Microwave signal processing using an analog quantum reservoir computer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantum reservoir computing (QRC) has been proposed as a paradigm for performing machine learning with quantum processors where the training takes place in the classical domain, avoiding the issue of barren plateaus in parameterized-circuit quantum neural networks. It is natural to consider using a quantum processor based on microwave superconducting circuits to classify microwave signals that are analog—continuous in time. However, while there have been theoretical proposals of analog QRC, to date QRC has been implemented using the circuit model—imposing a discretization of the incoming signal in time. In this paper we show how a quantum superconducting circuit comprising an oscillator coupled to a qubit can be used as an analog quantum reservoir for a variety of classification tasks, achieving high accuracy on all of them. Our work demonstrates processing of ultra-low-power microwave signals within our superconducting circuit, a step towards achieving a quantum sensing-computational advantage on impinging microwave signals. Quantum reservoir computing might in principle give advantages in solving signal classification tasks, but current implementations usually incur in the digitalization bottleneck. Here, the authors demonstrate an implementation dealing directly with the analogue MW signals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".