Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Quantum versatility in PageRank

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that scanning the two rotation phases of a Szegedy-walk quantum PageRank on a scale-free graph splits rankings into distinct, correlated cluster phases.

desk verdict A systematic phase-plane scan of a known quantum PageRank variant, with a plausible but unproven cluster claim that needs code, clustering details, and quantitative validation before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13114 v1 pith:QUNWOEIZ submitted 2024-11-20 quant-ph physics.soc-ph

Wei-Wei Zhang , Zheping Wu , Hengyue Jia , Wei Zhao , Qingbing Ji , Wei Pan , Haobin Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.soc-ph MSC 81P6868Q12 PACS 03.67.Lx03.67.Mn
keywords quantumPageRankSzegedywalksarbitraryphaserotationsclusterphasesscale-freenetworkscoherenceentanglementpower-lawranking
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

Quantum PageRank, a proposed ranking algorithm for a future quantum internet, lets the underlying Szegedy walk carry two adjustable phase rotations. This paper sweeps both phases over their full circle and asks what the algorithm does for each choice. It finds that the resulting rankings do not change smoothly: they fall into a small number of cluster phases, and the same cluster boundaries show up in the fidelity of the quantum ranking to the classical PageRank, in the variance of the ranking distribution, in the coherence and entanglement of the quantum state, and in the exponent of the ranking's power-law tail. The paper also proposes an alternate four-parameter PageRank and shows that, in three two-parameter specializations, it produces differently shaped cluster families that emphasize the same top hubs with different relative weights. If the cluster phases are generic, the practical point is that tuning the phase angles selects a whole profile of ranking behavior, giving quantum PageRank a versatility classical PageRank lacks.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-phase evolution operator $W(\theta_1, \theta_2) = U(\theta_2)U(\theta_1)$ of the Szegedy quantum walk, with $U(\theta) = S([1 - e^{i\theta}]\Pi - I)$ acting on the duplicated directed graph. PageRank probabilities come from projecting the evolved state onto one copy, time-averaged over a window to smooth instantaneous fluctuations. The analysis then measures, for every phase pair, the ranking vector and five derived quantities: fidelity to classical PageRank, distribution variance, $l_1$-norm coherence, entanglement entropy of the reduced state, and the power-law exponent $\beta$ fitted to the ranked node probabilities. KNN clustering of the ranking vectors is what turns the continuous phase plane into labelled cluster regions.

What would settle it

Compute the same phase sweep on several other scale-free graphs with different sizes and degree exponents, and also vary the KNN number of clusters k and the distance metric; if the cluster boundaries and the sign of the fidelity-coherence correlation do not survive these changes, the claimed generic cluster phases would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the two rotation angles $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ organize quantum PageRank on a scale-free graph into distinct cluster phases. Within the parameter plane, a time-averaged quantum PageRank distribution takes only a few qualitatively different forms; the paper identifies seven clusters by KNN clustering of the distributions. The same clustered geography appears, with matching boundaries, in the fidelity between the quantum and classical PageRank vectors, in the variance of the ranking distribution, in the $l_1$-norm coherence and entanglement of the reduced PageRank state, and in the fitted power-law exponent $\beta$. Across the standard model the quantum PageRank fidelity is positively correlated with ranking variance and negatively correlated with coherence, entanglement, and $\beta$; in the alternate phase models the correlation signs can change, yielding different shapes of clusters. On the trackback graph (the reversed edges of the same graph) the cluster structure survives but the set of emphasized nodes changes, and the paper offers this as a view on network traffic tracking.

Load-bearing premise

The cluster phases and their correlation signs are generic properties of APR quantum PageRank, not features peculiar to the single 32-node scale-free graph and the chosen time-averaging and KNN settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Choosing a pair of phase angles selects one of a few discrete ranking regimes, so phase tuning can emphasize different top hubs without changing the graph or the algorithm.
  • Because variance, fidelity, coherence, entanglement, and $\beta$ share the same cluster boundaries, any one of these observables can serve as a proxy for the regime of a given phase pair.
  • The alternate PageRank operator extends the accessible behavior to four phase parameters, and the three two-parameter cases already produce cluster patterns with different correlation signs, enabling multi-perspective network interpretation.
  • On a trackback graph the cluster structure persists but highlights a different node set, pointing toward applications in identifying important nodes for network traffic tracking and defense.
  • The consistent correlation pattern offers a compact classification: higher quantum resource content (coherence, entanglement) comes with lower fidelity to classical ranking and lower variance, effectively quantifying how quantum a chosen ranking regime is.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sharp boundaries between clusters in the $(\theta_1, \theta_2)$ plane may correspond to spectral transitions of the walk operator; checking whether the boundaries align with avoided crossings or gap closings of $W(\theta_1, \theta_2)$ would give an analytic explanation of the phases.
  • A practical tuner could use the phase map as a control surface: pick a phase pair to hit a desired trade-off between classical fidelity and quantum resource content, which the paper does not explicitly propose.
  • The general four-parameter alternate operator was explored only in three two-parameter slices; a full four-dimensional scan is a direct extension that might reveal regimes inaccessible to these slices.
  • The count of seven clusters is tied to the KNN setting, so a stability check across cluster counts, $k$ values, and distance metrics would separate genuine phase structure from clustering artifacts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum PageRank with arbitrary phase rotations (APR) on a 32-node scale-free graph. By scanning the two rotation angles (θ1, θ2), it reports a "cluster phase" structure in the PageRank distributions, obtained through an unsupervised procedure that the text calls "KNN," and claims that the resulting clusters coincide with maps of the fidelity to classical PageRank, the variance of the ranking distribution, the coherence and entanglement of the PageRank state, and the power-law exponent β. It then introduces an alternate quantum PageRank operator with four phase parameters, studies three two-parameter cases, and analyzes the trackback graph of the original scale-free graph. The central claims are qualitative: that distinct APR phases organize quantum PageRank into a small number of correlated regimes, and that the associated quantum and ranking quantities are mutually correlated in a way that depends on the scheme and graph.

Significance. If the cluster-phase picture were established, it would provide a useful coarse-grained organization of the APR parameter space and could inform the design of quantum PageRank algorithms. The definitional part of the paper, especially Eqs. (1)-(9), is standard, and the alternate operator in Eq. (18) is clearly stated and easy to implement. However, the central claims rest on one graph, one clustering run, and visual comparisons of colormaps; no quantitative cluster-agreement or stability analysis is provided. The paper's own statement that the 16- and 20-node graphs show different correlation signs further limits the claimed universality. In its current form, the paper is better viewed as a preliminary numerical observation than as a demonstrated result.

major comments (5)
  1. [Cluster Phases in Quantum PageRank with APR, Fig. 1(a)] The clustering procedure is not specified. "KNN" is k-nearest neighbors, a supervised classification rule, not an unsupervised clustering algorithm; the reference cited for it (Ref. [32]) is also about classification. The text never states the actual clustering algorithm, the distance metric, the number of clusters (the value seven is inferred only from the color count in Fig. 1(a)), the initialization, or any stability criterion. Since the cluster labels are the primary object on which every subsequent consistency claim depends, this omission is load-bearing and must be corrected with a complete, reproducible description.
  2. [Cluster Phases in Quantum PageRank with APR, Figs. 1(a,c) and 3(a-d)] The claimed consistency between the PageRank-distribution clusters and the maps of fidelity, variance, coherence, entanglement, and β is supported only by visual inspection. No quantitative agreement measure (e.g., adjusted Rand index, normalized mutual information, or boundary-overlap statistic) is computed. Because all the plotted quantities are smooth functions on the same (θ1, θ2) grid, visual resemblance of regions can arise from smooth gradients rather than from genuine cluster boundaries. The central claim that the cluster phases are correlated across these quantities needs a numerical test of cluster alignment.
  3. [Eq. (10) and all subsequent maps] The time-averaged PageRank is computed over the final Δt = 500 steps out of T = 5000, with no convergence diagnostic. The instantaneous PageRank is known to fluctuate, and the text asserts that the oscillations are "stable" without showing evidence. The results of Figs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 13 could depend on the arbitrary choices of T and Δt. A convergence study, or at least a demonstration that the maps are insensitive to the averaging window, is necessary for the quantitative claims to be reliable.
  4. [Eqs. (16)-(17), Figs. 3(d) and 4] The power-law exponent β is obtained by "linear data fitting" of log I_i versus log i, but the fitting range, error bars, and goodness-of-fit are not reported. The logarithmic plots shown in Fig. 4 are visibly not linear over the full range of node indices, and for the trackback graph the paper itself states that no obvious linear behavior is present. Under these conditions, the extracted β values are not uniquely defined, and all correlation claims involving β are ambiguous. The authors should specify the fitting procedure and demonstrate its validity for each graph.
  5. [Conclusions, supplementary 16- and 20-node results] The manuscript states that on 16- and 20-node scale-free graphs the signs of the correlations "vary as the graph is different." This directly qualifies the universality of the cluster-phase correlations claimed in the main text, yet these results are placed only in a supplementary file and are not accompanied by any details or figures in the main text. The main text should either present these results and explain how they limit or refine the main claims, or the claims of universality should be narrowed accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Page 4, Fig. 1(b) discussion] The text first lists ten nodes (1,2,3,5,7,9,10,14,19,26) as the "main hub" set and then refers to "these 9 nodes"; the count does not match.
  2. [General typography] There are several typographical issues: "Rf. [31]" should be "Ref. [31]"; "makers" should be "markers"; "eigen-spetrum" should be "eigenspectrum"; and "superpower data mining" in the Alternate Quantum PageRank section is informal.
  3. [Figs. 13 and 14 captions] The captions for Figs. 13(a-d) and 14(a-b) refer to quantities "in alternate fixing PageRank," but these figures concern the trackback graph; the model label should be corrected.
  4. [Section 2, graph generation] The scale-free graph in Fig. 2(a) is not described in terms of the generation model or parameters. For reproducibility, the authors should state how the 32-node graph was generated (e.g., preferential attachment parameters) and whether the results are robust to different instances.
  5. [Eq. (13), entanglement measure] The entanglement is defined through the spectrum of the reduced density matrix, but the text does not specify whether the entropy is the von Neumann entropy of the normalized reduced state or the linear entropy; Eq. (13) as written (with eigenvalues λ_i) suggests the former, which should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: compared quantities are distinct state descriptors and claims are empirical correlations, not predictions reducing to inputs.

full rationale

The paper starts from the established Google-matrix and Szegedy-walk construction, then varies APR phases in the unitary of Eq. 7. The quantities at the center of the claims—time-averaged PageRank probabilities (Eq. 10), fidelity with classical PageRank (Eq. 11), distribution variance, l1-norm coherence (Eq. 12), entanglement entropy (Eq. 13), and fitted power-law exponent (Eqs. 16–17)—are separately defined functions of the same quantum states. None is defined in terms of another, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The cluster phases are produced by clustering the PageRank distributions; the asserted consistency of variance, fidelity, coherence, entanglement, and beta maps with those clusters is an observational claim supported mainly by visual comparison, not a consequence of the definitions. The only self-citation, Ref. 34 for the standard l1-coherence measure, is accompanied by independent Ref. 33 and is not load-bearing. The under-specified KNN step and the paper's own caveat that correlation signs vary for different graph sizes are methodological/generalizability concerns rather than circular reasoning. No step reduces to its own output, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the standard Szegedy-walk and Google-matrix formalism, on the choice of a representative scale-free graph, on the arbitrary time-averaging parameters, and on the number of KNN clusters. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis for any of these choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Time-averaging window (Δt=500, T=5000) = Δt=500, T=5000
    Chosen by hand without convergence analysis; affects the computed PageRank values and hence the cluster boundaries.
  • Number of KNN clusters = 7
    The number of clusters is presented as fixed but no justification or sensitivity analysis is given; different cluster counts would change the reported 'cluster phases'.
  • Power-law exponent β = Not specified for each cluster; maps shown in Fig. 3(d)
    Obtained by linear least-squares fitting to log-log plots of PageRank vs node index; no goodness-of-fit or error estimates are provided.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Szegedy quantum walk evolution operator U(θ) as defined in Eq. (4) correctly implements a quantum analog of the classical Markov chain.
    Relies on the established framework from Ref [16]; assumed valid.
  • domain assumption The time-averaged PageRank in Eq. (10) with Δt=500 and T=5000 approximates the stationary behavior of the walk.
    No convergence test or analytical justification is given for these specific values.
  • domain assumption The 32-node graph in Fig. 2(a) is representative of scale-free networks.
    Only one main graph is used for the primary results; supplementary results on 16 and 20 nodes are not analyzed in detail.
  • standard math The l1-norm coherence and von Neumann entropy measure meaningful quantum resources in the PageRank state.
    Standard definitions from Refs [33,34] are used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum versatility in PageRank." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUNWOEIZ

@misc{pith2026241113114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum versatility in PageRank},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUNWOEIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13114}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum mechanics empowers the emergence of quantum advantages in various fields, including quantum algorithms. Quantum PageRank is a promising tool for a future quantum internet. Recently, arbitrary phase rotations (APR) have been introduced in the underlying Szegedy's quantum walk of quantum PageRank algorithm. In this work, we thoroughly study the role APR plays in quantum PageRank. We discover the versatility resulting from quantumness. Specifically, we discover the emergence of a cluster phenomenon in rankings considering the rotation phases, i.e. the existence of similar clusters in the distribution of the rankings and their fidelity with the corresponding classical PageRanks, the ranking distribution variance, the coherence and entanglement of PageRank states, and the power law parameter in the ranking distributions on a scale-free network concerning the two rotation phases. Furthermore, we propose an alternate quantum PageRank with APR which provides an extra tunnel for the analysis of PageRank. We also study the PageRank on the trackback graph of a scale-free graph for the investigation of network information traffic tracking. We demonstrate the rich cluster diversity formed in our alternate quantum PageRank, which offers a novel perspective on the quantum versatility of PageRank. Our results present the quantum-enabled perspective for PageRanking and shed light on the design and application of practical quantum PageRank algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The clusters of PageRank distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The 32 nodes scale-free graph used in our simulations, (b) the trackback graph of the 32 nodes scale-free graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The distribution of the variance of PageRank distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparisons of the typical PageRank distribution power-law relations where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The distribution of the variance of the alternate equal PageRank distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The comparison of typical PageRank distribution in alternate equal quantum PageRank. (b) the comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The clusters of PageRank in alternate equal PageRank model in Eq. 19, and the locations of the chosen typical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) The distribution of the variance of the alternate opposite PageRank distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distinction of clusters in alternate equal PageRank model is the relative weights of the dominating important nodes. From the comparison of its typical PageRank dis￾tributions and the logarithmic plot, we discover that for alternate equal PageRank, all clusters bre…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) The comparison of typical PageRank distribution in alternate opposite quantum PageRank. (b) the comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) The distribution of the variance of the alternate fixing PageRank distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) The comparison of typical PageRank distribution in alternate fixing quantum PageRank. (b) the comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) The distribution of fidelity between the quantum PageRank distributions in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The clusters of the PageRank on the trackback graph in Fig. 2(b): (a) The distribution of the variance of the → [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) The comparison of typical PageRank distribution in quantum PageRank on the trackback graph. (b) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Ortega and Miguel A

    Sergio A. Ortega and Miguel A. Martin-Delgado. Gener- alized quantum pagerank algorithm with arbitrary phase rotations. Phys. Rev. Res. , 5:013061, Jan 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [32]

    A brief review of nearest neighbor algo- rithm for learning and classification

    Kashvi Taunk, Sanjukta De, Srishti Verma, and Aleena Swetapadma. A brief review of nearest neighbor algo- rithm for learning and classification. In 2019 interna- tional conference on intelligent computing and control systems (ICCS) , pages 1255–1260. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, October 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [2]

    Quantum computational advantage using photons

    Han-Sen Zhong et al. Quantum computational advantage using photons. Science, 370(6523):1460–1463, December 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Quantum computational advantage via 60-qubit 24-cycle random circuit sampling

    Qingling Zhu et al. Quantum computational advantage via 60-qubit 24-cycle random circuit sampling. Science Bulletin, 67(3):240–245, February 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    Brod, Ernesto F

    Nicol` o Spagnolo, Daniel J. Brod, Ernesto F. Galv˜ ao, and Fabio Sciarrino. Non-linear boson sampling. npj Quan- tum Information , 9(1), January 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Derl: Coupling decomposition in action space for reinforcement learning task

    Ziming He, Jingchen Li, Fan Wu, Haobin Shi, and Kao- Shing Hwang. Derl: Coupling decomposition in action space for reinforcement learning task. IEEE TRANS- ACTIONS ON EMERGING TOPICS IN COMPUTA- TIONAL INTELLIGENCE , 8(1):1030–1043, FEB 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [6]

    Using goal-conditioned reinforcement learning with deep imita- tion to control robot arm in flexible flat cable assembly task

    Jingchen Li, Haobin Shi, and Kao-Shing Hwang. Using goal-conditioned reinforcement learning with deep imita- tion to control robot arm in flexible flat cable assembly task. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATION SCI- ENCE AND ENGINEERING , 2023 OCT 16 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    The quantum internet

    H Jeff Kimble. The quantum internet. Nature, 453(7198):1023–1030, 2008

    2008

  2. [8]

    Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead

    Stephanie Wehner, David Elkouss, and Ronald Hanson. Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science, 362(6412):eaam9288, 2018

    2018

  3. [9]

    Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin

    Koji Azuma, Sophia E. Economou, David Elkouss, Paul Hilaire, Liang Jiang, Hoi-Kwong Lo, and Ilan Tzitrin. Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet. Rev. Mod. Phys., 95:045006, Dec 2023

    2023

  4. [10]

    An integrated space-to- ground quantum communication network over 4,600 kilo- metres

    Yu-Ao Chen, Qiang Zhang, Teng-Yun Chen, Wen-Qi Cai, Sheng-Kai Liao, Jun Zhang, Kai Chen, Juan Yin, Ji- Gang Ren, Zhu Chen, et al. An integrated space-to- ground quantum communication network over 4,600 kilo- metres. Nature, 589(7841):214–219, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    Statistical properties of the quantum internet

    Samura ´ ı Brito, Askery Canabarro, Rafael Chaves, and Daniel Cavalcanti. Statistical properties of the quantum internet. Physical Review Letters, 124(21):210501, 2020

    2020

  6. [12]

    The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing or- der to the web

    Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry 12 Winograd. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing or- der to the web. Technical report, Stanford infolab, 1999

    1999

  7. [13]

    Google in a quantum network

    Giuseppe Davide Paparo and Miguel Angel Martin- Delgado. Google in a quantum network. Scientific re- ports, 2(1):444, 2012

    2012

  8. [14]

    Top 10 algorithms in data mining

    Xindong Wu, Vipin Kumar, J Ross Quinlan, Joydeep Ghosh, Qiang Yang, Hiroshi Motoda, Geoffrey J McLach- lan, Angus Ng, Bing Liu, Philip S Yu, et al. Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowledge and information systems, 14:1–37, 2008

    2008

  9. [15]

    Nine algorithms that changed the fu- ture: The ingenious ideas that drive today’s computers

    John MacCormick. Nine algorithms that changed the fu- ture: The ingenious ideas that drive today’s computers . Princeton University Press, 2013

    2013

  10. [16]

    Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms

    Mario Szegedy. Quantum speed-up of markov chain based algorithms. In 45th Annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science , pages 32–41. IEEE, 2004

    2004

  11. [17]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 212–219, 1996

    1996

  12. [18]

    Quan- tum google in a complex network

    Giuseppe Davide Paparo, Markus M¨ uller, Francesc Comellas, and Miguel Angel Martin-Delgado. Quan- tum google in a complex network. Scientific reports , 3(1):2773, 2013

    2013

  13. [19]

    Discrete-time quantum walk algorithm for ranking nodes on a network

    Prateek Chawla, Roopesh Mangal, and C Madaiah Chan- drashekar. Discrete-time quantum walk algorithm for ranking nodes on a network. Quantum Information Pro- cessing, 19:1–21, 2020

    2020

  14. [20]

    Quantum navigation and ranking in complex networks

    Eduardo S´ anchez-Burillo, Jordi Duch, Jes´ us G´ omez- Gardenes, and David Zueco. Quantum navigation and ranking in complex networks. Scientific reports, 2(1):605, 2012

    2012

  15. [21]

    Comparing classical and quantum pageranks

    Tania Loke, Judy W Tang, Jeremy Rodriguez, Michael Small, and Jingbo B Wang. Comparing classical and quantum pageranks. Quantum information processing , 16:1–22, 2017

    2017

  16. [22]

    Tensorflow solver for quantum pagerank in large-scale networks

    Hao Tang, Ruoxi Shi, Tian-Shen He, Yan-Yan Zhu, Tian- Yu Wang, Marcus Lee, and Xian-Min Jin. Tensorflow solver for quantum pagerank in large-scale networks. Sci- ence Bulletin , 66(2):120–126, 2021

    2021

  17. [23]

    Experimental realization of continuous-time quantum walks on directed graphs and their application in pagerank

    Kunkun Wang, Yuhao Shi, Lei Xiao, Jingbo Wang, Yo- gesh N Joglekar, and Peng Xue. Experimental realization of continuous-time quantum walks on directed graphs and their application in pagerank. Optica, 7(11):1524– 1530, 2020

    2020

  18. [24]

    An enhanced quantum pagerank al- gorithm integrated with quantum search

    Huiquan Wang, Junjie Wu, Xuejun Yang, Pingxing Chen, and Xun Yi. An enhanced quantum pagerank al- gorithm integrated with quantum search. In 2014 Eighth International Conference on Innovative Mobile and In- ternet Services in Ubiquitous Computing , pages 74–81. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  19. [25]

    Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack

    Lov K Grover. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Physical review letters, 79(2):325, 1997

    1997

  20. [26]

    Phase matching in quantum searching

    Gui Lu Long, Yan Song Li, Wei Lin Zhang, and Li Niu. Phase matching in quantum searching. Physics Letters A, 262(1):27–34, 1999

    1999

  21. [27]

    Fam- ily of grover’s quantum-searching algorithms

    Alberto Galindo and Miguel A Martin-Delgado. Fam- ily of grover’s quantum-searching algorithms. Physical Review A, 62(6):062303, 2000

    2000

  22. [28]

    Phase matching condition for quantum search with a generalized initial state

    Gui-Lu Long, Xiao Li, and Yang Sun. Phase matching condition for quantum search with a generalized initial state. Physics Letters A , 294(3-4):143–152, 2002

    2002

  23. [29]

    Phase matching in grover’s algorithm

    Panchi Li and Shiyong Li. Phase matching in grover’s algorithm. Physics Letters A , 366(1-2):42–46, 2007

    2007

  24. [30]

    Multiphase matching in the grover algorithm

    FM Toyama, W Van Dijk, Y Nogami, M Tabuchi, and Y Kimura. Multiphase matching in the grover algorithm. Physical Review A , 77(4):042324, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Quantifying coherence

    Tillmann Baumgratz, Marcus Cramer, and Martin B Plenio. Quantifying coherence. Physical review letters , 113(14):140401, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Bounds for coherence of quantum superpositions in high dimension

    Qiu-Ling Yue, Fei Gao, Qiao-Yan Wen, and Wei-Wei Zhang. Bounds for coherence of quantum superpositions in high dimension. Scientific Reports, 7(1):4006, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.