- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Quantum reservoir computing in Jaynes-Cummings models: Nonlinear memory and time-series prediction

Sreetama Das*, Gian Luca Giorgi, and Roberta Zambrini

  • *Contact author: sreetama.das21@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 023148 – Published 11 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ffd3-ytbt

Abstract

We investigate quantum reservoir computing (QRC) using a hybrid qubit-boson system described by the Jaynes-Cummings (JC) Hamiltonian and its dispersive limit (DJC). These models provide high-dimensional Hilbert spaces and intrinsic nonlinear dynamics, making them powerful substrates for temporal information processing. We systematically benchmark both reservoirs through linear and nonlinear memory tasks, demonstrating that they exhibit an unusual superior nonlinear over linear memory capacity. We further test their predictive performance on the Mackey-Glass time series, a widely used benchmark for chaotic dynamics, and show comparable forecasting ability. We also investigate how memory and prediction accuracy vary with reservoir parameters and show the role of higher-order bosonic observables and time multiplexing in enhancing expressivity, even in minimal spin-boson configurations. Our results establish JC- and DJC-based reservoirs as versatile platforms for time-series processing and as elementary units that overcome the setting of equivalent qubit pairs and offer pathways toward tunable, high-performance quantum machine learning architectures.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (75)

  1. E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proc. IEEE 51, 89 (1963).
  2. B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, The Jaynes-Cummings model, J. Mod. Opt. 40, 1195 (1993).
  3. J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos, The Jaynes–Cummings Model and Its Descendants, 2nd ed. (IOP Publishing, 2024), pp. 2053–2563.
  4. D. Meschede, H. Walther, and G. Müller, One-atom maser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 551 (1985).
  5. S. M. Dutra, Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics: The Strange Theory of Light in a Box, Wiley Series in Lasers and Applications (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2005).
  6. C. A. Blockley, D. F. Walls, and H. Risken, Quantum collapses and revivals in a quantized trap, Europhys. Lett. 17, 509 (1992).
  7. C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Demonstration of a fundamental quantum logic gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4714 (1995).
  8. Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box, Nature (London) 398, 786 (1999).
  9. A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004).
  10. A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature (London) 431, 162 (2004).
  11. M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Dispersive regime of circuit QED: Photon-dependent qubit dephasing and relaxation rates, Phys. Rev. A 79, 013819 (2009).
  12. A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021).
  13. D. Marković and J. Grollier, Quantum neuromorphic computing, Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 150501 (2020).
  14. P. Mujal, R. Martínez-Peña, J. Nokkala, J. García-Beni, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Opportunities in quantum reservoir computing and extreme learning machines, Adv. Quantum Technol. 4, 2100027 (2021).
  15. A. Labay-Mora, J. García-Beni, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Neural networks with quantum states of light, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 382, 20230346 (2024).
  16. A. Senanian, S. Prabhu, V. Kremenetski, S. Roy, Y. Cao, J. Kline, T. Onodera, L. G. Wright, X. Wu, V. Fatemi, and P. L. McMahon, Microwave signal processing using an analog quantum reservoir computer, Nat. Commun. 15, 7490 (2024).
  17. B. Carles, J. Dudas, L. Balembois, J. Grollier, and D. Marković, Experimental quantum reservoir computing with a circuit quantum electrodynamics system, arXiv:2506.22016.
  18. H. Jaeger and H. Haas, Harnessing nonlinearity: Predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless communication, Science 304, 78 (2004).
  19. W. Maass, T. Natschläger, and H. Markram, Real-time computing without stable states: A new framework for neural computation based on perturbations, Neural Comput. 14, 2531 (2002).
  20. D. Verstraeten, B. Schrauwen, M. D’Haene, and D. Stroobandt, An experimental unification of reservoir computing methods, Neural Netw. 20, 391 (2007).
  21. G. Tanaka, T. Yamane, J. B. Héroux, R. Nakane, N. Kanazawa, S. Takeda, H. Numata, D. Nakano, and A. Hirose, Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: A review, Neural Netw. 115, 100 (2019).
  22. K. Fujii and K. Nakajima, Harnessing disordered-ensemble quantum dynamics for machine learning, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 024030 (2017).
  23. J. Nokkala, Online quantum time series processing with random oscillator networks, Sci. Rep. 13, 7694 (2023).
  24. J. Nokkala, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Retrieving past quantum features with deep hybrid classical-quantum reservoir computing, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 5, 035022 (2024).
  25. J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nat. Commun. 9, 4812 (2018).
  26. E. R. Anschuetz and B. T. Kiani, Quantum variational algorithms are swamped with traps, Nat. Commun. 13, 7760 (2022).
  27. K. Nakajima, K. Fujii, M. Negoro, K. Mitarai, and M. Kitagawa, Boosting computational power through spatial multiplexing in quantum reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. Appl. 11, 034021 (2019).
  28. R. Martínez-Peña, G. L. Giorgi, J. Nokkala, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Dynamical phase transitions in quantum reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 100502 (2021).
  29. R. Martínez-Peña, J. Nokkala, G. L. Giorgi, R. Zambrini, and M. C. Soriano, Information processing capacity of spin-based quantum reservoir computing systems, Cognit. Comput. 15, 1440 (2023).
  30. Q. H. Tran and K. Nakajima, Learning temporal quantum tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 260401 (2021).
  31. P. Mujal, R. Martínez-Peña, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Time-series quantum reservoir computing with weak and projective measurements, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 16 (2023).
  32. N. Götting, F. Lohof, and C. Gies, Exploring quantumness in quantum reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052427 (2023).
  33. A. Sannia, R. Martínez-Peña, M. C. Soriano, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Dissipation as a resource for quantum reservoir computing, Quantum 8, 1291 (2024).
  34. Q. Li, C. Mukhopadhyay, A. Bayat, and A. Habibnia, Quantum reservoir computing for realized volatility forecasting, Phys. Rev. Res. 8, 023028, (2026).
  35. Y. Hou, J. Hua, Z. Wu, W. Xia, Y. Chen, X. Li, Z. Li, X. Peng, and J. Du, High-accuracy temporal prediction via experimental quantum reservoir computing in correlated spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 120602 (2026).
  36. J. Nokkala, R. Martínez-Peña, G. L. Giorgi, V. Parigi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Gaussian states of continuous-variable quantum systems provide universal and versatile reservoir computing, Commun. Phys. 4, 53 (2021).
  37. L. C. G. Govia, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, H. K. Krovi, and T. A. Ohki, Quantum reservoir computing with a single nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013077 (2021).
  38. S. A. Khan, F. Hu, G. Angelatos, and H. E. Türeci, Physical reservoir computing using finitely-sampled quantum systems, arXiv:2110.13849.
  39. W. D. Kalfus, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, H. K. Krovi, T. A. Ohki, and L. C. G. Govia, Hilbert space as a computational resource in reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033007 (2022).
  40. J. García-Beni, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Scalable photonic platform for real-time quantum reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 014051 (2023).
  41. J. Dudas, B. Carles, E. Plouet, F. A. Mizrahi, J. Grollier, and D. Marković, Quantum reservoir computing implementation on coherently coupled quantum oscillators, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 64 (2023).
  42. G. Llodrà, C. Charalambous, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Benchmarking the role of particle statistics in quantum reservoir computing, Adv. Quantum Technol. 6, 2200100 (2023).
  43. A. Sannia, G. L. Giorgi, S. Longhi, and R. Zambrini, Liouvillian skin effect in quantum neural networks, Opt. Quantum 3, 189 (2025).
  44. J. Chen, H. I. Nurdin, and N. Yamamoto, Temporal information processing on noisy quantum computers, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 024065 (2020).
  45. K. Kobayashi, K. Fujii, and N. Yamamoto, Feedback-driven quantum reservoir computing for time-series analysis, PRX Quantum 5, 040325 (2024).
  46. F. Hu, S. A. Khan, N. T. Bronn, G. Angelatos, G. E. Rowlands, G. J. Ribeill, and H. E. Türeci, Overcoming the coherence time barrier in quantum machine learning on temporal data, Nat. Commun. 15, 7491 (2024).
  47. M. Selimović, I. Agresti, M. Siemaszko, J. Morris, B. Dakić, R. Albiero, A. Crespi, F. Ceccarelli, R. Osellame, M. Stobińska, and P. Walther, Experimental neuromorphic computing based on quantum memristor, arXiv:2504.18694.
  48. I. Paparelle, J. Henaff, J. García-Beni, É. Gillet, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, R. Zambrini, and V. Parigi, Experimental memory control in continuous-variable optical quantum reservoir computing, Nat. Photon. 20, 413 (2026).
  49. M. Kornjača et al., Large-scale quantum reservoir learning with an analog quantum computer, arXiv:2407.02553.
  50. A. H. Abbas and I. S. Maksymov, Reservoir computing using measurement-controlled quantum dynamics, Electronics 13, 1164 (2024).
  51. C. Zhu, P. J. Ehlers, H. I. Nurdin, and D. Soh, Practical few-atom quantum reservoir computing, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023290 (2025).
  52. G. Llodrà et al. (unpublished).
  53. P. Carbonaro, G. Compagno, and F. Persico, Canonical dressing of atoms by intense radiation fields, Phys. Lett. A 73, 97 (1979).
  54. A. S. Trushechkin and I. V. Volovich, Perturbative treatment of inter-site couplings in the local description of open quantum networks, Europhys. Lett. 113, 30005 (2016).
  55. M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zambrini, Local versus global master equation with common and separate baths: Superiority of the global approach in partial secular approximation, New J. Phys. 21, 113045 (2019).
  56. A. Vaaranta, M. Cattaneo, and P. Muratore-Ginanneschi, Analytical solution of the open dispersive Jaynes-Cummings model and perturbative analytical solution of the open quantum Rabi model, Phys. Rev. A 111, 053717 (2025).
  57. M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, J. Piilo, and S. Maniscalco, Microscopic derivation of the Jaynes-Cummings model with cavity losses, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013811 (2007).
  58. M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, and K.-A. Suominen, Cavity losses for the dissipative Jaynes–Cummings Hamiltonian beyond rotating wave approximation, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 14527 (2007).
  59. H. Jaeger, The “echo state” approach to analysing and training Recurrent neural networks, GMD Report 148, GMD—German National Research Institute for Computer Science, 2001.
  60. I. B. Yildiz, H. Jaeger, and S. J. Kiebel, Re-visiting the echo state property, Neural Netw. 35, 1 (2012).
  61. S. Boyd and L. Chua, Fading memory and the problem of approximating nonlinear operators with Volterra series, IEEE Trans. Circuit Syst. 32, 1150 (1985).
  62. M. Hahto and J. Nokkala, Smarter usage of measurement statistics can greatly improve continuous variable quantum reservoir computing, New J. Phys. 27, 094510 (2025).
  63. P. Alsing, D.-S. Guo, and H. J. Carmichael, Dynamic stark effect for the Jaynes-Cummings system, Phys. Rev. A 45, 5135 (1992).
  64. We also notice that these are approximately imaginary solutions for κ≪χ′.
  65. P. Mujal, J. Nokkala, R. Martínez-Peña, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Analytical evidence of nonlinearity in qubits and continuous-variable quantum reservoir computing, J. Phys.: Complexity 2, 045008 (2021).
  66. N. Bertschinger, T. Natschläger, and R. Legenstein, At the edge of chaos: Real-time computations and s elf-organized criticality in recurrent neural networks, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, edited by L. Saul, Y. Weiss, and L. Bottou (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004), Vol. 17.
  67. M. C. Mackey and L. Glass, Oscillation and chaos in physiological control systems, Science 197, 287 (1977).
  68. G. Llodrà, P. Mujal, R. Zambrini, and G. L. Giorgi, Quantum reservoir computing in atomic lattices, Chaos Solitons Fractals 195, 116289 (2025).
  69. M. D. Reed, B. R. Johnson, A. A. Houck, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Fast reset and suppressing spontaneous emission of a superconducting qubit, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 203110 (2010).
  70. N. T. Bronn, Y. Liu, J. B. Hertzberg, A. D. Córcoles, A. A. Houck, J. M. Gambetta, and J. M. Chow, Broadband filters for abatement of spontaneous emission in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 172601 (2015).
  71. P. Laha, P. A. A. Yasir, and P. van Loock, Genuine non-Gaussian entanglement of light and quantum coherence for an atom from noisy multiphoton spin-Boson interactions, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033302 (2024).
  72. https://github.com/dassree/QRC_JC.git.
  73. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234 (2013).
  74. J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012).
  75. N. Lambert, E. Giguère, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Suárez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python, Phys. Rep. 1153, 1 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 023148– Published 11 May, 2026
  • Received 14 October 2025
  • Accepted 12 March 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation