Anisotropic Heisenberg Su-Schrieffer-Heeger spin chain as a quantum channel

Alejandro Ferr\'on; Diego Acosta Coden; Lautaro Moragues; Omar Osenda

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Anisotropic Heisenberg Su-Schrieffer-Heeger spin chain as a quantum channel

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fast quantum transfer favors trivial spin chains over topological ones

desk verdict The practical trade-off message—topological-like chains buy disorder robustness at the cost of much slower transfer—is plausible, but the disorder analysis is built on fixed observation times and needs a per-realization check before taking the conclusion as established. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18552 v1 pith:JUXFBD5H submitted 2025-08-25 quant-ph

Lautaro Moragues , Diego Acosta Coden , Omar Osenda , Alejandro Ferrón This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumstatetransferSu-Schrieffer-HeegerspinchaintopologicalprotectionstaticdisorderdipolarinteractionsoptimalcontroltheoryanisotropicHeisenbergtwo-qubit

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

The paper studies an anisotropic Heisenberg (XXZ) spin chain with alternating strong-weak couplings—the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model—as a channel for sending one or two quantum bits from one end of the chain to the other. It argues that the topological-like regime, $\eta>0$, is genuinely more robust to static disorder in the couplings, but only because its edge-state dynamics is extremely slow; transmission times are orders of magnitude longer than in trivial XX or XXZ chains. For fast transfer, the paper's practical conclusion is the opposite of the usual topological-protection story: choose parameters in the non-topological regime, $\eta<0$ and near $\Delta=0$, where high fidelity is reached quickly before disorder has time to act. It also shows that dipolar interactions spoil transmission by leaking out of the excitation subspace, that a constant magnetic field suppresses this leakage, and that optimal-control pulses can drive near-perfect transfer with a single local field, with control becoming much harder deep in the topological regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimerized XXZ-SSH chain, a one-dimensional spin-$1/2$ chain with alternating nearest-neighbor couplings $J(1\pm\eta)$ and anisotropy $\Delta$. The argument is carried by two mechanisms: (i) edge-state localization, quantified by $\chi=\sum_{i=1}^2 |\langle\Psi_{k_i}|1\rangle|^2$, which in the topological-like regime $\eta>0$ produces ultra-slow oscillations of the transfer probability; and (ii) the spectral near-resonance condition $\lambda_{i+1}-\lambda_i = q_i\pi/T$ with odd integers $q_i$ (Kay's condition), which locates the bright spots of fast, near-perfect transmission in the $(\eta,\Delta)$ plane. A third mechanism, the Krotov optimal-control update equations, designs a time-dependent local magnetic field that drives near-perfect single-excitation transfer with minimal control time $T_{\min}$.

What would settle it

Recompute the disorder-averaged transmission probability by optimizing the arrival time for each realization of the disorder, instead of fixing the clean-chain optimal time; if the topological-like region no longer outperforms the non-topological one at comparable best times, the claimed robustness advantage is an artifact of the fixed observation time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the dimerized XXZ-SSH Hamiltonian $\hat H = -\frac14 \sum_i J_i(\sigma^x_i\sigma^x_{i+1}+\sigma^y_i\sigma^y_{i+1}+\Delta \sigma^z_i\sigma^z_{i+1})$ with alternating couplings $J_i=J(1+(-1)^i\eta)$, the paper finds that high-quality transmission of one excitation occurs in a complicated bat-shaped region of the $(\Delta,\eta)$ plane, explained by near-satisfaction of Kay's spectral condition $\lambda_{i+1}-\lambda_i \simeq q_i\pi/T$ with odd integers $q_i$. In the topological-like region $\eta>0$, edge-state localization makes the dynamics an extremely slow oscillation $P(t)\simeq \sin^2(\varepsilon t/2)$ with splitting $\varepsilon$ exponentially small in $\eta$, so the maximum transfer probability is low within practical time windows; under static disorder this slow edge-state-dominated transfer is more resilient, whereas the fast transfer in the non-topological region is easily destroyed if the system is given time to feel the disorder. The paper therefore claims a robustness-speed trade-off: topological protection exists and protects against disorder, but it comes at the price of impractically long transmission times, so for fast state transfer the non-topological regime with small $|\Delta|$ and $\eta<0$ is preferable. For two-qubit states, the average fidelity for arbitrary states $F_2$ remains poor everywhere, while entangled single-excitation states $F_{12}$ transfer well for $\eta<0$; dipolar interactions break magnetization conservation and destroy transfer unless a field $B_z\simeq 7J/\mu_B$ restores it; and optimal control reduces the transfer time by up to a factor of 40 while reaching infidelities below $10^{-10}$.

Load-bearing premise

The disorder-robustness ranking assumes the best arrival time is unchanged by disorder—the disordered chain is evaluated at the clean chain's optimal time, averaged over 100 independent random disorder realizations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Topologically protected SSH chains are useful as memory or as channels only when slow transfer is acceptable; their edge-state-mediated dynamics is robust to static disorder up to 10% but transfers orders of magnitude slower than trivial chains.
Fast, high-fidelity single-excitation transfer is available in the non-topological regime near $\Delta=0$, $\eta<0$, where the transfer completes before disorder degrades it.
Entangled two-qubit states of the form $\alpha|01\rangle+\beta|10\rangle$ transfer with good fidelity in the $\eta<0$ regime, but arbitrary two-qubit states never reach high fidelity, and static disorder degrades two-qubit transfer more severely than single-qubit transfer.
Dipolar interactions, which break conservation of excitation number, spoil transfer badly, but a constant magnetic field $B_z\simeq 7J/\mu_B$ suppresses the leakage into other magnetization sectors to below 0.005%, restoring near-clean performance.
Optimal control with a single local field can reach infidelities below $10^{-10}$ and cut transfer time by a factor of about 40; the control problem becomes dramatically harder for $\eta>0$ in the XX chain, with $T_{\min}$ diverging as $\eta\to 1$.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: re-optimizing the arrival time for every disorder realization would distinguish intrinsic topological robustness from mere slowness; if the $\eta>0$ advantage disappears, the practical case for topological channels weakens further.
The strong dependence of $F_2$ on phase terms suggests that a time-dependent local field could correct the unwanted phases and lift the poor fidelity of arbitrary two-qubit states, a possibility the paper does not test.
The exponential growth of $T_{\min}$ with $\eta$ for the XX chain hints that control cost, not just transfer time, makes the deep topological regime unusable for high-speed quantum communication; the Heisenberg chain's flat $T_{\min}$ offers a more control-friendly topological-like option.
For experimental platforms such as atom arrays assembled by scanning tunneling microscopy, the paper's parameter maps give a concrete recipe: engineer $\eta<0$, small $|\Delta|$, and use a local driving field, rather than aiming for topological protection.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper studies the anisotropic XXZ-SSH chain as a quantum state transfer channel, scanning (η, Δ) for one- and two-excitation transfer, adding dipolar interactions and Zeeman suppression, and comparing autonomous evolution to Krotov optimal control. The genuinely new piece is the systematic (η, Δ) scan combined with OCT minimum-time comparisons: for η > 0, T_min grows sharply with dimerization in the XX case, while for η < 0 fast near-perfect transfer is available and parameter tolerant. The exact N = 4 calculation and the Kay-condition maps are correct and do real work—they explain the bright spots in the transmission maps. That deserves credit.

The dipolar section is less deep but honest: leakage exceeds 50% without a Zeeman field and drops below 0.005% with B_z ~ 7J, confirming the mechanism from the authors' earlier work. Fine.

Soft spots, in proportion:

1) The central disorder-robustness conclusion rests on evaluating every disorder realization at the ideal disorder-free arrival time. That is a legitimate fixed-time operating protocol, but the paper words the conclusion as a property of the transmission mechanisms themselves. The stress-test concern is real: a small frequency shift can move a sharp non-topological interference peak well below its per-realization maximum, making that channel look more fragile than it is, while the slower sin^2 topological trace is broader and likely flattered by fixed-time evaluation. The authors should either show per-realization optimized-time averages or explicitly restrict the claim to fixed-time operation. Given the paper's own framing of a speed-robustness trade-off, this check matters. One hundred disorder realizations without error bars is a minor numerical-hygiene issue by comparison, but I would want both addressed.

2) The Fig. 3 caption is inconsistent with the text. The text calls panel (a) topological-like, while the caption lists η = -0.5, -0.6, -0.88 for panel (a) and positive η for panel (b). That should be fixed.

3) No code or data are shipped. For a purely numerical parameter scan, that is a reproducibility limitation, not a fatal one.

The paper also correctly concedes that the N = 4 Kay analysis does not extend to longer chains, so the explanation of the longer-chain maps is partly inferential. That caveat is appropriately placed.

Who this is for: people choosing between trivial and topological spin chains for state transfer, and anyone evaluating whether topological protection actually buys anything in a transfer protocol. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review, asking for the fixed-time versus optimized-time disorder analysis and for reproducibility details.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantum state transfer in dimerized Heisenberg (XXZ) spin chains with SSH-type alternating couplings, for both one and two excitations. It computes autonomous transmission probabilities and fidelities, analyzes the effect of static coupling disorder, adds a dipolar interaction term together with a Zeeman field, and applies Krotov-based optimal control to design local-field pulses. The central claim is that in the topological-like parameter region (η > 0, large) transmission is slower but more robust to static disorder, while in the non-topological region (η < 0) transmission is faster but fragile; the paper also reports that arbitrary two-qubit state transfer is poor, that a Zeeman field suppresses dipolar leakage between excitation subspaces, and that optimal control achieves near-perfect transfer with minimum control times that are substantially longer in the topological-like regime.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a useful map of when SSH-type spin chains are useful as quantum channels and identifies a robustness-speed trade-off that is relevant to platform selection. The manuscript includes an exact N = 4 spectral calculation and a Kay-condition analysis that explain several features of the transmission maps, and the numerical results are obtained by exact diagonalization of a stated Hamiltonian from scanned parameters, with no fitted constants used to produce the central transfer fidelities. The main limitation is that the disorder-robustness ranking is evaluated at fixed disorder-free arrival times, which must be checked before the central conclusion is accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section III.B, Eq. (14), and Section VII] The disorder-averaged quantity $\bar P_D(T)$ is evaluated at the optimal arrival time of the disorder-free chain, fixed for each (η, Δ). The Section VII conclusion that systems with η > 0 and large are more robust than non-topological ones under static disorder therefore reflects fixed-time operation, not necessarily the intrinsic robustness of the two transmission mechanisms. Because the non-topological fast transmission is a narrow interference maximum while the topological-regime dynamics are slow sin^2 oscillations (see Eq. (16)), a small disorder-induced shift of the peak time can make the non-topological chain appear fragile even if its per-realization maxima remain high. Please add a comparison with per-realization time optimization, for example an average of $\max_T P_{\xi_j}(T)$, or histograms of optimal arrival times, and state explicitly whether the ranking survives. If fixed-time operation is the intended experimental protocol, qualify the Section VII claim accordingly.
[Figure 3 and Section III.A] The caption and the text disagree about which panel corresponds to which regime. The caption assigns panel (a) to η = −0.5, −0.6, −0.88 and panel (b) to η = 0.4, 0.6, 0.78, whereas the text states that panel (a) is the topological-like region and describes the orange line as η = 0.5 and the green line as η = 0.8. These assignments are mutually inconsistent, so Fig. 3 cannot be used to verify the claimed slow edge-state dynamics in the topological-like region. Correct the caption or the text and verify that the plotted η values match the description.
[Section III.B] The paper states that averaging over 100 disorder realizations is enough to obtain statistically sound results, but Figures 6 and 7 present only averaged values with no error bars, standard deviations, or quantiles. Since the fixed-time protocol of Eq. (14) can in principle hide large realization-to-realization fluctuations, please report a measure of statistical uncertainty for $\bar P_D(T)$ at representative parameter points, or otherwise justify the sample size quantitatively.

minor comments (5)

[Section II.A, Eq. (1)] The last term in Eq. (1) contains an index error: the anisotropy term should be $\sigma^z_i \sigma^z_{i+1}$, not $\sigma^z_i \sigma^z_{j+1}$.
[Section II.B.2, Eq. (7)] The target state in Eq. (7) is typeset as "0, 0, 0,... 1,, 1", which contains a double comma, and the notation $f_{12,N-1N}$ is defined only implicitly; please define it explicitly when it is introduced.
[Section V] The leakage values ("exceeds 50%" and "drops below 0.005%" ) are reported without a precise definition of leakage; please specify how the leakage probability is computed.
[Section VI and Fig. 12(c)] The caption of Fig. 12(c) says the XX chain is shown in green and the Heisenberg chain in red, while the text says the Heisenberg chain is shown in blue; the color labels should be made consistent.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "de dipolar coupling" (Sec. II.A), "Zemman" (Sec. V), "anysotropic" and "resepect" (Sec. VII), and "ot XX ot XXZ" (Sec. VII); these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central transfer quantities are direct numerical evolutions of the stated Hamiltonian with scanned parameters, and the only self-citation is backed by fresh numerics in the same paper.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions—single-excitation and two-excitation transmission probabilities, fidelities, disorder-averaged transmission, and optimal-control infidelities—are computed by exact unitary evolution under the explicit Hamiltonian of Eqs. (1)-(3), with parameters η and Δ scanned rather than fitted to the target outputs. The edge-localization measure χ in Eq. (15) is defined from eigenvector projections and used to explain slow dynamics, not to define the transmission results. The disorder analysis in Eq. (14) averages over 100 realizations of the stated disorder model, and the observation time T is taken from the disorder-free evolution of the same Hamiltonian; this fixed-time protocol is a design choice that may bias the topological/non-topological robustness comparison, but it is not circular because T is not fitted to the disorder-averaged result or to the robustness conclusion. The paper cites the authors' prior work [36] for the dipolar leakage and Zeeman-suppression mechanism, but Section V explicitly reports fresh numerical confirmation ('Our calculations confirm this mechanism for the XXZ-SSH spin chains'), so the citation is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no derived quantity reduces by construction to an input. The only mild self-citation concern is [36], which does not carry the central claims, so the circularity score is 1 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are numerical outputs of a stated spin model; there are no invented physical entities. The main inputs are Hamiltonian parameters, a chosen dipolar strength, and optimized control fields, none of which is fitted to external data. The burden on prior work is mild: formulas for fidelities and Kay's condition are imported from the cited literature.

free parameters (2)

Dipolar coupling strength K/a^3 = 0.1 J (chosen parameter)
The dipolar interaction strength is fixed to K/a^3 = 0.1 J in all dipolar calculations. The qualitative claim that a Zeeman field suppresses leakage is likely robust, but the specific leakage percentages depend on this choice.
Zeeman magnetic field Bz = optimized per case, e.g. Bz ~ 7 J/µB for leakage suppression
Bz is used as a control to suppress leakage or maximize F2; its value is found numerically rather than predicted from the model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The XXZ-SSH Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor couplings is an adequate model for the spin-chain quantum channel.
The entire analysis transmits states under this Hamiltonian; no alternative interaction terms are considered except the added dipolar term.
domain assumption The averaged fidelity formulas F1, F2, and F12 from Refs. [26, 42] correctly quantify the transmission of arbitrary one- and two-qubit states.
Eqs. (6), (9), (10) are taken from prior literature and used without re-derivation; incorrectly copied formulas would affect all fidelity maps.
domain assumption Static disorder is adequately modeled by independent uniformly distributed multiplicative noise on the couplings (Eq. 12), and 100 realizations suffice.
The disorder robustness claims depend on this noise model and on the undocumented claim that 100 realizations are statistically sound.
domain assumption Krotov's algorithm converges to a sufficiently close approximation of the global optimal control for the state-to-state tasks.
The OCT results and the Tmin thresholds assume the local optimization does not miss much better pulses; no global optimality certificate is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic Heisenberg Su-Schrieffer-Heeger spin chain as a quantum channel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JUXFBD5H

@misc{pith2026250818552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic Heisenberg Su-Schrieffer-Heeger spin chain as a quantum channel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JUXFBD5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18552}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum state transmission in spin chains is a fundamental problem within quantum technologies. The Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model, first introduced in the context of polyacetylene, provides a paradigmatic example of a system exhibiting topological and non-topological phases. We explore the transmission of one and two excitations in anisotropic Heisenberg SSH spin chains and analyze the relationship between topological properties and state transfer efficiency. We examine the robustness of quantum state transmission against static disorder in the trivial and topological regimes, exploring how topological protection influences transmission fidelity. We also consider the effect of dipolar interactions, introducing long-range couplings and breaking the conservation of total magnetization. Furthermore, we employ optimal control theory to design driving pulses for state transmission, finding substantial differences between optimizing in the trivial and topological regimes. Our results provide insights about the interplay between topology, disorder, interactions, and control strategies in quantum state transfer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18552 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Contour plots for the maximum transmission probability value in a time interval [0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Transmission probability P1(t) as a function of time for 6 different parameter sets for a spin chain (Eq. (1)) of length N = 8. The η and ∆ values corresponding to these curves are shown as red circles in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) Degree of localization of the wave function at the edges of the chain (b) Contour Maps (∆, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Exact calculations for N = 4. (a) Maximum value of P1 in a time interval [0, 200] as a function of η and ∆. (b) Values of η, ∆ and T for which the Kay condition [42] is fulfilled for q ≤ 37. (c) Time needed by P1 to reach values greater than 0.99. (d) Values of η, ∆, a…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Contour map for the maximum transmission probability of an 8-site spin chain with disorder. The top panels show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The four panels show the averaged transmission probability as a function of the disorder strength. We choose the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Countour plots (∆, η) for the maximum value of P2 in (a) and F12 in (b) for the Hamiltonian Hˆssh, an optimal time t in [0, 2000] and a chain length of N = 8. The quantity P2 is the natural extension of what we have calculated so far in this work, and it measures the p…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Countour plots (∆, η) for the degree of localization of two excitations at the edges of the chain for N = 8. where |1, 2⟩ is the two-excitation basis state such that both excitations lie on the first and second qubit of the chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Countour plots (∆, η) for the maximum value of F2 for the Hamiltonian Hˆssh, an optimal time t in [0, 2000], optimal magnetic field and chains length of N = 6 in (a) and N = 8 in (b). This symmetrization would be achievable by finding the value of the magnetic field f…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: (a) Degree of localization for one excitation at the edges of the chain considering dipolar interaction. (b) Degree of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: (a) Infidelity as a function of the time used to design the pulse for a non-topological chain. (b) Infidelity as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

One Excitation The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) commute with thez-component of the total magnetization of the system, so it is natural to study the dynamics of quantum states restricted to subspaces with a fixed number of excitations. When we add the dipolar Hamiltonian Eq. (2), we must be careful and take into account the complete Hilbert space to study the dy...

work page
[2]

We start by looking at something similar to what we observed in the case of a single excitation

Two Excitations The case of two excitations is technically more complicated. We start by looking at something similar to what we observed in the case of a single excitation. We prepare two excitations at the first two sites at one end of the chain, let these two excitations evolve, and after a specific time, we expect them to arrive at the last two sites ...

work page
[3]

Stehlik, D

J. Stehlik, D. M. Zajac, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, M. Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080505 (2021)

2021
[4]

W. Xie, A. Kay, and C. Tamon, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012408 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Maleki and A

Y. Maleki and A. M. Zheltikov, Optics Communications 496, 126870 (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

1979
[7]

Serra, A

P. Serra, A. Ferr´ on, and O. Osenda, Physics Letters A 556, 130817 (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

X. Li, Y. Ma, J. Han, T. Chen, Y. Xu, W. Cai, H. Wang, Y. Song, Z.-Y. Xue, Z.-q. Yin, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054009 (2018)

2018

Show all 52 references

[9]

C. Wang, L. Li, J. Gong, and Y.-x. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 106, 052411 (2022)

2022
[10]

D. Xie, W. Gou, T. Xiao, B. Gadway, and B. Yan, npj Quantum Information 5, 55 (2019)

2019
[11]

M. P. Estarellas, I. D’Amico, and T. P. Spiller, Scientific Reports 7, 42904 (2017)

2017
[12]

Aghaee, A

M. Aghaee, A. Akkala, Z. Alam, R. Ali, A. Alcaraz Ramirez, M. Andrzejczuk, A. E. Antipov, P. Aseev, M. Astafev, B. Bauer, J. Becker, S. Boddapati, F. Boekhout, J. Bommer, T. Bosma, L. Bourdet, S. Boutin, P. Caroff, L. Casparis, M. Cassidy, S. Chatoor, A. W. Christensen, N. Cla...

2023
[13]

Qi, Q.-N

L. Qi, Q.-N. Li, N. Han, M. Li, X.-Y. Zhang, and A.-L. He, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032428 (2024)

2024
[14]

Comment on

H. F. Legg, “Comment on ”inas-al hybrid devices passing the topological gap protocol”, microsoft quantum, phys. rev. b 107, 245423 (2023),” (2025), arXiv:2502.19560 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2023 arXiv
[15]

S. Yang, A. Bayat, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 82, 022336 (2010)

2010
[16]

X. Wang, D. Burgarth, and S. Schirmer, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052319 (2016)

2016
[17]

Burgarth, K

D. Burgarth, K. Maruyama, M. Murphy, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, F. Nori, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 81, 040303 (2010)

2010
[18]

Lemonde, V

M.-A. Lemonde, V. Peano, P. Rabl, and D. G. Angelakis, New Journal of Physics 21, 113030 (2019)

2019
[19]

Gong and P

J. Gong and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032331 (2007)

2007
[20]

Moreover, in this work, the topological properties of the resulting spin chains were experimentally probed using STM-based electron spin resonance (ESR-STM) techniques [21]

built dimerized chains of titanium atoms deposited on MgO/Ag surfaces, using a scanning tunneling microscope (STM), individual Ti atoms can be placed on specific sites, either atop oxygen atoms or at bridge positions, allowing precise control over the interatomic spacing and e...
[21]

Murphy, S

M. Murphy, S. Montangero, V. Giovannetti, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. A 82, 022318 (2010)

2010
[22]

S. V. Romero, X. Chen, G. Platero, and Y. Ban, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 034033 (2024)

2024
[23]

H. Wang, P. Fan, J. Chen, L. Jiang, H.-J. Gao, J. L. Lado, and K. Yang, Nature Nanotechnology 19, 1782 (2024)

2024
[24]

Baumann, F

S. Baumann, F. Donati, S. Stepanow, S. Rusponi, W. Paul, S. Gangopadhyay, I. Rau, G. Pacchioni, L. Gragnaniello, M. Pivetta, et al., Physical review letters 115, 237202 (2015)

2015
[25]

C. Zhao, G. Catarina, J.-J. Zhang, J. C. Henriques, L. Yang, J. Ma, X. Feng, O. Gr¨ oning, P. Ruffieux, J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, et al., Nature Nanotechnology 19, 1789 (2024)

2024
[26]

C. Zhao, L. Yang, J. C. Henriques, M. Ferri-Cort´ es, G. Catarina, C. A. Pignedoli, J. Ma, X. Feng, P. Ruffieux, J. Fern´ andez- Rossier, et al., Nature Materials , 1 (2025)

2025
[27]

X. Fu, L. Huang, K. Liu, J. C. Henriques, Y. Gao, X. Han, H. Chen, Y. Wang, C.-A. Palma, Z. Cheng, et al. , Nature Synthesis , 1 (2025)

2025
[28]

Y.-C. Li, J. Zhang, and H.-Q. Lin, Physical Review B 99, 205424 (2019)

2019
[29]

T. J. G. Apollaro, S. Lorenzo, F. Plastina, M. Consiglio, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, New Journal of Physics 24, 083025 (2022)

2022
[30]

Serra, A

P. Serra, A. Ferr´ on, and O. Osenda, Physics Letters A 449, 128362 (2022)

2022
[31]

Ferr´ on, P

A. Ferr´ on, P. Serra, and O. Osenda, Physica Scripta 97, 115103 (2022)

2022
[32]

Serra, A

P. Serra, A. Ferr´ on, and O. Osenda, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 405302 (2022)

2022
[33]

Werschnik and E

J. Werschnik and E. K. U. Gross, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 40, R175 (2007)

2007
[34]

Zhang, Z.-W

X.-M. Zhang, Z.-W. Cui, X. Wang, and M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052333 (2018)

2018
[35]

Bukov, A

M. Bukov, A. G. R. Day, D. Sels, P. Weinberg, A. Polkovnikov, and P. Mehta, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031086 (2018)

2018
[36]

V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, H. Liu, B. Royer, I. Tsioutsios, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011059 (2022)

2022
[37]

Porotti, A

R. Porotti, A. Essig, B. Huard, and F. Marquardt, Quantum 6, 747 (2022)

2022
[38]

M. Y. Niu, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, and H. Neven, npj Quantum Information 5, 33 (2019)

2019
[39]

D. S. Acosta Coden, O. Osenda, and A. Ferr´ on, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 58, 015504 (2024)

2024
[40]

Zwick, G

A. Zwick, G. A. Alvarez, J. Stolze, and O. Osenda, Quantum Information & Computation 15, 0582 (2015)

2015
[41]

Robustness of spin-chain state-transfer schemes,

J. Stolze, G. A. ´Alvarez, O. Osenda, and A. Zwick, “Robustness of spin-chain state-transfer schemes,” in Quantum State Transfer and Network Engineering , edited by G. M. Nikolopoulos and I. Jex (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014) pp. 149–182

2014
[42]

Petrosyan, G

D. Petrosyan, G. M. Nikolopoulos, and P. Lambropoulos, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042307 (2010)

2010
[43]

Bose, Phys

S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 207901 (2003)

2003
[44]

Serra, A

P. Serra, A. Ferr´ on, and O. Osenda, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 57, 015304 (2023)

2023
[45]

The limits of quantum state transfer for field-free heisenberg chains,

A. Kay, “The limits of quantum state transfer for field-free heisenberg chains,” (2022), arXiv:1906.06223 [quant-ph]

2022 arXiv
[46]

A. P. Peirce, M. A. Dahleh, and H. Rabitz, Phys. Rev. A 37, 4950 (1988)

1988
[47]

Dong and I

D. Dong and I. Petersen, IET Control Theory & Applications 4, 2651 (2010), https://digital- library.theiet.org/doi/pdf/10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0508

2010
[48]

D. G. Hull, Optimal Control Theory for Applications , Mechanical Engineering Series (Springer, New York, NY, 2010)

2010
[49]

M. R. James, Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 4, 343 (2021)

2021
[50]

K. Yang, Y. Bae, W. Paul, F. D. Natterer, P. Willke, J. L. Lado, A. Ferr´ on, T. Choi, J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, A. J. Heinrich, et al., Physical review letters 119, 227206 (2017)

2017
[51]

H. Wang, J. Chen, P. Fan, Y. del Castillo, A. Ferr´ on, L. Jiang, Z. Wu, S. Li, H.-J. Gao, H. Fan, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01033 (2025)

2025
[52]

P. Kot, M. Ismail, R. Drost, J. Siebrecht, H. Huang, and C. R. Ast, Nature Communications 14, 6612 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

One Excitation The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) commute with thez-component of the total magnetization of the system, so it is natural to study the dynamics of quantum states restricted to subspaces with a fixed number of excitations. When we add the dipolar Hamiltonian Eq. (2), we must be careful and take into account the complete Hilbert space to study the dy...

work page

[2] [2]

We start by looking at something similar to what we observed in the case of a single excitation

Two Excitations The case of two excitations is technically more complicated. We start by looking at something similar to what we observed in the case of a single excitation. We prepare two excitations at the first two sites at one end of the chain, let these two excitations evolve, and after a specific time, we expect them to arrive at the last two sites ...

work page

[3] [3]

Stehlik, D

J. Stehlik, D. M. Zajac, D. L. Underwood, T. Phung, J. Blair, S. Carnevale, D. Klaus, G. A. Keefe, A. Carniol, M. Kumph, M. Steffen, and O. E. Dial, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 080505 (2021)

2021

[4] [4]

W. Xie, A. Kay, and C. Tamon, Phys. Rev. A 108, 012408 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Maleki and A

Y. Maleki and A. M. Zheltikov, Optics Communications 496, 126870 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

1979

[7] [7]

Serra, A

P. Serra, A. Ferr´ on, and O. Osenda, Physics Letters A 556, 130817 (2025)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

X. Li, Y. Ma, J. Han, T. Chen, Y. Xu, W. Cai, H. Wang, Y. Song, Z.-Y. Xue, Z.-q. Yin, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054009 (2018)

2018