Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 160 references

Quantum Reservoir Computing: Recent Advances and Future Directions

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No quantum reservoir has beaten a well-matched classical one.

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

Shehbaz Tariq , Muhammad Talha , Arshid Ali , Muhammad Diyan , Symeon Chatzinotas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.LG MSC 81P6868T05
keywords quantumreservoircomputingmachinelearningechostatenetworksadvantageNISQhardwaretemporalinformationprocessingresourceaccountingbenchmarking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This 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.

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

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

Extended reading notes

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

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

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 · score 2.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 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.

assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Reservoir Computing: Recent Advances and Future Directions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RUONI6GZ

@misc{pith2026260718552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Reservoir Computing: Recent Advances and Future Directions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RUONI6GZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18552}
}
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 the authors.

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. 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. 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). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

160 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [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

  2. [128]

    Shehbaz Tariq, Muhammad Talha, Symeon Chatzinotas, and Hyundong Shin

  3. [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

  4. [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

  5. [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

  6. [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

  7. [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

  8. [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

Show all 160 references
  1. [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

    2025

  2. [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

    2025

  3. [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

    2026 doi

  4. [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

    2021 doi

  5. [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

    2025 doi

  6. [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

    2025 doi

  7. [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

    2025 doi

  8. [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

    2026 doi

  9. [15]

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

  10. [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

    2025 doi

  11. [17]

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

    2026 doi

  12. [18]

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

    2026 doi arXiv

  13. [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

    2018 doi arXiv

  14. [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

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [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

    2022 doi

  16. [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

    2026 doi

  17. [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

    2026 doi

  18. [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

    2021 doi

  19. [25]

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

    2025 doi

  20. [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

  21. [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

    2020 doi

  22. [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

    2024

  23. [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

    2026 doi

  24. [30]

    Connerty, Ethan N

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

  25. [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

    2012 doi

  26. [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

    2026 doi

  27. [33]

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

    2025 doi

  28. [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

    2026 doi

  29. [35]

    Hamilton, and Arnab Banerjee

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

    2022 doi arXiv

  30. [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

    2022 doi

  31. [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

  32. [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

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [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

    2023 doi

  34. [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

    2026 doi

  35. [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

    2026 doi

  36. [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

    2023 doi

  37. [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

    2017 doi

  38. [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...

    2021 doi

  39. [46]

    Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

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

  40. [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

    2021 doi

  41. [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

    2026 doi

  42. [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

    2023 doi

  43. [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

    2022 doi

  44. [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

    2018 doi

  45. [52]

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

    2026 doi

  46. [53]

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

    2022 doi

  47. [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

    2021 doi

  48. [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

    2025 doi

  49. [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

  50. [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

    2024 doi

  51. [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

    2026 doi

  52. [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

    2025 doi

  53. [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

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [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

    2012 doi

  55. [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

    2019 doi

  56. [63]

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

    2025 doi

  57. [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

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [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

    2024 doi

  59. [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

    2025 doi

  60. [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

    2025 arXiv

  61. [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

    2024 doi

  62. [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

    2025 doi

  63. [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

    2020 doi

  64. [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

  65. [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

    2026 doi

  66. [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

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [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

    2026 doi

  68. [76]

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

  69. [77]

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

  70. [78]

    Varsamis, Konstantinos Rallis, Evangelos Tsi- pas, Ioannis G

    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

    2026 doi arXiv

  71. [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

    2025 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [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

    2025 doi

  74. [82]

    Res.8, 1 (2026), 013304

    Quantum reservoir computing for predicting and characterizing chaotic maps.Physical Rev. Res.8, 1 (2026), 013304. doi:10.1103/qwvv-xqfq

    2026 doi

  75. [83]

    Rodrigo Martínez-Peña and Juan-Pablo Ortega. 2023. Quantum reservoir computing in finite dimensions.Physical Rev. E107, 3 (March 2023), 035306. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.107.035306

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    Reservoir Computing Transformer for Image-Text Retrieval. InProc. 31st ACM Int. Conf. Multimedia. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5605–5613. doi:10.1145/ 3581783.3611758

  77. [85]

    Sergi Masot-Llima, Elies Gil-Fuster, Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Jens Eisert, and Tom- maso Guaita. 2025. Prospects for quantum advantage in machine learning from the representability of functions. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.15661

    2025 doi

  78. [86]

    Guillem Llodrà, Christos Charalambous, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zam- brini. 2023. Benchmarking the Role of Particle Statistics in Quantum Reservoir Computing.Adv. Quantum Technologies6, 1 (2023), 2200100. doi:10.1002/qute. 202200100

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    Mateusz Meller, Vendel Szeremi, and Oliver Thomson Brown. 2025. Program- ming tools for Analogue Quantum Computing in the High-Performance Com- puting Context: A Review.Quantum9 (2025), 1927. doi:10.22331/q-2025-12-02- 1927

    2025 doi

  80. [88]

    Mentesoglu, Christian Michael Pluchar, and Sara Mouradian

    Koray E. Mentesoglu, Christian Michael Pluchar, and Sara Mouradian. 2025. Quantum Sensing Enhanced by Reservoir Computing in Trapped-Ion Systems. Poster presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics. https://meetings-archive....

    2025

  81. [89]

    Danyal Maheshwari, Gerhard Hellstern, Martin Zaefferer, Martin Braun, and Tanja Döhler. 2026. Learning Temporal Patterns in Financial Time Series: A Comparative Study of Quantum LSTM and Quantum Reservoir Computing. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2605.02656

    2026 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    Riccardo Molteni, Claudio Destri, and Enrico Prati. 2023. Optimization of the memory reset rate of a quantum echo-state network for time sequential tasks. Physics Lett. A465 (March 2023), 128713. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2023.128713

    2023

  83. [91]

    Rodrigo Martínez-Peña and Juan-Pablo Ortega. 2025. Input-dependence in quantum reservoir computing.Physical Rev. E111, 6 (June 2025), 065306. doi:10. 1103/3775-4hfd

    2025

  84. [92]

    Arsalan Motamedi, Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi, and Christoph Simon. 2024. Quan- tumness and Learning Performance in Reservoir Computing with a Single Oscillator. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.03462

    2024 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    Gerard McCaul, Juan Sebastian Totero Gongora, Wendy Otieno, Sergey Savel’ev, Alexandre Zagoskin, et al. 2025. Minimal quantum reservoirs with Hamiltonian encoding.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary J. of Nonlinear Sci.35, 9 (Sept. 2025), 093135. doi:10.1063/5.0282921

    2025 doi

  86. [94]

    Pere Mujal, Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Johannes Nokkala, Jorge García-Beni, Gian Luca Giorgi, et al. 2021. Opportunities in Quantum Reservoir Computing and Extreme Learning Machines.Adv. Quantum Technologies4, 8 (June 2021), 2100027. doi:10.1002/qute.202100027

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    Kohei Nakajima, Keisuke Fujii, Makoto Negoro, Kosuke Mitarai, and Masahiro Kitagawa. 2019. Boosting Computational Power through Spatial Multiplexing in Quantum Reservoir Computing.Physical Rev. Appl.11, 3 (2019), 034021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.11.034021

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    Zoubeir Mlika, Soumaya Cherkaoui, Jean Frédéric Laprade, and Simon Corbeil- Letourneau. 2023. User Trajectory Prediction in Mobile Wireless Networks Using Quantum Reservoir Computing. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2301.08796

    2023 doi arXiv

  89. [97]

    Nation, Abdullah Ash Saki, Sebastian Brandhofer, Luciano Bello, Shelly Garion, et al

    Paul D. Nation, Abdullah Ash Saki, Sebastian Brandhofer, Luciano Bello, Shelly Garion, et al. 2025. Benchmarking the performance of quantum computing software for quantum circuit creation, manipulation and compilation.Nature Computational Sci.5, 5 (2025), 427–435. doi:10.1038/...

    2025 doi

  90. [98]

    Francesco Monzani, Emanuele Ricci, Luca Nigro, and Enrico Prati. 2024. En- forcing Fading Memory of Noisy Quantum Echo State Networks. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), Vol. 02. IEEE, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 476–477. doi:10.1109...

    2024

  91. [99]

    Makoto Negoro, Kosuke Mitarai, Kohei Nakajima, and Keisuke Fujii. 2021. Toward NMR Quantum Reservoir Computing. InReservoir Computing: Theory, Physical Implementations, and Applications, Kohei Nakajima and Ingo Fischer (Eds.). Springer, Singapore, 451–458. doi:10.1007/978-981-...

    2021 doi

  92. [100]

    Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini

    Pere Mujal, Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C. Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini. 2023. Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projective measurements.npj Quantum Inform.9, 1 (Feb. 2023), 16. doi:10. 1038/s41534-023-00682-z

    2023

  93. [101]

    Johannes Nokkala, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. 2024. Retrieving past quantum features with deep hybrid classical-quantum reservoir computing. Mach. Learning: Sci. and Technol.5, 3 (July 2024), 035022. doi:10.1088/2632- 2153/ad5f12

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    Soriano, et al

    Johannes Nokkala, Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Gian Luca Giorgi, Valentina Parigi, Miguel C. Soriano, et al. 2021. Gaussian states of continuous-variable quantum systems provide universal and versatile reservoir computing.Commun. Physics 4, 1 (March 2021), 53. doi:10.1038/s42005-021-00556-w

    2021 doi

  95. [103]

    Wataru Namiki, Daiki Nishioka, Yu Yamaguchi, Takashi Tsuchiya, Tohru Higuchi, et al. 2022. Experimental Demonstration of High-Performance Physi- cal Reservoir Computing with Nonlinear Interfered Spin Wave Multi-Detection. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2207.03216

    2022 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    Mansi Od, Param Pathak, Nouhaila Innan, and Muhammad Shafique. 2026. Quantum Reservoir Computing for Short-Term Power Load Forecasting in Resource-Constrained Energy Systems. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2606.12806

    2026 doi arXiv

  97. [105]

    Makoto Negoro, Kosuke Mitarai, Keisuke Fujii, Kohei Nakajima, and Masahiro Kitagawa. 2018. Machine learning with controllable quantum dynamics of a nuclear spin ensemble in a solid. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1806.10910

    2018 doi arXiv

  98. [106]

    Iris Paparelle, Johan Henaff, Jorge García-Beni, Émilie Gillet, Daniel Mon- tesinos, et al . 2026. Experimental memory control in continuous-variable optical quantum reservoir computing.Nature Photonics20, 4 (March 2026), 413–420. doi:10.1038/s41566-026-01880-9

    2026 doi

  99. [107]

    Neill, Giulia Marcucci, and Daniele Faccio

    Sam Nerenberg, Oliver D. Neill, Giulia Marcucci, and Daniele Faccio. 2025. Photon number-resolving quantum reservoir computing.Optica Quantum3, 2 (2025), 201–210. doi:10.1364/OPTICAQ.553294

    2025 doi

  100. [108]

    Param Pathak, Mansi Od, Nouhaila Innan, and Muhammad Shafique. 2026. Late Breaking Results: Hardware-Efficient Quantum Reservoir Computing via Quantized Readout. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2604.06075

    2026 doi arXiv

  101. [109]

    Philipp Pfeffer, Florian Heyder, and Jörg Schumacher. 2023. Reduced-order mod- eling of two-dimensional turbulent Rayleigh-Bénard flow by hybrid quantum- classical reservoir computing. 043242 pages. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5. 043242

    2023 doi

  102. [110]

    NVIDIA Corporation. 2026. CUDA-Q Dynamics. Accessed 20 July 2026. https: //nvidia.github.io/cuda-quantum/latest/using/dynamics.html

    2026

  103. [111]

    Munro, et al

    Markus Rambach, Abhishek Roy, Alexei Gilchrist, Akitada Sakurai, William J. Munro, et al. 2025. Photonic Quantum-Accelerated Machine Learning. doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2512.08318

    2025 doi

  104. [112]

    Balanov, Juan Totero Gongora, and Sergey E

    Wendy Otieno, Alexandre Zagoskin, Alexander G. Balanov, Juan Totero Gongora, and Sergey E. Savel’ev. 2026. A Quantum Reservoir Computing Approach to Quantum Stock Price Forecasting in Quantum-Invested Markets. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.13094

    2026 doi arXiv

  105. [113]

    Soriano, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini

    Antonio Sannia, Rodrigo Martínez-Peña, Miguel C. Soriano, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. 2024. Dissipation as a resource for Quantum Reservoir Computing. 1291 pages. doi:10.22331/q-2024-03-20-1291

    2024 doi

  106. [114]

    Razvan Pascanu, Tomas Mikolov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2013. On the difficulty of training recurrent neural networks. InProc. 30th Int. Conf. Mach. Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 28). PMLR, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1310–1318. doi:10.5555/3042817.3043083

    2013

  107. [115]

    Nils-Erik Schütte, Niclas Götting, Hauke Müntinga, Meike List, Daniel Brunner, et al. 2025. Expressivity of Quantum Reservoir Computers. doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2501.15528

    2025 doi arXiv

  108. [116]

    Alen Senanian, Sridhar Prabhu, Vladimir Kremenetski, Saswata Roy, Yingkang Cao, et al . 2024. Microwave Signal Processing Using an Analog Quantum Reservoir Computer.Nat. Commun.15 (2024), 7490. doi:10.1038/s41467-024- 51161-8

    2024 doi

  109. [117]

    Qiskit Aer Contributors. 2026. AerSimulator. Accessed 20 July 2026. https: //qiskit.github.io/qiskit-aer/stubs/qiskit_aer.AerSimulator.html

    2026

  110. [118]

    Amir Shehata, Peter Groszkowski, Thomas Naughton, Muralikrish- nan Gopalakrishnan Meena, Elaine Wong, et al . 2026. Bridging paradigms: Designing for HPC-Quantum convergence.Future Generation Comput. Syst. 174 (Jan. 2026), 107980. doi:10.1016/j.future.2025.107980

    2026

  111. [119]

    Antonio Sannia, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini. 2025. Exponential concentration and symmetries in Quantum Reservoir Computing. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2505.10062 Tariq et al

    2025 doi arXiv

  112. [120]

    Singkanipa and D

    P. Singkanipa and D. A. Lidar. 2025. Beyond unital noise in variational quantum algorithms: noise-induced barren plateaus and limit sets. 1617 pages. doi:10. 22331/q-2025-01-30-1617

    2025

  113. [121]

    Antonio Sannia, Ricard Ravell Rodríguez, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zam- brini. 2025. Non-Markovianity and memory enhancement in Quantum Reservoir Computing. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.02491

    2025 doi arXiv

  114. [122]

    Smaldone, Yu Shee, Gregory W

    Anthony M. Smaldone, Yu Shee, Gregory W. Kyro, Marwa H. Farag, Zohim Chandani, et al. 2025. A Hybrid Transformer Architecture with a Quantized Self-Attention Mechanism Applied to Molecular Generation.J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 10 (2025), 5143–5154. doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00331

    2025 doi

  115. [123]

    Michele Spagnolo, Joshua Morris, Simone Piacentini, Michael Antesberger, Francesco Massa, et al . 2022. Experimental photonic quantum memristor. Nature Photonics16, 4 (March 2022), 318–323. doi:10.1038/s41566-022-00973-5

    2022 doi

  116. [124]

    Settino, L

    J. Settino, L. Salatino, L. Mariani, F. D’Amore, M. Channab, et al. 2025. Memory- augmented hybrid quantum reservoir computing.Physical Rev. Appl.24, 2 (Aug. 2025), 024019. doi:10.1103/wzwv-7rk2

    2025 doi

  117. [125]

    Pradel, Kenji Yasuoka, and Naoki Yamamoto

    Yudai Suzuki, Qi Gao, Ken C. Pradel, Kenji Yasuoka, and Naoki Yamamoto. 2022. Natural quantum reservoir computing for temporal information processing. 1353 pages. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-05061-w

    2022 doi

  118. [126]

    Morcos, Kurt Keutzer, Michael Auli, et al

    Sheng Shen, Alexei Baevski, Ari S. Morcos, Kurt Keutzer, Michael Auli, et al

  119. [127]

    Akshat Tandon, James Brown, Kenny Heitritter, Tarini Hardikar, Kanav Se- tia, et al. 2025. Quantum Reservoir Computing for Corrosion Prediction in Aerospace: A Hybrid Approach for Enhanced Material Degradation Forecasting. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.22837

    2025 doi arXiv

  120. [129]

    Mateusz Slysz, Piotr Rydlichowski, Krzysztof Kurowski, Omar Bacarreza, Es- peranza Cuenca Gomez, et al. 2025. Hybrid Classical-Quantum Supercomput- ing: A demonstration of a multi-user, multi-QPU and multi-GPU environment. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2508.16297

    2025 doi arXiv

  121. [130]

    Naoya Tate, Seiya Yamaguchi, Shunichi Sakai, Suguru Shimomura, Takahiro Nishimura, et al. 2024. Demonstration of quantum dot reservoir computing based on spatio-temporal optical processing.Appl. Opt.63, 28 (2024), G30–G36. doi:10.1364/AO.523828

    2024 doi

  122. [131]

    Michael te Vrugt. 2026. An introduction to reservoir computing. InArtificial Intelligence and Intelligent Matter, Michael te Vrugt (Ed.). Springer, Cham, 53–66. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-04129-6_4

    2026 doi

  123. [132]

    Keshav Srinivasan, Dietmar Plenz, and Michelle Girvan. 2025. Boosting reservoir computing with brain-inspired adaptive control of E-I balance.Nat. Commun. 16, 1 (Nov. 2025), 10212. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-64978-8

    2025 doi

  124. [133]

    Quoc Hoan Tran and Kohei Nakajima. 2020. Higher-Order Quantum Reservoir Computing. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2006.08999

    2020 doi arXiv

  125. [134]

    Gouhei Tanaka, Toshiyuki Yamane, Jean Benoit Héroux, Ryosho Nakane, Naoki Kanazawa, et al. 2019. Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: A review.Neural Networks115 (July 2019), 100–123. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2019.03. 005

    2019 doi

  126. [135]

    Giacomo Vitali, Chiara Vercellino, Paolo Viviani, Olivier Terzo, Bartolomeo Montrucchio, et al. 2025. Quantum Reservoir Computing for Credit Card Default Prediction on a Neutral Atom Platform. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.04747

    2025 doi

  127. [136]

    Feng Wen, Juan Yong, Jian-Jun Li, and Shui-Qiu Diao. 2025. Reservoir computing-based signal compensation for laser inter-satellite communications. Scientific Reports15, 1 (Feb. 2025), 5622. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-90321-8

    2025 doi

  128. [137]

    Chester Wringe, Martin Trefzer, and Susan Stepney. 2025. Reservoir computing benchmarks: a tutorial review and critique.Int. J. of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Syst.40, 4 (July 2025), 313–351. doi:10.1080/17445760.2025.2472211

    2025

  129. [138]

    Naoya Tate. 2023. Quantum-Dot-Based Photonic Reservoir Computing. InPho- tonic Neural Networks with Spatiotemporal Dynamics: Paradigms of Computing and Implementation, Hideyuki Suzuki, Jun Tanida, and Masanori Hashimoto (Eds.). Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 71–87. doi:...

    2023 doi

  130. [139]

    Xanadu. 2026. PennyLane Lightning. Accessed 20 July 2026. https://docs. pennylane.ai/projects/lightning/en/stable/index.html

    2026

  131. [140]

    Wei Xia, Jie Zou, Xingze Qiu, Feng Chen, Bing Zhu, et al . 2023. Configured quantum reservoir computing for multi-task machine learning.Sci. Bulletin68, 20 (Oct. 2023), 2321–2329. doi:10.1016/j.scib.2023.08.040

    2023 doi

  132. [141]

    Samuel Tovey, Tobias Fellner, Christian Holm, and Michael Spannowsky. 2025. Generating quantum reservoir state representations with random matrices. Mach. Learn.-Sci. Technol.6, 1 (March 2025), 015068. doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ adc0e2

    2025 doi

  133. [142]

    Weijie Xiong, Zoë Holmes, Armando Angrisani, Yudai Suzuki, Thiparat Chotibut, et al. 2025. Role of scrambling and noise in temporal information processing with quantum systems. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.10080

    2025 doi arXiv

  134. [143]

    I. T. Vidamour, C. Swindells, G. Venkat, L. Manneschi, P. W. Fry, et al . 2023. Reconfigurable reservoir computing in a magnetic metamaterial.Commun. Physics6, 1 (Aug. 2023), 230. doi:10.1038/s42005-023-01352-4

    2023 doi

  135. [144]

    Toshiki Yasuda, Yudai Suzuki, Tomoyuki Kubota, Kohei Nakajima, Qi Gao, et al. 2023. Quantum reservoir computing with repeated measurements on superconducting devices. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.06706

    2023 doi arXiv

  136. [145]

    Zheng-Meng Zhai, Celso Grebogi, and Ying-Cheng Lai. 2026. Can Transformers predict system collapse in dynamical systems? doi:10.48550/arXiv.2605.04024

    2026 doi arXiv

  137. [146]

    Da Zhang, Xin Li, Yibin Guo, Haifeng Yu, Yirong Jin, et al. 2025. Robust and Efficient Quantum Reservoir Computing with Discrete Time Crystal. doi:10. 48550/ARXIV.2508.15230

    2025 doi arXiv

  138. [147]

    Filip Wudarski, Daniel O‘Connor, Shaun Geaney, Ata Akbari Asanjan, Max Wil- son, et al. 2024. Hybrid quantum-classical reservoir computing for simulating chaotic systems. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.14105

    2024 doi arXiv

  139. [148]

    Hegade, Alejandro Gomez Cadavid, Lucas Lassabliére, Shubham Kumar, et al

    Qi Zhang, Narendra N. Hegade, Alejandro Gomez Cadavid, Lucas Lassabliére, Shubham Kumar, et al. 2026. Analog counterdiabatic quantum computing.npj Unconventional Computing3 (2026), 11. doi:10.1038/s44335-026-00056-6

    2026 doi

  140. [149]

    Erdman, et al

    Qi Zhang, Anton Simen, Carlos Flores-Garrigós, Gabriel Alvarado Barrios, Paolo A. Erdman, et al. 2026. Quantum-enhanced satellite image classification. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.18350

    2026 doi

  141. [150]

    Weijie Xiong, Giorgio Facelli, Mehrad Sahebi, Owen Agnel, Thiparat Chotibut, et al. 2025. On fundamental aspects of quantum extreme learning machines. Quantum Mach. Intell.7, 1 (Feb. 2025), 20. doi:10.1007/s42484-025-00239-7

    2025 doi

  142. [151]

    Saud Čindrak, Lina Jaurigue, and Kathy Lüdge. 2025. Engineering quantum reservoirs through Krylov complexity, expressivity, and observability.Physical Rev. Res.7, 4 (Nov. 2025), 043190. doi:10.1103/84f3-63mz

    2025 doi

  143. [152]

    Min Yan, Can Huang, Peter Bienstman, Peter Tino, Wei Lin, et al. 2024. Emerg- ing opportunities and challenges for the future of reservoir computing.Nat. Commun.15, 1 (March 2024), 2056. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45187-1

    2024 doi

  144. [156]

    Heng Zhang and Danilo Vasconcellos Vargas. 2023. A Survey on Reservoir Com- puting and its Interdisciplinary Applications Beyond Traditional Machine Learn- ing.IEEE Access11 (2023), 81033–81070. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3299296

    2023

  145. [159]

    Danilo Zia, Luca Innocenti, Giorgio Minati, Salvatore Lorenzo, Alessia Suprano, et al. 2025. Quantum reservoir computing for photonic entanglement witnessing. eady7987 pages. doi:10.1126/sciadv.ady7987

    2025 doi

  146. [161]

    Saud Čindrak, Kathy Lüdge, and Lina Jaurigue. 2025. From Krylov complexity to observability: Capturing phase space dimension with applications in quantum reservoir computing.Physical Rev. Res.7, 4 (Nov. 2025), L042039. doi:10.1103/ m9kq-wrln

    2025

  147. [198]

    doi:10.1007/s11128-019-2311-9

    doi

  148. [2020]

    doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2012.15045

    Reservoir Transformers. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2012.15045

    2012 doi arXiv

  149. [2023]

    InIEEE Int

    cuQuantum SDK: A High-Performance Library for Accelerating Quantum Science. InIEEE Int. Conf. Quantum Computing and Eng. (QCE). IEEE, Bellevue, WA, USA, 1050–1061. doi:10.1109/qce57702.2023.00119

    2023

  150. [2024]

    Express32, 4 (Feb

    Squeezing as a resource for time series processing in quantum reservoir computing.Opt. Express32, 4 (Feb. 2024), 6733. doi:10.1364/OE.507684

    2024 doi

  151. [2025]

    doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2510.13473

    Towards Quantum Enhanced Adversarial Robustness with Rydberg Reservoir Learning. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2510.13473

    doi

  152. [2026]

    Advance online publication

    Predicting chaotic dynamics on NISQ hardware with quantum reservoir networks.Communications Physics, article in press. Advance online publication. doi:10.1038/s42005-026-02652-1

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.