo, Piotr Czarnik, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. 2021. Effect of barren plateaus on gradient-free optimization.Quantum 5 (2021), 558. doi:10.22331/q-2021-10-05-558

    doi:10.22331/q-2021-10-05-558 2021

  11. [11]

    Sareh Askari, Youssef Kora, and Christoph Simon. 2025. Spin-Network Quantum Reservoir Computing with Distributed Inputs: The Role of Entanglement. doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2511.04900

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.04900 2025

  12. [12]

    Hajar Assil, Abderrahim El Allati, and Gian Luca Giorgi. 2025. Entanglement estimation of Werner states with a quantum extreme learning machine.Phys. Rev. A111, 2 (Feb. 2025), 022412. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.111.022412

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.022412 2025

  13. [13]

    Rocco Ballester, Jesus Cerquides, and Luis Artiles. 2025. Quantum federated learning: a comprehensive literature review of foundations, challenges, and future directions.Quantum Mach. Intell.7, 2 (July 2025), 73. doi:10.1007/s42484- 025-00292-2

    doi:10.1007/s42484- 2025

  14. [14]

    Rosario Di Bartolo, Simone Piacentini, Francesco Ceccarelli, Giacomo Corrielli, Roberto Osellame, et al. 2026. Time-series forecasting with multiphoton quan- tum states and integrated photonics.npj Quantum Inform.12, 1 (April 2026), 91. doi:10.1038/s41534-026-01236-9

    doi:10.1038/s41534-026-01236-9 2026

  15. [15]

    Harun Bayraktar, Ali Charara, David Clark, Saul Cohen, Timothy Costa, et al

  16. [16]

    Daniel Beaulieu, Milan Kornjača, Zoran Krunic, Michael Stivaktakis, Jing Chen, et al. 2025. Robust Quantum Reservoir Learning for Molecular Prop- erty Prediction.J. of Chem. Inform. and Modeling65, 16 (2025), 8475–8485. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c00958 Tariq et al

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c00958 2025

  17. [17]

    Alessio Benavoli and Felix Binder. 2026. Quantum Wiener architecture for quantum reservoir computing. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.04812

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04812 2026

  18. [18]

    Yannis Bendi-Ouis, Romain de Coudenhove, and Xavier Hinaut. 2026. CogScale: Scalable Benchmark for Sequence Processing. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2605.19758

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.19758 2026

  19. [19]

    Ville Bergholm, Josh Izaac, Maria Schuld, Christian Gogolin, Shahnawaz Ahmed, et al. 2018. PennyLane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1811.04968

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.04968 2018

  20. [20]

    Joseph Bowles, Shahnawaz Ahmed, and Maria Schuld. 2024. Better than clas- sical? The subtle art of benchmarking quantum machine learning models. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.07059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07059 2024

  21. [21]

    Rodrigo Araiza Bravo, Khadijeh Najafi, Xun Gao, and Susanne F. Yelin. 2022. Quantum Reservoir Computing Using Arrays of Rydberg Atoms.PRX Quantum 3, 3 (Aug. 2022), 030325. doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.030325

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.030325 2022

  22. [22]

    Chenfeng Cao and Jens Eisert. 2026. Measurement-Driven Quantum Advantages in Shallow Circuits.Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 8 (Feb. 2026), 080601. doi:10.1103/4b99- xmqn

    work page doi:10.1103/4b99- 2026

  23. [23]

    Baptiste Carles, Julien Dudas, Léo Balembois, Julie Grollier, and Danijela Marković. 2026. Experimental quantum reservoir computing with a circuit quantum electrodynamics system. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.22016

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.22016 2026

  24. [24]

    Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, et al. 2021. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics3, 9 (Aug. 2021), 625–644. doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 2021

  25. [25]

    Su Yeon Chang and M. Cerezo. 2025. A Primer on Quantum Machine Learning. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.15969

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15969 2025

  26. [26]

    Jiayin Chen and Hendra I. Nurdin. 2019. Learning nonlinear input–output maps with dissipative quantum systems.Quantum Inform. Process.18, 7 (May 2019),

    2019

  27. [27]

    Nurdin, and Naoki Yamamoto

    Jiayin Chen, Hendra I. Nurdin, and Naoki Yamamoto. 2020. Temporal Informa- tion Processing on Noisy Quantum Computers.Physical Rev. Appl.14, 2 (2020), 024065. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.024065

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.14.024065 2020

  28. [28]

    Samuel Yen-Chi Chen. 2024. Efficient Quantum Recurrent Reinforcement Learning Via Quantum Reservoir Computing. InICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech and Signal Process. (ICASSP). IEEE, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 13186–13190. doi:10.1109/ICASSP48485.2024.10446089

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Sohoni, Federico Presutti, Benjamin K

    Valeria Cimini, Mandar M. Sohoni, Federico Presutti, Benjamin K. Malia, Shi- Yuan Ma, et al. 2026. Large-scale quantum reservoir computing using a Gaussian Boson Sampler.npj Quantum Information, article in press. Advance online publication. doi:10.1038/s41534-026-01251-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-026-01251-w 2026

  30. [30]

    Connerty, Ethan N

    Erik L. Connerty, Ethan N. Evans, Gerasimos Angelatos, and Vignesh Narayanan

  31. [31]

    Joni Dambre, David Verstraeten, Benjamin Schrauwen, and Serge Massar. 2012. Information Processing Capacity of Dynamical Systems.Scientific Reports2 (July 2012), 514. doi:10.1038/srep00514

    doi:10.1038/srep00514 2012

  32. [32]

    Timothée Dao, Ege Yilmaz, Ibrahim Shehzad, Christophe Pere, Kumar Ghosh, et al. 2026. Breaking concentration barriers for quantum extreme learning on digital quantum processors. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2603.13005

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.13005 2026

  33. [33]

    Soumyadip Das, Luke Antoncich, and Jingbo B. Wang. 2025. Image Denoising via Quantum Reservoir Computing. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.18612

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.18612 2025

  34. [34]

    Sreetama Das, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. 2026. Quantum reser- voir computing in Jaynes-Cummings models: Nonlinear memory and time- series prediction.Physical Rev. Res.8 (2026), 023148. doi:10.1103/ffd3-ytbt

    work page doi:10.1103/ffd3-ytbt 2026

  35. [35]

    Characterizing the memory capacity of transmon qubit reservoirs

    Samudra Dasgupta, Kathleen E. Hamilton, and Arnab Banerjee. 2022. Charac- terizing the memory capacity of transmon qubit reservoirs. doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2004.08240

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.08240 2022

  36. [36]

    Domingo, G

    L. Domingo, G. Carlo, and F. Borondo. 2022. Optimal quantum reservoir com- puting for the noisy intermediate-scale quantum era.Physical Rev. E106, 4 (Oct. 2022), L043301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.106.L043301

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.106.l043301 2022

  37. [37]

    Domingo, G

    L. Domingo, G. Carlo, and F. Borondo. 2023. Taking advantage of noise in quantum reservoir computing.Scientific Reports13, 1 (2023), 8790. doi:10.1038/ s41598-023-35461-5

    2023

  38. [38]

    Domingo, M

    L. Domingo, M. Grande, G. Carlo, F. Borondo, and J. Borondo. 2023. Optimal quantum reservoir computing for market forecasting: An application to fight food price crises. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.03347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.03347 2023

  39. [39]

    Julien Dudas, Baptiste Carles, Erwan Plouet, Frank Alice Mizrahi, Julie Grol- lier, et al . 2023. Quantum reservoir computing implementation on coher- ently coupled quantum oscillators.npj Quantum Inform.9, 1 (July 2023), 64. doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00734-4

    doi:10.1038/s41534-023-00734-4 2023

  40. [40]

    Tobias Fellner, David A Kreplin, Samuel Tovey, and Christian Holm. 2026. Quantum vs. classical: a comprehensive benchmark study for predicting time series with variational quantum machine learning.Mach. Learn.-Sci. Technol.7, 1 (Jan. 2026), 010501. doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae365f

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae365f 2026

  41. [41]

    Giacomo Franceschetto, Marcin Płodzień, Maciej Lewenstein, Antonio Acín, and Pere Mujal. 2026. Harnessing quantum back-action for time-series processing. Phys. Rev. X16 (2026), 021002. doi:10.1103/j7f9-hfsj

    work page doi:10.1103/j7f9-hfsj 2026

  42. [42]

    Daniel Fry, Amol Deshmukh, Samuel Yen-Chi Chen, Vladimir Rastunkov, and Vanio Markov. 2023. Optimizing quantum noise-induced reservoir computing for nonlinear and chaotic time series prediction.Scientific Reports13, 1 (Nov. 2023), 19326. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45015-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45015-4 2023

  43. [43]

    Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima. 2017. Harnessing Disordered-Ensemble Quantum Dynamics for Machine Learning.Physical Rev. Appl.8, 2 (2017), 024030. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.024030

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.8.024030 2017

  44. [44]

    Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima. 2021. Quantum reservoir computing: a reservoir approach toward quantum machine learning on near-term quantum devices. InReservoir Computing: Theory, Physical Implementations, and Applica- tions, Kohei Nakajima and Ingo Fischer (Eds.). Springer Singapore, Singapore, 423–450. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1687-6_18

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1687-6_18 2021

  45. [46]

    Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

    Jorge García-Beni, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C. Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

  46. [47]

    Gauthier, Erik Bollt, Aaron Griffith, and Wendson A

    Daniel J. Gauthier, Erik Bollt, Aaron Griffith, and Wendson A. S. Barbosa. 2021. Next generation reservoir computing.Nat. Commun.12, 1 (Sept. 2021), 5564. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25801-2

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25801-2 2021

  47. [48]

    Marta Gili, Eliana Fiorelli, Ane Blázquez-García, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. 2026. Learning functions of quantum states with distributed archi- tectures. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.11797

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11797 2026

  48. [49]

    Physical Rev

    Scalable Photonic Platform for Real-Time Quantum Reservoir Computing. Physical Rev. Appl.20, 1 (2023), 014051. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.014051

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.014051 2023

  49. [50]

    L C G Govia, G J Ribeill, G E Rowlands, and T A Ohki. 2022. Nonlinear input transformations are ubiquitous in quantum reservoir computing.Neuromorphic Computing and Eng.2, 1 (Feb. 2022), 014008. doi:10.1088/2634-4386/ac4fcd

    doi:10.1088/2634-4386/ac4fcd 2022

  50. [51]

    Lyudmila Grigoryeva and Juan-Pablo Ortega. 2018. Echo state networks are universal.Neural Networks108 (Dec. 2018), 495–508. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2018. 08.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2018 2018

  51. [52]

    Markus Gross and Hans-Martin Rieser. 2026. Kernel-based optimization of measurement operators for quantum reservoir computers. doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2602.14677

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.14677 2026

  52. [53]

    Gian Giacomo Guerreschi. 2022. Fast simulation of quantum algorithms using circuit optimization.Quantum6 (2022), 706. doi:10.22331/q-2022-05-03-706

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-05-03-706 2022

  53. [54]

    L. C. G. Govia, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, H. K. Krovi, and T. A. Ohki. 2021. Quantum reservoir computing with a single nonlinear oscillator.Physical Rev. Res.3, 1 (Jan. 2021), 013077. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.013077

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.013077 2021

  54. [55]

    Wissal Hamhoum, Soumaya Cherkaoui, Jean-Frederic Laprade, Ola Ahmed, and Shengrui Wang. 2025. Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Gate-Based Quantum Reservoir Computing on NISQ Hardware. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510. 13634

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510 2025

  55. [56]

    Yanjun Hou, Juncheng Hua, Ze Wu, Wei Xia, Yuquan Chen, et al. 2026. High- Accuracy Temporal Prediction via Experimental Quantum Reservoir Computing in Correlated Spins.Physical Rev. Lett.136, 12 (March 2026), 120602. doi:10. 1103/r8ww-qw7j

    2026

  56. [57]

    Khan, Nicholas T

    Fangjun Hu, Saeed A. Khan, Nicholas T. Bronn, Gerasimos Angelatos, Graham E. Rowlands, et al. 2024. Overcoming the coherence time barrier in quantum machine learning on temporal data.Nat. Commun.15, 1 (Aug. 2024), 7491. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51162-7

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51162-7 2024

  57. [58]

    Arisa Ikeda, Akitada Sakurai, Kae Nemoto, and Mayu Muramatsu. 2026. Quan- tum Extreme Reservoir Computing for Phase Classification of Polymer Alloy Microstructures. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.02150

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02150 2026

  58. [59]

    Casper Gyurik, Filip Wudarski, Evan Philip, Antonio Sannia, Hossein Sadeghi, et al. 2025. From quantum feature maps to quantum reservoir computing: perspectives and applications. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2510.01797

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01797 2025

  59. [60]

    Wood, Jake Lishman, et al

    Ali Javadi-Abhari, Matthew Treinish, Kevin Krsulich, Christopher J. Wood, Jake Lishman, et al. 2024. Quantum computing with Qiskit. doi:10.48550/ARXIV. 2405.08810

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08810 2024

  60. [61]

    Johansson, P.D

    J.R. Johansson, P.D. Nation, and Franco Nori. 2012. QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems.Comput. Physics Commun.183, 8 (2012), 1760–1772. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021 2012

  61. [62]

    Benjamin

    Tyson Jones, Anna Brown, Ian Bush, and Simon C. Benjamin. 2019. QuEST and High Performance Simulation of Quantum Computers.Scientific Reports9, 1 (2019), 10736. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47174-9

    doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47174-9 2019

  62. [63]

    Oishik Kar and Aswath Babu H. 2025. Hybrid Photonic-Quantum Reservoir Computing For Time-Series Prediction. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2511.09218

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09218 2025

  63. [64]

    Vinamr Jain and Romit Maulik. 2024. Higher order quantum reservoir comput- ing for non-intrusive reduced-order models. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.21602

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21602 2024

  64. [65]

    Shumpei Kobayashi, Quoc Hoan Tran, and Kohei Nakajima. 2024. Extending echo state property for quantum reservoir computing.Physical Rev. E110, 2 (Aug. 2024), 024207. doi:10.1103/physreve.110.024207

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.110.024207 2024

  65. [66]

    Avyay Kodali, Priyanshi Singh, Pranay Pandey, Krishna Bhatia, Shalini De- vendrababu, et al. 2025. Sustainable NARMA-10 Benchmarking for Quantum Reservoir Computing. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.25183

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25183 2025

  66. [67]

    Youssef Kora and Christoph Simon. 2025. Statistical noise enhances quantum- ness benefits in spin-network quantum reservoir computing. doi:10.48550/ Quantum Reservoir Computing: Recent Advances and Future Directions arXiv.2504.17837

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    Stewart, Khabat Heshami, and Christoph Simon

    Youssef Kora, Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi, Terrence C. Stewart, Khabat Heshami, and Christoph Simon. 2024. Frequency- and dissipation-dependent entanglement advantage in spin-network quantum reservoir computing.Phys. Rev. A110, 4 (Oct. 2024), 042416. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.110.042416

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.042416 2024

  68. [69]

    Kaito Kobayashi, Keisuke Fujii, and Naoki Yamamoto. 2024. Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time-series analysis. 040325 pages. doi:10. 1103/PRXQuantum.5.040325

    2024

  69. [70]

    Fuchs, and Alexander Stasik

    Ola Tangen Kulseng, Stanley Miao, Franz G. Fuchs, and Alexander Stasik. 2025. QuantumReservoirPy: A Software Package for Time Series Prediction.J. of Open Source Software10, 110 (2025), 7994. doi:10.21105/joss.07994

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07994 2025

  70. [71]

    Aki Kutvonen, Keisuke Fujii, and Takahiro Sagawa. 2020. Optimizing a quantum reservoir computer for time series prediction.Scientific Reports10, 1 (Sept. 2020), 14687. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-71673-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-71673-9 2020

  71. [72]

    Felix Köster, Kazutaka Kanno, Jun Ohkubo, and Atsushi Uchida. 2024. Attention- enhanced reservoir computing.Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 1 (July 2024), 014039. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevApplied.22.014039

    2024

  72. [73]

    Neill Lambert, Eric Giguère, Paul Menczel, Boxi Li, Patrick Hopf, et al . 2026. QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python.Physics Reports1153 (2026), 1–62. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.10.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.10.001 2026

  73. [74]

    Milan Kornjača, Hong-Ye Hu, Chen Zhao, Jonathan Wurtz, Phillip Weinberg, et al. 2024. Large-scale quantum reservoir learning with an analog quantum computer. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.02553

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.02553 2024

  74. [75]

    Qingyu Li, Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay, Abolfazl Bayat, and Ali Habibnia. 2026. Quantum Reservoir Computing for Realized Volatility Forecasting.Physical Rev. Res.8 (2026), 023028. doi:10.1103/rbj7-4wnq

    work page doi:10.1103/rbj7-4wnq 2026

  75. [76]

    Qingyu Li, Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay, Ludovico Minati, and Abolfazl Bayat

  76. [77]

    Wenrui Li, Zhengyu Ma, Liang-Jian Deng, Penghong Wang, Jinqiao Shi, et al

  77. [78]

    Scalable Quantum Reservoir Computing over Distributed Quantum Architectures

    Ioannis Liliopoulos, Georgios D. Varsamis, Konstantinos Rallis, Evangelos Tsi- pas, Ioannis G. Karafyllidis, et al. 2026. Scalable Quantum Reservoir Computing over Distributed Quantum Architectures. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2605.04991

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.04991 2026

  78. [79]

    Long Tan Le, Tung-Anh Nguyen, Han Shu, Suranga Seneviratne, Choong Seon Hong, et al . 2025. Federated Koopman-Reservoir Learning for Large-Scale Multivariate Time-Series Anomaly Detection. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.11255

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.11255 2025

  79. [80]

    Guillem Llodrà, Pere Mujal, Roberta Zambrini, and Gian Luca Giorgi. 2024. Quantum reservoir computing in atomic lattices. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.13401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.13401 2024

  80. [81]

    De Lorenzis, M

    A. De Lorenzis, M. P. Casado, M. P. Estarellas, N. Lo Gullo, T. Lux, et al. 2025. Harnessing Quantum Extreme Learning Machines for Image Classification. Physical Rev. Appl.23, 4 (2025), 044024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.044024

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.044024 2025

Showing first 80 references.