pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01253 · v2 · pith:53TK2Y53new · submitted 2026-05-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

Evaluating quantum circuits in the reservoir computing paradigm

Gaurav Rudra Malik , Amit Kumar Jaiswal , S. Aravinda , Sunil Kumar Mishra This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 00:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords reservoir computingquantum circuitsbrickwall arrangementdual-unitary gatesergodicitytime series predictionfading memory capacity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Brickwall quantum circuits of two-qubit gates enable effective reservoir computing independent of Hamiltonians.

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

The paper examines using structured brickwall circuits made from two-qubit gates for quantum reservoir computing instead of relying on Hamiltonian dynamics. The ergodic properties from the circuit arrangement allow good performance in temporal processing tasks with minimal resources. Performance is evaluated for Haar-random gates, dual-unitary gates with tunable ergodicity, and non-random solvable gates, correlating it with dynamical nature. Krylov space analytics help predict good reservoirs. Results on synthetic data for fading memory and prediction show these structured circuits can provide better and more efficient task performance.

Core claim

The paper establishes that structured brickwall circuits built from two-qubit gates serve as effective models for reservoir computing applications, yielding better and efficient task performance through the global ergodic nature induced by the arrangement, which is independent of any associated Hamiltonian.

What carries the argument

The brickwall arrangement of two-qubit gates that induces global ergodic dynamics for the reservoir.

If this is right

  • Tunable ergodic properties in dual-unitaries enable systematic study of the ergodicity-performance relationship.
  • Non-random solvable gates can exceed the performance of Haar-random two-qubit unitaries.
  • Krylov space analytics reliably predict effective circuit reservoirs for tasks.
  • Validation on synthetic datasets confirms improved fading memory capacity and prediction accuracy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This circuit-based approach may simplify quantum hardware requirements by avoiding specific Hamiltonian designs.
  • The method could be extended to other temporal processing tasks in quantum systems.
  • Testing on real quantum devices would verify the minimal setup's practicality.
  • Connections to classical reservoir computing could highlight any quantum-specific benefits.

Load-bearing premise

The global ergodic nature of the circuit model results from the brickwall arrangement and plays an important role in extracting useful performance with a minimal setup that is independent of an associated Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

A concrete observation that would falsify the claim is if brickwall circuits composed of the tested gates do not demonstrate superior or equal fading memory capacity and prediction accuracy compared to traditional Hamiltonian-based reservoirs when evaluated on standard synthetic time-series datasets.

read the original abstract

Reservoir computing is a framework which is primarily used for temporal information processing, using the intrinsic dynamics of an underlying physical system. The framework, in a quantum setup, is implemented using ergodic dynamics associated with Hamiltonian models. The computational power of the reservoir is closely tied to this underlying dynamical nature, and to probe this further, we study the effectiveness of a reservoir that is made using structured brickwall circuits built from two-qubit gates. Here, the global ergodic nature of the circuit model results from the said arrangement, which has an important role in extracting useful performance with a minimal setup that is independent of an associated Hamiltonian. We focus on the nature of the gates used in this setup and evaluate the resulting reservoir performance, correlating the same with known results on the dynamical nature of the circuit in question. As a baseline, we analyse brickwall circuits composed of Haar-random two-qubit gates, before moving on to dual-unitaries, where tunable ergodic properties allow us to systematically investigate its relationship with reservoir performance. We further consider a class of non-random two-qubit gates obeying a specific solvability condition, wherein the associated dynamics surpasses the equivalent circuit made up of two qubit Haar random unitaries in terms of randomness. Finally, we consider examples of Krylov space analytics, which allow for a reliable prediction of effective circuit reservoirs for sufficient task performance. Using the introduced metrics we validate the reservoir for time-series prediction using standard synthetic data sets to evaluate the fading memory capacity and accuracy for prediction tasks. Our results indicate that structured quantum circuits would serve as effective models that yield better and efficient task performance in reservoir computing applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates structured brickwall quantum circuits built from two-qubit gates as Hamiltonian-independent reservoirs for quantum reservoir computing. It uses Haar-random gates as baseline, tunable dual-unitary gates to probe ergodicity-performance links, solvable gates claimed to exceed Haar randomness, and Krylov-space analytics for performance prediction. Reservoirs are validated on synthetic time-series tasks measuring fading memory capacity and prediction accuracy, with the central claim that the brickwall arrangement yields effective, efficient reservoirs whose performance correlates with known dynamical properties.

Significance. If the reported correlations hold, the work supplies a controllable, Hamiltonian-free route to quantum reservoirs whose computational power can be systematically tied to ergodicity and solvability. The protocol of comparing gate classes against standard synthetic benchmarks directly tests this link and could inform design of minimal quantum RC setups.

minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: the stated performance advantages and correlations are asserted without any numerical values, error bars, or dataset specifications, which reduces the abstract's utility as a standalone summary even though the body presumably contains the supporting data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our manuscript and the recommendation of minor revision. The provided summary accurately reflects the scope and contributions of the work on brickwall quantum circuits as Hamiltonian-independent reservoirs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on external validation of brickwall quantum circuits against standard synthetic time-series datasets for fading-memory capacity and prediction accuracy. Performance is correlated with independently known dynamical properties (ergodicity, solvability) of the gate classes, using baseline Haar circuits, tunable dual-unitaries, and Krylov-space analysis as diagnostic tools rather than self-referential definitions. No step equates a fitted parameter or derived quantity to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation chain; the protocol directly tests the stated correlation without internal redefinition of the target metrics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Unitary evolution of quantum circuits under two-qubit gates produces ergodic dynamics when arranged in brickwall pattern
    Invoked to justify that the circuit arrangement yields useful reservoir properties independent of Hamiltonian.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5832 in / 1203 out tokens · 42901 ms · 2026-07-01T00:56:02.937387+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

75 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Neural networks and deep learn- ing,

    Michael A. Nielsen, “Neural networks and deep learn- ing,” (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Quantum Circuit Learning

    Kosuke Mitarai, Makoto Negoro, Masahiro Kitagawa, and Keisuke Fujii, “Quantum circuit learning,” Physical Review A98,032309(2018), arXiv:1803.00745[quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Classification with Quantum Neural Networks on Near Term Processors

    Edward Farhi and Hartmut Neven, “Classification with quantum neural networks on near term processors,” (2018),10.48550/arXiv.1802.06002, arXiv:1802.06002 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.06002 2018

  4. [4]

    Schuld, A

    Maria Schuld, Alex Bocharov, Krysta M. Svore, and Nathan Wiebe, “Circuit-centric quantum classifiers,” Physical Review A101,032308(2020), arXiv:1804.00633 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Supervised learning with quantum enhanced feature spaces

    Vojt ˇech Havl´ıˇcek, Antonio D. C ´orcoles, Kristan Temme, Aram W. Harrow, Abhinav Kandala, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces,” Nature567,209–212(2019), arXiv:1804.11326[quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,

    Marcello Benedetti, Erika Lloyd, Stefan Sack, and Mattia Fiorentini, “Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models,” Quantum Science and Technology4, 043001(2019), arXiv:1906.07682[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Hierarchical quantum classifiers

    Edward Grant, Marcello Benedetti, Shuxiang Cao, An- drew Hallam, Joshua Lockhart, Vid Stojevic, Andrew G. Green, and Simone Severini, “Hierarchical quantum classifiers,” npj Quantum Information4,65(2018), arXiv:1804.03680[quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Differentiable Learning of Quantum Circuit Born Machine

    Jin-Guo Liu and Lei Wang, “Differentiable learning of quantum circuit born machines,” Physical Review A98, 062324(2018), arXiv:1804.04168[quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Quantum generative adversarial networks

    Pierre-Luc Dallaire-Demers and Nathan Killoran, “Quan- tum generative adversarial networks,” Physical Review A98,012324(2018), arXiv:1804.08641[quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Adversarial quantum circuit learning for pure state approximation

    Marcello Benedetti, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, and Simone Severini, “Adversarial quantum circuit learning for pure state approximation,” New Journal of Physics21,043023(2019), arXiv:1806.00463[quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes

    Jarrod R. McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,” Nature Communications9,4812(2018), arXiv:1803.11173[quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Expressibility and entangling capability of parameter- ized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical al- gorithms,

    Sukin Sim, Peter D. Johnson, and Al ´an Aspuru-Guzik, “Expressibility and entangling capability of parameter- ized quantum circuits for hybrid quantum-classical al- gorithms,” Advanced Quantum Technologies2,1900070 (2019), arXiv:1905.10876[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Quantum natural gradient,

    James Stokes, Josh Izaac, Nathan Killoran, and Giuseppe Carleo, “Quantum natural gradient,” Quantum4,269 (2020), arXiv:1909.02108[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Structure optimization for parame- terized quantum circuits,

    Mateusz Ostaszewski, Edward Grant, and Mar- cello Benedetti, “Structure optimization for parame- terized quantum circuits,” Quantum5,391(2021), arXiv:1905.09692[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Cerezo et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nature Rev

    M. Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Simon C. Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R. Mc- Clean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,” Na- ture Reviews Physics3,625–644(2021), arXiv:2012.09265 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    echo state

    Herbert Jaeger,The “echo state” approach to analysing and training recurrent neural networks, Tech. Rep. GMD Report 148(German National Research Center for Information Technology,2001)

    2001

  17. [17]

    Real-time computing without stable states: A new framework for neural computation based on pertur- bations,

    Wolfgang Maass, Thomas Natschl ¨ager, and Henry Markram, “Real-time computing without stable states: A new framework for neural computation based on pertur- bations,” Neural Computation14,2531–2560(2002)

    2002

  18. [18]

    Harnessing nonlin- earity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless communication,

    Herbert Jaeger and Harald Haas, “Harnessing nonlin- earity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless communication,” Science304,78–80(2004)

    2004

  19. [19]

    Optimization and applications of echo state networks with leaky-integrator neurons,

    Herbert Jaeger, Mantas Luko ˇseviˇcius, Dan Popovici, and Udo Siewert, “Optimization and applications of echo state networks with leaky-integrator neurons,” Neural Networks20,335–352(2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods,

    David Verstraeten, Benjamin Schrauwen, Michiel D’Haene, and Dirk Stroobandt, “An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods,” Neural Networks20,391–403(2007)

    2007

  21. [21]

    Reservoir computing approaches to recurrent neural network train- ing,

    Mantas Luko ˇseviˇcius and Herbert Jaeger, “Reservoir computing approaches to recurrent neural network train- ing,” Computer Science Review3,127–149(2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine 18 learning,

    Keisuke Fujii and Kohei Nakajima, “Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine 18 learning,” Phys. Rev. Appl.8,024030(2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Quantum reservoir processing

    Sanjib Ghosh, Andrzej Opala, Michał Matuszewski, Tomasz Paterek, and Timothy C. H. Liew, “Quantum reservoir processing,” npj Quantum Information5,35 (2019), arXiv:1811.10335[cond-mat.dis-nn]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Boosting com- putational power through spatial multiplexing in quan- tum reservoir computing,

    Kohei Nakajima, Keisuke Fujii, Makoto Negoro, Ko- suke Mitarai, and Masahiro Kitagawa, “Boosting com- putational power through spatial multiplexing in quan- tum reservoir computing,” Physical Review Applied11, 034021(2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Natural quantum reservoir comput- ing for temporal information processing,

    Yudai Suzuki, Qi Gao, Ken C. Pradel, Kenji Yasuoka, and Naoki Yamamoto, “Natural quantum reservoir comput- ing for temporal information processing,” Scientific Re- ports12,1353(2022), arXiv:2107.05808[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projective measurements,

    Pere Mujal, Rodrigo Mart ´ınez-Pe˜na, Gian Luca Giorgi, Miguel C. Soriano, and Roberta Zambrini, “Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projective measurements,” npj Quantum Information9,16(2023), arXiv:2205.06809[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    High-accuracy temporal prediction via experimental quantum reservoir computing in correlated spins,

    Yanjun Hou, Juncheng Hua, Ze Wu, Wei Xia, Yuquan Chen, Xiaopeng Li, Zhaokai Li, Xinhua Peng, and Jiangfeng Du, “High-accuracy temporal prediction via experimental quantum reservoir computing in correlated spins,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136,120602(2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Quantum reservoir computing for re- alized volatility forecasting,

    Qingyu Li, Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay, Abolfazl Bayat, and Ali Habibnia, “Quantum reservoir computing for re- alized volatility forecasting,” Phys. Rev. Res.8,023028 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    Edge of many- body quantum chaos in quantum reservoir computing,

    Kaito Kobayashi and Yukitoshi Motome, “Edge of many- body quantum chaos in quantum reservoir computing,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136,040602(2026)

    2026

  30. [30]

    Random quantum circuits,

    Matthew P . A. Fisher, Vedika Khemani, Adam Nahum, and Sagar Vijay, “Random quantum circuits,” Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics14,335–379(2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Solu- tion of a minimal model for many-body quantum chaos,

    Amos Chan, Andrea De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, “Solu- tion of a minimal model for many-body quantum chaos,” Phys. Rev. X8,041019(2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Oper- ator spreading in random unitary circuits,

    Adam Nahum, Sagar Vijay, and Jeongwan Haah, “Oper- ator spreading in random unitary circuits,” Phys. Rev. X 8,021014(2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Out-of-time-order correlators of nonlocal block-spin and random observables in inte- grable and nonintegrable spin chains,

    Rohit Kumar Shukla, Arul Lakshminarayan, and Sunil Kumar Mishra, “Out-of-time-order correlators of nonlocal block-spin and random observables in inte- grable and nonintegrable spin chains,” Phys. Rev. B105, 224307(2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Exactly solvable quantum many-body dynamics from space-time duality,

    Bruno Bertini, Pieter W. Claeys, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Exactly solvable quantum many-body dynamics from space-time duality,” Rev. Mod. Phys.98,025001(2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    Exact correlation functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1+1 dimensions,

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Exact correlation functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123,210601(2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quan- tum circuits,

    Lorenzo Piroli, Bruno Bertini, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Tomaˇz Prosen, “Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quan- tum circuits,” Physical Review B101,094304(2020), arXiv:1911.11175[cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Bertini, P

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Opera- tor entanglement in local quantum circuits i: Chaotic dual-unitary circuits,” SciPost Physics8,067(2020), arXiv:1909.07407[cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Bertini, P

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Toma ˇz Prosen, “Oper- ator entanglement in local quantum circuits ii: Soli- tons in chains of qubits,” SciPost Physics8,068(2020), arXiv:1909.07410[cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    From dual-unitary to quantum bernoulli cir- cuits: Role of the entangling power in constructing a quantum ergodic hierarchy,

    S. Aravinda, Suhail Ahmad Rather, and Arul Lakshmi- narayan, “From dual-unitary to quantum bernoulli cir- cuits: Role of the entangling power in constructing a quantum ergodic hierarchy,” Phys. Rev. Res.3,043034 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Quantum reservoir complexity by the krylov evolution approach,

    Laia Domingo, F. Borondo, Gast ´on Scialchi, Augusto J. Roncaglia, Gabriel G. Carlo, and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Quantum reservoir complexity by the krylov evolution approach,” Phys. Rev. A110,022446(2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Engi- neering quantum reservoirs through krylov complexity, expressivity, and observability,

    Saud ˇCindrak, Lina Jaurigue, and Kathy L ¨udge, “Engi- neering quantum reservoirs through krylov complexity, expressivity, and observability,” Phys. Rev. Res.7,043190 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    From krylov complexity to observability: Capturing phase space dimension with applications in quantum reservoir computing,

    Saud Cindrak, Kathy Ludge, and Lina Jaurigue, “From krylov complexity to observability: Capturing phase space dimension with applications in quantum reservoir computing,” Phys. Rev. Res.7, L042039(2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Efficiency of pro- ducing random unitary matrices with quantum circuits,

    Ludovic Arnaud and Daniel Braun, “Efficiency of pro- ducing random unitary matrices with quantum circuits,” Phys. Rev. A78,062329(2008)

    2008

  44. [44]

    Random quan- tum circuits are approximate2-designs,

    Aram W. Harrow and Richard A. Low, “Random quan- tum circuits are approximate2-designs,” Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics291,257–302(2009)

    2009

  45. [45]

    Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,

    Fernando G. S. L. Brand ˜ao, Aram W. Harrow, and Michał Horodecki, “Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs,” Communications in Mathematical Physics346,397–434(2016)

    2016

  46. [46]

    Random quantum circuits are ap- proximate unitaryt-designs in depthO nt5+o(1) ,

    Jonas Haferkamp, “Random quantum circuits are ap- proximate unitaryt-designs in depthO nt5+o(1) ,” Quantum6,795(2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time-series analysis,

    Kaito Kobayashi, Keisuke Fujii, and Naoki Yamamoto, “Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time-series analysis,” PRX Quantum5,040325(2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Dissipa- tion as a resource for Quantum Reservoir Computing,

    Antonio Sannia, Rodrigo Mart ´ınez-Pe˜na, Miguel C. Sori- ano, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini, “Dissipa- tion as a resource for Quantum Reservoir Computing,” Quantum8,1291(2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Harnessing quan- tum backaction for time-series processing,

    Giacomo Franceschetto, Marcin Płodzie ´n, Maciej Lewen- stein, Antonio Ac´ın, and Pere Mujal, “Harnessing quan- tum backaction for time-series processing,” Phys. Rev. X 16,021002(2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    Measurement-driven quantum advantages in shallow circuits,

    Chenfeng Cao and Jens Eisert, “Measurement-driven quantum advantages in shallow circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 136,080601(2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    Quantifying operator spreading and chaos in krylov subspaces with quantum state recon- struction,

    Abinash Sahu, Naga Dileep Varikuti, Bishal Kumar Das, and Vaibhav Madhok, “Quantifying operator spreading and chaos in krylov subspaces with quantum state recon- struction,” Phys. Rev. B108,224306(2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos,

    E. Rabinovici, A. S ´anchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Sonner, “Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022,151(2022)

    2022

  53. [53]

    Krylov localization and suppression of complexity,

    E. Rabinovici, A. S ´anchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Son- ner, “Krylov localization and suppression of complexity,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022,211(2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Krylov com- plexity in open quantum systems,

    Chang Liu, Haifeng Tang, and Hui Zhai, “Krylov com- plexity in open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033085(2023). 19

    2023

  55. [55]

    Operator growth and krylov construction in dissipative open quantum sys- tems,

    Aranya Bhattacharya, Pratik Nandy, Pingal Pratyush Nath, and Himanshu Sahu, “Operator growth and krylov construction in dissipative open quantum sys- tems,” Journal of High Energy Physics2022,81(2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    Krylov subspace methods for quantum dynamics with time- dependent generators,

    Kazutaka Takahashi and Adolfo del Campo, “Krylov subspace methods for quantum dynamics with time- dependent generators,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134,030401 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Integrability-to-chaos transition through the krylov approach for state evolution,

    Gast ´on F. Scialchi, Augusto J. Roncaglia, and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Integrability-to-chaos transition through the krylov approach for state evolution,” Phys. Rev. E109, 054209(2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Speed limits and scrambling in krylov space,

    Ankit Gill and Tapobrata Sarkar, “Speed limits and scrambling in krylov space,” Phys. Rev. B111,184307 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Staszewski, A

    Luke Staszewski, Asmi Haldar, Pieter W. Claeys, and Alexander Wietek, “Krylov space dynamics of ergodic and dynamically frozen floquet systems,” Physical Re- view B113,165144(2026), arXiv:2510.19824[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Krylov complexity and trotter transitions in uni- tary circuit dynamics,

    Philippe Suchsland, Roderich Moessner, and Pieter W. Claeys, “Krylov complexity and trotter transitions in uni- tary circuit dynamics,” Phys. Rev. B111,014309(2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Exploring quantum ergodicity of unitary evolution through the krylov approach,

    Gast ´on F. Scialchi, Augusto J. Roncaglia, Carlos Pineda, and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Exploring quantum ergodicity of unitary evolution through the krylov approach,” Phys. Rev. E111,014220(2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Entan- gling power of quantum evolutions,

    Paolo Zanardi, Christof Zalka, and Lara Faoro, “Entan- gling power of quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. A62, 030301(2000)

    2000

  63. [63]

    More global randomness from less random local gates,

    Ryotaro Suzuki, Hosho Katsura, Yosuke Mitsuhashi, To- mohiro Soejima, Jens Eisert, and Nobuyuki Yoshioka, “More global randomness from less random local gates,” (2024), arXiv:2410.24127[quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Creating ensembles of dual unitary and max- imally entangling quantum evolutions,

    Suhail Ahmad Rather, S. Aravinda, and Arul Lakshmi- narayan, “Creating ensembles of dual unitary and max- imally entangling quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125,070501(2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    Dependence of krylov complexity satura- tion on the initial operator and state,

    Sreeram PG, J. Bharathi Kannan, Ranjan Modak, and S. Aravinda, “Dependence of krylov complexity satura- tion on the initial operator and state,” Phys. Rev. E112, L032203(2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Assess- ing the saturation of krylov complexity as a measure of chaos,

    Bernardo L. Espa ˜nol and Diego A. Wisniacki, “Assess- ing the saturation of krylov complexity as a measure of chaos,” Phys. Rev. E107,024217(2023)

    2023

  67. [67]

    Information processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems,

    R. Mart ´ınez-Pe˜na, J. Nokkala, G. L. Giorgi, R. Zambrini, and M. C. Soriano, “Information processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems,” Cog- nitive Computation15,1440–1451(2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    Maximum ve- locity quantum circuits,

    Pieter W. Claeys and Austen Lamacraft, “Maximum ve- locity quantum circuits,” Phys. Rev. Res.2,033032(2020)

    2020

  69. [69]

    Growth of entan- glement of generic states under dual-unitary dynamics,

    Alessandro Foligno and Bruno Bertini, “Growth of entan- glement of generic states under dual-unitary dynamics,” Phys. Rev. B107,174311(2023)

    2023

  70. [70]

    Maximal entangle- ment velocity implies dual unitarity,

    Tianci Zhou and Aram W. Harrow, “Maximal entangle- ment velocity implies dual unitarity,” Phys. Rev. B106, L201104(2022)

    2022

  71. [71]

    Entan- glement structure for a finite system under dual-unitary dynamics,

    Gaurav Rudra Malik, Rohit Kumar Shukla, Sudhanva Joshi, S. Aravinda, and Sunil Kumar Mishra, “Entan- glement structure for a finite system under dual-unitary dynamics,” Phys. Rev. B113,064307(2026)

    2026

  72. [72]

    Entanglement of quantum evolutions,

    Paolo Zanardi, “Entanglement of quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. A63,040304(2001)

    2001

  73. [73]

    Quantum dynamics as a physical re- source,

    Michael A. Nielsen, Christopher M. Dawson, Jennifer L. Dodd, Alexei Gilchrist, Duncan Mortimer, Tobias J. Os- borne, Michael J. Bremner, Aram W. Harrow, and Andrew Hines, “Quantum dynamics as a physical re- source,” Phys. Rev. A67,052301(2003)

    2003

  74. [74]

    Temporal entangle- ment barriers in dual-unitary clifford circuits with mea- surements,

    Jiangtian Yao and Pieter W. Claeys, “Temporal entangle- ment barriers in dual-unitary clifford circuits with mea- surements,” Phys. Rev. Res.6,043077(2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Evaluating quantum circuits in the reservoir computing paradigm,

    Gaurav Rudra Malik, Amit Kumar Jaiswal, S. Aravinda, and Sunil Kumar Mishra, “Evaluating quantum circuits in the reservoir computing paradigm,” (2026), gitHub repository referencing arXiv preprint. Appendix A: Mixing Rate and role of local unitaries in dual-unitary circuits The class of dual-unitary circuits is such that the cor- relation function on the ...

    2026