Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Fast and robust quantum state transfer via a topological chain

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An exponential time-driving function transfers quantum states along a topological chain up to 18 times faster than the adiabatic cosine protocol while keeping fidelity above 0.9.

desk verdict A useful, honest numerical comparison of an exponential SSH driving protocol; the speed gain is real but depends on idealized control and a fine-tuned alpha. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.09164 v1 pith:5IL3KX2T submitted 2020-09-19 quant-ph

N. E. Palaiodimopoulos , I. Brouzos , F. K. Diakonos , G. Theocharis This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumstatetransferSu-Schrieffer-Heegerchaintopologicaledgestatestime-dependentcouplingsadiabaticinvariantoptimalcontrolstaticdisorderfidelity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a protocol for transferring a single quantum excitation from one end of a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) chain to the other by varying the odd and even inter-site couplings in time according to an exponential function. The central claim is that this exponential driving outruns both a standard adiabatic cosine driving and a resonant topologically-trivial protocol: for a 31-site chain, fidelity stabilizes above $0.9$ for transfer times $t^* \geq 42$ in units of $1/J_{\max}$, compared with $761$ for the cosine protocol and $231$ for the trivial protocol. The paper also claims that the exponential protocol is robust to static disorder in the couplings and on-site fields, and that optimal-control (CRAB) corrections to the exponential profile are small, suggesting the function is close to optimal. A sympathetic reader would care because it shows that a simple parameter-only driving scheme can balance speed and robustness without adding counter-adiabatic terms.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the adiabatic-invariant control heuristic: for the system to track the zero-energy edge state, the sum over excited modes of the matrix elements of $\dot{\hat{H}}$ divided by the instantaneous energy differences must stay small (the paper's Eq. (5)). The paper reads this as two design rules—make the minimum energy gap as large as possible when the couplings cross, and keep the driving slope gentle near the gap minimum while allowing steep slopes when the gap is large—and implements both in an exponential coupling function. The odd-size SSH chain provides the load-bearing structure: an exactly zero-energy edge mode localized on the first site initially and on the last site at $t^*$, with the instantaneous gap given analytically by $g = 2|\epsilon_{[N/2]}|$.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to reproduce the fidelity-versus-$t^*$ curve for $N=31$ and $\alpha=6$ with a high-accuracy time propagator: the paper predicts that fidelity stabilizes above $0.9$ for $t^* \geq 42$, so a converged simulation that fails to reach $F=0.9$ at $t^*=42$ would falsify the quantitative claim, as would an independent search finding a significantly smaller $\alpha$ or a different schedule reaching the same fidelity at a clearly shorter time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a driving function which (i) keeps the instantaneous energy gap large by equating $J_{\text{odd}}$ and $J_{\text{even}}$ at high coupling values and (ii) drives steeply at the beginning and end when the gap is large while gently crossing the gap minimum, yields near-perfect single-excitation transfer times far shorter than the adiabatic cosine protocol. The concrete result is the exponential protocol $J_{\text{odd}}=(1-e^{-\alpha t/t^*})/(1-e^{-\alpha})$ and $J_{\text{even}}=(1-e^{-\alpha(t^*-t)/t^*})/(1-e^{-\alpha})$ with $\alpha=6$, which for $N=31$ reaches stabilized fidelity above $0.9$ at $t^* \geq 42$. The paper further reports that this speed does not cost robustness: under static disorder of strength $d_s=0.2$, averaged over $10{,}000$ realizations, the exponential protocol's mean fidelity curve shifts only mildly, and it is indifferent to whether the disorder is chiral (off-diagonal) or non-chiral (diagonal), unlike the cosine protocol.

Load-bearing premise

The main load-bearing assumption is that the adiabatic-invariant condition of Eq. (5) correctly describes non-adiabatic leakage, together with ideal independent time-control of the odd and even couplings and an exact initial zero-energy edge state; realistic control errors, timing jitter, and initialization imperfections are not modelled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-excitation transfer along an odd-sized SSH chain can be made tens of times faster than adiabatic cosine driving while staying above $0.9$ fidelity, using only time-dependent nearest-neighbour couplings.
  • The exponential protocol tolerates static off-diagonal (chiral) and diagonal (non-chiral) disorder at strength $d_s=0.2$ without a qualitative drop in mean fidelity, and—unlike the cosine protocol—shows no extra sensitivity to non-chiral disorder.
  • Optimal-control (CRAB) corrections to the exponential profile are small, indicating the function is near-optimal within the protocol's constraints; using the cosine as a guess, CRAB pushes the optimized profile toward the exponential shape.
  • The fine-tuning parameter $\alpha=6$ represents a trade-off: smaller $\alpha$ suppresses resonant oscillations but slows the transfer, while larger $\alpha$ induces strong oscillations, suggesting a design principle for other time-dependent topological pumps.
  • Because the scheme works with nearest-neighbour couplings only, it may be implemented in platforms where SSH chains are already available, such as coupled waveguides or superconducting qubit arrays, without adding counter-adiabatic terms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The design rule 'steep when the gap is large, gentle when it is small' could be adapted to other topological pumps or adiabatic protocols where the instantaneous gap profile is known; a natural test is whether the same exponential schedule improves transfer in Kitaev-chain or Rice-Mele models.
  • The fidelity threshold $F>0.9$ used to define 'transfer time' is a convention; a stricter threshold such as $0.99$ would change the quantitative comparison but likely preserve the qualitative ordering, since the exponential curve stabilizes earlier and with fewer oscillations than the trivial protocol.
  • The paper's disorder model is static and uniform; an obvious stress test is to include time-dependent (dynamical) noise or correlated disorder, where the edge-mode protection argument is weaker, to see whether the exponential protocol's advantage persists.
  • The claim that the protocol is 'close to optimal' relies on CRAB with a specific ansatz; a more exhaustive optimal-control search over a larger parameter family might find even faster schedules, though the smallness of CRAB corrections suggests the improvement would be modest.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies single-excitation quantum state transfer through an odd-length SSH chain with time-dependent couplings. It proposes an exponential driving schedule for the even and odd bond sets, compares it with an adiabatic cosine protocol and a linear 'trivial' protocol, and reports that for N=31 the fidelity stabilizes above 0.9 at t*=42 for the exponential protocol, versus 761 for the cosine protocol and 231 for the trivial protocol. It also presents a static-disorder analysis with ds=0.2 and 10,000 realizations, and uses a CRAB search to support the claim that the exponential schedule is close to optimal.

Significance. If the numerical claims hold, the paper offers a simple closed-form driving schedule that is an order of magnitude faster than a standard adiabatic SSH protocol while retaining robustness to static Hamiltonian disorder, and it articulates a transferable design principle: drive strongly when the instantaneous gap is large and gently near the gap minimum. The protocol definitions are explicit, the disorder statistics are carefully reported, and the comparison is framed against natural benchmarks. The main caveats are that the quantitative speed advantage is tied to a tuned parameter alpha and a hand-picked fidelity threshold, and the 'close to optimal' claim rests on a local CRAB search; the headline numbers should therefore be read as evidence for the mechanism rather than as a parameter-free speed bound.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is not the standard adiabaticity condition. For an instantaneous eigenstate |n(t)>, the transition amplitude to a state m is controlled by |<m|Hdot|n>|/(E_m - E_n)^2, not by the expression with a single power of the energy denominator. As written, Eq. (5) has dimensions of 1/time rather than being dimensionless. Since the design rationale (steep driving when the gap is large, gentle driving near the minimum gap) is presented as following from this expression, please correct the formula and verify that the qualitative argument still holds.
  2. [Sec. III A, Figs. 4 and 5] The speed comparison relies on a 'stabilized above 0.9' criterion that is not operationally defined, and the fidelity curve for alpha=6 is not monotone. Please specify exactly how t*=42 is extracted, e.g., the smallest t* such that F(t) >= 0.9 for all t >= t*, or some other rule. In addition, alpha=6.0 is explicitly fine-tuned to maximize speed using this same metric, while the comparison protocols' free parameters (b=0.5 for the cosine protocol) are not optimized. To make the speed advantage a controlled claim, please show how the comparison changes when b is optimized and when a different threshold (e.g., 0.99) is used.
  3. [Sec. III A, CRAB paragraph] The statement that the exponential protocol is 'close to optimal' is stronger than the evidence presented. The CRAB search is seeded with the exponential or cosine guess, and a seeded local search cannot certify global optimality. No quantitative details are given (number of basis functions, iterations, final fidelity, correction norm). Please either report the optimization results quantitatively or rephrase the claim as 'locally optimal within the chosen ansatz family', and adjust the abstract's 'close to optimal' accordingly.
  4. [Sec. III B and Conclusions] The robustness analysis covers only static diagonal and off-diagonal Hamiltonian disorder as defined in Eq. (6), as the abstract itself states. The title's unqualified 'robust', however, is broader than this evidence. Because the speed advantage is achieved in a fidelity region that is not monotone (Fig. 5), timing jitter, control amplitude noise, finite bandwidth, and initialization error are realistic error sources that could degrade the reported factor-of-ten speedup. Please either add a control-noise analysis or qualify the robustness claim as 'robust to static Hamiltonian disorder' throughout the title, abstract, and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A, protocol definition] The definition of Jeven contains a typo: the factor '/t*' inside the numerator should be removed; the intended expression is Jeven = (1 - e^{-alpha(t* - t)})/(1 - e^{-alpha}).
  2. [Sec. III A, after Eq. (5)] The sentence 'the energies |E_m(t)-E_n(t)| > epsilon_0 are separated by a small epsilon_0 for all t' is unclear; it should say 'separated by a positive lower bound epsilon_0 for all t'.
  3. [Sec. II A] The paper does not specify the numerical integration method or tolerances used to solve the time-dependent Schrodinger equation; adding this information would aid reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. IV (Conclusions)] There is a typo in 'speed increasal' (likely 'speed increase'), and the conclusions should explicitly state that all quantitative results are for N=31 and may be length-dependent.
  5. [Fig. 6] The figure caption notes that the t*-axis limits for the cosine panel differ from the other panels; using identical axis ranges or insets would make the visual comparison less misleading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exponential protocol is an explicitly tuned ansatz with self-contained numerical validation.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive the exponential protocol from first principles; it motivates the functional form heuristically from the adiabatic invariant (Eq. 5) and then explicitly optimizes the free parameter α=6.0 in Sec. III A. The reported transfer times are outputs of direct Schrödinger-equation simulation at that disclosed parameter, not quantities forced by definition or by a self-citation chain. The CRAB check is seeded with the exponential guess, but the authors present the small correction as an indication of local optimality, not as a proof, so the optimality claim is an evidence-strength limitation rather than a circular step. The only overlapping-author citation, Ref. [44] for the odd-chain spectrum, is not load-bearing because the same result is standard and also anchored to textbook Ref. [43]. Disorder robustness is assessed by independent Monte Carlo averaging over 10000 realizations (Eq. 6, Fig. 6). No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction without disclosure.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the single-excitation XX model, the zero-energy edge mode of odd SSH chains, the adiabatic-invariant heuristic (Eq. 5), and the specific static-disorder model. The only fitted parameter in the proposed protocol is alpha=6.0, with an additional hand-picked fidelity threshold and an arbitrary baseline amplitude in the comparison. No new physical entities are postulated. The main epistemic load is the heuristic connection between Eq. (5) and the exponential schedule, which is plausible but not derived.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 6.0
    Explicitly described as a free parameter fine-tuned to increase efficiency in terms of speed (Sec. III A, Fig. 5). It controls the slope of the exponential driving and the minimum energy gap. The central speed comparison depends on this value.
  • fidelity threshold F_thr = 0.9
    Hand-picked criterion used to define the transfer time at which fidelity stabilizes above 0.9; different thresholds would change the comparative t* values across protocols.
  • cosine protocol amplitude b = 0.5
    Parameter of the cosine comparison protocol taken from Ref. [7]. It controls the minimum gap at t*/2 and therefore affects the speed comparison; not fitted in this paper but arbitrary in the comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The single-excitation subspace restriction of the XX Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) captures the full state-transfer dynamics.
    The paper restricts to one excitation and uses fidelity F = |<N|N(t*)>|^2; the mapping to generic qubit states is mentioned via Bose's formula but not analyzed for correlated errors.
  • standard math For odd-sized SSH chains, a zero-energy edge mode exists and remains localized for all parameter values used, enabling adiabatic following.
    Sec. II A uses the known spectrum of odd SSH chains (Eqs. 3-4) and the presence of a zero-energy mode as the basis of the transfer mechanism.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic-invariant criterion (Eq. 5), with instantaneous eigenstates and eigenenergies, is a valid predictor of non-adiabatic leakage for these driving profiles.
    The paper's design principle, drive fast when the gap is large and slow when the gap is small, derives from Eq. 5, but this criterion is an approximation and is not validated analytically for the exponential schedule.
  • domain assumption Static disorder is adequately modeled by uniform random perturbations on couplings and fields, fixed during each realization (Eq. 6).
    Robustness claims are based on this noise model with strength ds=0.2 and 10000 realizations; time-dependent noise or correlated manufacturing errors are not treated.
  • ad hoc to paper CRAB optimization with polynomial or Fourier corrections explores a sufficiently broad control space to conclude closeness to optimality.
    The 'close to optimal' claim rests on CRAB initialized with the exponential guess; the constraints of the control space are not specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast and robust quantum state transfer via a topological chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5IL3KX2T

@misc{pith2026200909164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast and robust quantum state transfer via a topological chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5IL3KX2T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.09164}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a fast and robust quantum state transfer protocol employing a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain, where the interchain couplings vary in time. Based on simple considerations around the terms involved in the definition of the adiabatic invariant, we construct an exponential time-driving function that successfully takes advantage of resonant effects to speed up the transfer process. Using optimal control theory, we confirm that the proposed time-driving function is close to optimal. To unravel the crucial aspects of our construction, we proceed to a comparison with two other protocols. One where the underlying Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain is adiabatically time-driven and another where the underlying chain is topologically trivial and resonant effects are at work. By numerically investigating the resilience of each protocol to static noise, we highlight the robustness of the exponential driving.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.09164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic of different time instants during the dynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A schematic of different time instants during the dynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The chain consists of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fidelity as a function of the transfer time for the exponential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. For each protocol, (a) cosine, (b) exponential and (c) trivial, we show the impact of diagonal and off-diagonal disorder of strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The physical implementation of quantum computation

    D. P. DiVincenzo, “The physical implementation of quantum computation”, Fortschr. Phys. 48 (911), 771-783, (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Faithful communication Hamiltonian in photonic lattices

    M. Bellec, G. M. Nikolopoulos and S. Tzortzakis, “Faithful communication Hamiltonian in photonic lattices” , Opt. Lett. 37, 4504 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Coherent quantum transport in photonic lat- tices

    A. Perez-Leija, R. Keil, A. Kay, H. Moya-Cessa, S. Nolte, L.-C. Kwek, B. M. Rodr ´ıguez-Lara, A. Szameit and D. N. Christodoulides, “Coherent quantum transport in photonic lat- tices”, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012309 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Experimen- tal perfect state transfer of an entangled photonic qubit

    R. J. Chapman, M. Santandrea, Z. Huang, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, M.-H. Yung, R. Osellame and A. Peruzzo,“Experimen- tal perfect state transfer of an entangled photonic qubit” , Nat. Commun. 7, 11339 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    One-way localized adiabatic passage in an acoustic system

    Y . X. Shen, Y . G. Peng, D.G. Zhao, X. C. Chen, J. Zhu and X. F. Zhu, “One-way localized adiabatic passage in an acoustic system”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 094501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Robust quantum state transfer in random unpolarized spin chains

    N. Y . Yao, L. Jiang, A. V . Gorshkov, Z-X. Gong, A. Zhai, L- M. Duan and M. D. Lukin, “Robust quantum state transfer in random unpolarized spin chains”, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 040505 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Robust quantum state transfer via topological edge states in superconducting qubit chains

    F. Mei, L. Tian, S-L., Zhu and S. Jia, “Robust quantum state transfer via topological edge states in superconducting qubit chains”, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012331 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Using superconduct- ing qubit circuits to engineer exotic lattice systems

    D. I. Tsomokos, S. Ashhab and F. Nori, “Using superconduct- ing qubit circuits to engineer exotic lattice systems”, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052311 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Coherent population transfer in a chain of tunnel coupled quantum dots

    D. Petrosyan and P. Lambropoulos , “Coherent population transfer in a chain of tunnel coupled quantum dots”, Opt. Com- mun. 264, 419-425, (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Controlling correlated tunneling and su- perexchange interactions with ac-driven optical lattices

    Y-A. Chen, S. Nascimbene, M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, S. Trotzky and I. Bloch,“Controlling correlated tunneling and su- perexchange interactions with ac-driven optical lattices”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 210405 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Simulations of information transport in spin chains

    P. Cappellaro, C. Ramanathan and D. G. Cory, “Simulations of information transport in spin chains” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250506 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Perfect coherent transfer in an on-chip reconfig- urable nanoelectromechanical network

    T. Tian, S. Lin, L. Zhang, P. Yin, P. Huang, C. Duan, L. Jiang and J. Du, “Perfect coherent transfer in an on-chip reconfig- urable nanoelectromechanical network” , Phys. Rev. B 101, 174303 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Bose, “Quantum communication through an unmodulated spin chain’, Phys

    S. Bose, “Quantum communication through an unmodulated spin chain’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 207901, (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Perfect state transfer in quantum spin networks

    M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert and A. J. Landahl, “Perfect state transfer in quantum spin networks” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 187902 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Elec- tron wavepacket propagation in a chain of coupled quantum dots

    G. M. Nikolopoulos, D. Petrosyan and P. Lambropoulos,“Elec- tron wavepacket propagation in a chain of coupled quantum dots”, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, 4991 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    Quantum state transfer in the pres- ence of nonhomogeneous external potentials

    G. L. Giorgi and T. Busch, “Quantum state transfer in the pres- ence of nonhomogeneous external potentials”, Phys. Rev. A88, 062309 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Heisenberg spin bus as a robust transmission line for quantum-state transfer

    S. Oh, L-A. Wu, Y-P. Shim, J. Fei, M. Friesen and X. Hu, “Heisenberg spin bus as a robust transmission line for quantum-state transfer”, Phys. Rev. A 84, 022330 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Unmodulated spin chains as universal quantum wires

    A.W ´ojcik, T. Łuczak, P. Kurzy´nski, A. Grudka, T. Gdala and M. Bednarska, “Unmodulated spin chains as universal quantum wires”, Phys. Rev. A 72, 034303 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Adiabatic quantum transport in a spin chain with a moving potential

    V . Balachandran and J. Gong,“Adiabatic quantum transport in a spin chain with a moving potential”, Phys. Rev. A77, 012303 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Scalable quantum com- putation via local control of only two qubits

    D. Burgarth, K. Maruyama, M. Murphy, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, F. Nori and M. B. Plenio, “Scalable quantum com- putation via local control of only two qubits”, Phys. Rev. A 81, 040303 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Quantum- state transfer in spin chains via isolated resonance of terminal spins

    K. Korzekwa, P. Machnikowski and P. Horodecki, “Quantum- state transfer in spin chains via isolated resonance of terminal spins”, Phys. Rev. A 89, 062301 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Fast high-fidelity information transmission through spin-chain quantum wires

    S. G. Schirmer and P. J. Pemberton-Ross, “Fast high-fidelity information transmission through spin-chain quantum wires” , Phys. Rev. A 80, 030301 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Speed limits for quan- tum gates in multiqubit systems

    S. Ashhab, P. C. De Groot and F. Nori, “Speed limits for quan- tum gates in multiqubit systems” , Phys. Rev. A 85, 052327 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Optimal control at the quantum speed limit

    T. Caneva, M. Murphy, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, S. Montangero, V . Giovannetti and G. E. Santoro,“Optimal control at the quantum speed limit”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 240501 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Quantum speed limits: from heisenbergs uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell, “Quantum speed limits: from heisenbergs uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control”, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 50, 453001 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Quantum speed limit for perfect state transfer in one dimension

    M-H. Yung, “Quantum speed limit for perfect state transfer in one dimension”, Phys. Rev. A 74, 030303 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Automatic spin-chain learning to explore the quantum speed limit

    X-M. Zhang, Z-W. Cui, X. Wang and M-H. Yung, “Automatic spin-chain learning to explore the quantum speed limit”, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052333 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Exploiting boundary states of imperfect spin chains for high-fidelity state transfer

    M. Bruderer, K. Franke, S. Ragg, W. Belzig and D. Obreschkow, “Exploiting boundary states of imperfect spin chains for high-fidelity state transfer”, Phys. Rev. A85, 022312 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Perfect state transfer in quantum spin networks

    G. De Chiara, N. Datta, A. Ekert and A. J. Landahl, “Perfect state transfer in quantum spin networks” , Phys. Rev. A 92, 187902 (2004). 8

    2004

  22. [30]

    Perfect state transfer: beyond nearest-neighbor cou- plings

    A. Kay, “Perfect state transfer: beyond nearest-neighbor cou- plings”, Phys. Rev. A 73, 032306 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    State transfer in static and dynamic spin chains with disorder

    D. Petrosyan, G. M. Nikolopoulos and P. Lambropoulos,“State transfer in static and dynamic spin chains with disorder”, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042307 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Superadiabatic quantum state transfer in spin chains

    R. R. Agundez, C. D. Hill, L. C. L. Hollenberg, S. Rogge and M. Blaauboer, “Superadiabatic quantum state transfer in spin chains”, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012317 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Quantum communication beyond the localization length in disordered spin chains

    J. Allcock and N. Linden, “Quantum communication beyond the localization length in disordered spin chains” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Conclusive and arbitrarily perfect quantum-state transfer using parallel spin-chain channels

    D. Burgarth and S. Bose, “Conclusive and arbitrarily perfect quantum-state transfer using parallel spin-chain channels” , Phys. Rev. A 71, 052315 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Quantum state transfer in spin chains via shortcuts to adiabaticity

    B-H. Huang, Y-H. Kang, Y-H. Chen, Z-C. Shi, J. Song and Y . Xia, “Quantum state transfer in spin chains via shortcuts to adiabaticity”, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012333 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Topological quan- tum computation

    S. D. Sarma, M. Freedman and C. Nayak, “Topological quan- tum computation”, Phys. Today A 59, 32-38, (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Poor mans topological quantum gate based on the Su- Schrieffer-Heeger model

    P. Boross, J. K. Asb ´oth, G. Sz ´echenyi, L. Oroszl ´any, and A. P´alyi, “Poor mans topological quantum gate based on the Su- Schrieffer-Heeger model”, Phys. Rev. B 100, 045414 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Topologically protected localized states in spin chains

    M. P. Estarellas, I. D’Amico and T. P. Spiller, “Topologically protected localized states in spin chains” , Sci. Rep. 7, 1-10, (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Topological networks for quantum communication between distant qubits

    N. Lang and H. P. B¨uchler, “Topological networks for quantum communication between distant qubits” , Npj Quantum Inf. 3, 1-10, (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Topological pumping of edge states via adiabatic passage

    S. Longhi, “Topological pumping of edge states via adiabatic passage”, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155150 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Landauzener topo- logical quantum state transfer

    S. Longhi, G. L. Giorgi and R.Zambrini, “Landauzener topo- logical quantum state transfer” , Adv. Quantum Technol. 2, 1800090 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires

    A. Y . Kitaev,“Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires”, Physics-Uspekhi 44, 131, (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    A short course on topological insulators

    J. K. Asb ´oth, L. Oroszl ´any, and A. P ´alyi, “A short course on topological insulators”, Lect. Notes Phys. 919, 87 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Robustness against disorder of topolog- ical corner modes and application to acoustic networks

    A. Coutant, V . Achilleos, O. Richoux, G. Theocharis and V . Pagneux, “Robustness against disorder of topolog- ical corner modes and application to acoustic networks” , arXiv:2007:13217 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Fast and robust quantum state transfer in a topological Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain with Next-to-Nearest- Neighbour interactions

    F. M. D’ Angelis, F.A. Pinheiro, D. Gu ´ery-Odelin, S. Longhi and F. Impens, “ Fast and robust quantum state transfer in a topological Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain with Next-to-Nearest- Neighbour interactions”, arXiv:2006.09936 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Optimal control tech- nique for many-body quantum dynamics

    P. Doria, T. Calarco and S. Montangero,“Optimal control tech- nique for many-body quantum dynamics”, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 190501 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Perfect, efficient, state transfer and its application as a constructive tool

    A. Kay, “Perfect, efficient, state transfer and its application as a constructive tool”, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 8, 641-676 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Superadiabatic tracking of quantum evolution

    R. Lim and M. V . Berry, “Superadiabatic tracking of quantum evolution”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24, 3255 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    Quantum transitions in the adiabatic approxi- mation

    A. M. Dykhne, “Quantum transitions in the adiabatic approxi- mation”, Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 411 (1960)

    1960

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.