MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411275347 · doi:10.1117/12.3066098

The role of entanglement in quantum reservoir computing with coupled Kerr nonlinear oscillators

2025· article· en· W4411275347 on OpenAlexaff
Alì Karimi, Hadi Zadeh‐Haghighi, Youssef Kora, Christoph Simon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Reservoir Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum entanglementNonlinear systemPhysicsReservoir computingQuantum computerQuantum mechanicsQuantumComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum Reservoir Computing (QRC) utilizes the intrinsic dynamics of quantum systems to process temporal data efficiently, offering potential advantages in computational power and energy efficiency. Unlike classical reservoirs, quantum reservoirs leverage properties such as superposition and entanglement, which may enhance information processing capabilities. In this work, we investigate a QRC framework based on two coupled Kerr nonlinear oscillators, a system well-suited for time-series prediction tasks due to its complex nonlinear interactions and potentially high-dimensional state space. We explore how its performance in time-series prediction depends on key physical parameters: input drive strength, Kerr nonlinearity, and oscillator coupling, and analyze the role of entanglement in improving the reservoir’s computational performance, focusing on its effect on predicting non-trivial time series. Using logarithmic negativity to quantify entanglement and normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) to evaluate predictive accuracy, our results suggest that entanglement provides a computational advantage on average up to a threshold in the input frequency, which persists under some levels of dissipation and dephasing. These findings contribute to the broader understanding of quantum reservoirs and highlight their potential for high performance, efficient quantum machine learning and time-series forecasting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and Reservoir ComputingFrench-language works237,207