Recurrent Quantum Feature Maps for Reservoir Computing

Quantum reservoir computing uses a fixed quantum circuit as a feature generator and trains only a simple linear readout on top of it. This makes it cheap to train and free of the optimisation problems that affect many quantum machine-learning models. A natural worry is that the very large feature space the circuit produces might inflate apparent performance without adding anything real. This paper provides two things. First, it gives a complete, reproducible recipe for one such reservoir applied to forecasting chaotic systems, including how data is fed in, how the circuit is built, and how the readout is trained. Second, it gives a way to tell whether the reservoir's high dimension is actually doing useful work. We grow the size of the prediction problem and the size of the quantum reservoir together, so that extra capacity cannot be the explanation for any improvement, and we track a single stability number that measures how well behaved the readout fit is. On two chaotic test systems, a spatiotemporal chain and a shallow-water fluid model, the quantum reservoir keeps a flat, stable error as both sizes grow, while a matched classical reservoir does not. We report where the classical baseline is in fact stronger, so the comparison is honest. The result is a clean specification plus a diagnostic that other groups can apply to any reservoir whose features have a known scale.

Biomarker-based prediction of clinical outcomes is challenging due to nonlinear relationships, correlated features, and the limited size of many medical datasets. Classical machine-learning methods can struggle under these conditions, motivating the search for alternatives. In this work, we investigate quantum reservoir computing (QRC), using both noiseless emulation and hardware execution on the neutral-atom Rydberg processor Aquila. We evaluate performance with six classical machine-learning models and use SHAP to generate feature subsets. We find that models trained on emulated quantum features achieve mean test accuracies comparable to those trained on classical features, but have higher training accuracies and greater variability over data splits, consistent with overfitting. When comparing hardware execution of QRC to noiseless emulation, the models are more robust over different data splits and often exhibit statistically significant improvements in mean test accuracy. This combination of improved accuracy and increased stability is suggestive of a regularising effect induced by hardware execution. To investigate the origin of this behaviour, we examine the statistical differences between hardware and emulated quantum feature distributions. We find that hardware execution applies a structured, time-dependent transformation characterised by compression toward the mean and a progressive reduction in mutual information relative to emulation.

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.