跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 01:33 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 02:16 — 2026-11-15 02:16(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 01:33最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 01:32(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.15298

Quantum Recurrent Architectures for Financial Time Series Prediction

Danyal Maheshwari, Gerhard Hellstern, Martin Zaefferer, Martin Braun, Tanja Döhler

原文摘要

This study evaluates quantum classical hybrid recurrent architectures for financial time-series forecasting: a Quantum Long Short-Term Memory (QLSTM) network and Quantum Reservoir Computing (QRC) with lag-based inputs. Classical lag vectors are encoded into quantum states via amplitude encoding, which compactly represents normalized observations but requires nontrivial state preparation; the QLSTM gates and the QRC reservoir are implemented with parameterized quantum circuits, while classical optimizers train the interface and readout layers. On a monthly revenue series extended to 1056 months by a Gaussian-process--hidden-Markov generator, with a fixed chronological 70/15/15 split and one-step-ahead forecasts, we compare both models against a full-size LSTM, a classical control matched in parameter budget and interface architecture, a small plain LSTM, and classical reservoir computing, over ten seeds and against persistence, seasonal-naive and SARIMA benchmark forecasts. The QLSTM, with 2,105 parameters, is statistically indistinguishable from an LSTM 126 times larger, but equally indistinguishable from the matched classical control and from a plain LSTM of the same budget, so its parameter efficiency cannot be attributed to the quantum circuits. The quantum reservoir is worse than a classical reservoir of equal feature dimension in all ten seeds and worse than SARIMA, whereas all recurrent models and both classical reservoirs improve on SARIMA by about 2\% in RMSE. In a 24-month rolling-origin backtest the classical LSTMs degrade more slowly than the QLSTM. We find no evidence of a quantum accuracy or parameter-efficiency advantage in this low-dimensional setting.

quant-ph · cs.AI