Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Emergent boundary-memory from unitarity constraints in a minimal two interacting quantum particles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · 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 enforcing unitary (reversible) evolution on a minimal two-particle attraction rule on a one-dimensional lattice forces an auxiliary 'boundary-memory' counter, whose freezing, particle-memory entanglement, and entropy

desk verdict The paper's central construction fails: Eq. 5 is not unitary, so the 'emergent boundary-memory' narrative is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19870 v1 pith:AJC35IIC submitted 2026-07-22 quant-ph

Ibrahim Yahaya Muhammad , Tanapat Deesuwan , Monsit Tanasittikosol This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords two-particlequantumwalkunitarityboundary-memoryevent-horizon-likePagecurveentanglementdynamicslatticemodelcellularautomata
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 tries to establish that a deliberately minimal interaction rule — two particles on a one-dimensional lattice that move one site per step, attracting when their spins match and repelling when they differ — cannot be made reversible without an extra degree of freedom. It argues that the naive motion rule is many-to-one when particles come within two lattice sites, and that the cheapest unitary completion is a finite 'boundary-memory' counter that freezes the particles at the boundary of that internal region, counts upward, and ejects them once it saturates. If this construction holds, the same constraint that makes quantum dynamics reversible also manufactures a hidden memory degree of freedom, and its entanglement with the particles reproduces qualitative features of black-hole information dynamics without any gravity. The demonstration is explicit: small superpositions are evolved by hand to show horizon-like freezing, memory-mediated entanglement, and a Page-curve-shaped entropy profile. The entire derivation, however, rests on the assertion that the modified evolution operator in Eq. 5 is exactly unitary.

What carries the argument

The central object is the operator of Eq. 5, a conditional shift (motion-based) unitary candidate on the combined Hilbert space of spins, positions, and the boundary-memory register. Its key pieces are: (i) in the external region (separation greater than two lattice sites), same-spin particles move one site closer while the memory stays in its ground state; (ii) in the internal region (separation of two sites or less), particle motion halts and the memory increments like a counter; (iii) when the counter is full, same-spin particles are ejected outward, effectively switching attraction to repulsion; (iv) opposite-spin particles repel at all separations. The memory register is what absorbs th

What would settle it

Apply Eq. 5 to the two orthogonal basis states |↑↑⟩|−1,1⟩|n−2⟩ and |↑↑⟩|0,0⟩|n−1⟩: both images have nonzero overlap along |↑↑⟩|−1,1⟩|n−1⟩ (inner product 1/√2), so the operator is not an isometry; also check whether |x,x⟩|0⟩ has any pre-image. Either failure settles that Eq. 5 is not unitary as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that unitarity is not merely a constraint on an existing model but a generative principle: for spin-parity-dependent attraction and repulsion implemented purely through conditional shifts, reversible evolution is impossible unless the Hilbert space is enlarged. The authors identify the obstruction precisely: when two attracting particles close to within two lattice sites, multiple configurations converge to one, so no unitary operator on position and spin alone exists. The proposed resolution is to append a finite memory register, 'boundary-memory,' whose evolution is a clock: while the particles are frozen in the internal region the mem

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the modified evolution operator of Eq. 5 is exactly unitary; the paper asserts this without proof, and as written the map is not an isometry (two orthogonal inputs can share an image), so if the unitarity claim cannot be repaired, the boundary-memory is not shown to be forced by reversible evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. 5 is unitary, any motion-only two-particle attraction rule on a line needs at least one auxiliary degree of freedom once separations drop to two sites or less; a strictly position-spin Hilbert space is insufficient.
  • The boundary-memory acts as a physical clock: particles freeze at the event-horizon-like boundary for a finite number of steps, then are ejected, so the model realises temporary information trapping inside a unitary circuit.
  • Entanglement between the particles and the memory is produced only by superpositions of different entry times; fully localised initial states remain unentangled.
  • The reduced memory entropy can rise to a maximum and return to zero, producing a Page-curve-shaped profile; with spin superposition the entropy plateaus instead.
  • Post-selecting on a memory outcome can leave the two particles entangled, so the boundary-memory is a resource for entanglement generation between otherwise non-interacting particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the many-to-one obstruction is generic for deterministic shift rules on a line; any local unitary completion that avoids an enlarged Hilbert space would have to abandon strict one-site-shift kinematics, so similar auxiliary registers should appear in other collision-based cellular automaton models, not just this one.
  • Editorial inference: because the paper's proof that Eq. 5 is unitary is only asserted, the phrase 'restoring unitarity necessarily requires' is not yet established; a corrected operator or a proof of isometry would be needed to make the emergence claim airtight.
  • Editorial inference: the finite memory size n controls how long particles remain frozen; a direct experiment or simulation varying n should show the entropy peak height growing like log n and the plateau width growing linearly, a signature that would distinguish this mechanism from phase-induced interaction models.
  • Editorial inference: the Page-curve analogy suggests that any unitary system with temporary information trapping and a 'clock' degree of freedom will show similar entropy dynamics; this could be tested in discrete-time quantum walk implementations on photonic or trapped-ion hardware.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a minimal discrete-time quantum walk of two particles on a 1D lattice, with spin-dependent attraction (identical spins) and repulsion (opposite spins). The authors argue that imposing unitarity on a naive motion-based interaction rule fails, and that restoring unitarity requires an auxiliary 'boundary-memory' degree of freedom that acts as a counter while the particles are trapped in an 'internal region'. They then study entanglement between the particles and this memory, reporting event-horizon-like freezing and Page-curve-like entanglement entropy. The central technical object is the operator Û_int in Eq. (5), which the paper asserts is unitary.

Significance. If the construction were correct, the paper would provide a simple toy model in which unitarity constraints force an auxiliary memory degree of freedom and give rise to non-trivial entanglement dynamics, possibly relevant to quantum-information and black-hole-inspired toy models. The paper also makes an effort to distinguish its motion-based interaction from earlier phase-based interacting quantum walks, and the entanglement calculations in Section 3 are explicit and reproducible. However, the central premise is invalid: the operator in Eq. (5) is not unitary on the stated Hilbert space. Since the paper's key claims—that unitarity necessarily induces boundary-memory and that the resulting dynamics are unitary—rest entirely on this operator, the main result is not supported. The manuscript text itself concedes that the boundary-memory completion is non-unique and chosen as 'the simplest implementation' (§2.3), further undermining the 'emergent' narrative.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (5)] The operator Û_int is not an isometry. Consider orthogonal inputs |ψ1⟩ = |0,0⟩_p |n−1⟩_b and |ψ2⟩ = |−1,1⟩_p |n−2⟩_b. The same-position term in the |n−1⟩⟨n−1| branch maps |ψ1⟩ to (|−1,1⟩ + |1,−1⟩)/√2 |n−1⟩. The internal-region increment term Σ_{d=0}^{n−2}|d+1⟩⟨d| maps |ψ2⟩ to |−1,1⟩|n−1⟩. These images have inner product 1/√2, not 0, so the map cannot be unitary. The statement in §2.3 that 'the operator remains unitary' is therefore false.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (5)] The map is not surjective. The state |0,0⟩_p |0⟩_b has no preimage: external shift terms cannot reach (0,0), the internal increment term only increases the memory index from d≥0 to d≥1, and the same-position and repulsive branches produce separation-2 or larger states. Thus the image of the full Hilbert space does not contain |0,0⟩|0⟩, so Û_int is not unitary (nor even invertible).
  3. [§2.3 and §4] The central narrative that unitarity constraints necessarily require boundary-memory is unsupported. The text explicitly states the completion is 'not a unique solution' and is 'the simplest implementation' (§2.3), so the memory is introduced by hand rather than derived. Moreover, because Eq. (5) is non-unitary, the Section 3 entanglement and Page-curve-like results are computed with a non-unitary evolution and cannot support the claimed 'emergent boundary-memory' or 'event-horizon-like' behavior. The paper would need a genuinely unitary operator and a proof (or at least a clear argument) that memory is forced, not merely one possible completion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, §1] The citation 'Omaret al.' should read 'Omar et al.'; there are a few similar typographical issues in the reference list.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'entanglement between subsystem' should be 'between subsystems' for grammatical clarity.
  3. [§3.2.2] In the sentence 'the boundary-memory does not start counting yet', 'yet' is misleading since the memory will start counting later; consider rephrasing to 'has not started counting'.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The operator is dense and hard to parse because multiple sums and projectors are combined without a clear block structure. Even in a revision with a corrected unitary operator, a basis-state action table would greatly improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central 'emergent' claims are built into the construction: boundary-memory is the name given to a hand-added, non-unique completion, and the Page-curve-like behavior follows directly from the chosen finite-memory counter/ejection rule.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Eq. 5 construction) and Section 4 (Conclusion)]
    "The proposed additional degree of freedom is not a unique solution, but rather one of the simplest unitary completions. The specific evolution of this auxiliary degree of freedom is not unique; here, we adopt the simplest implementation. ... Restoring unitarity naturally requires the introduction of an additional degree of freedom, which we termed boundary-memory."

    The paper names 'boundary-memory' as the extra degree of freedom it inserts by hand, then reports that unitarity 'requires' boundary-memory. Because the text concedes the completion is 'not a unique solution' and 'the simplest implementation,' the claimed necessity is definitional: the label is attached to the ansatz rather than derived from unitarity alone. The counter/ejection dynamics of the memory are also put into Eq. 5 by construction, so the 'emergence' conclusion restates the input.

  2. other [Section 2.3 finite-memory rule; Section 3.2.2 Page-curve claim; Eq. 5]
    "Finite memory: When two attracting particles enter the internal region, their motion halts, and the memory begins counting. Once the memory reaches its maximum state, the particles are ejected from the region... ... the entropy decreases and finally returns to zero... qualitatively resembles the Page curve."

    The reported 'event-horizon-like' freezing, temporary information trapping, and rise-then-fall entanglement entropy are direct translations of the chosen finite-memory rule written into Eq. 5 (the P⊗|d+1⟩⟨d| counting term and the |n−1⟩⟨n−1| ejection term). Calling these behaviors 'emergent' or 'natural' presents the design choice as its own discovery; the Page-curve-like output is equivalent to the input clock-and-eject mechanism.

full rationale

There is no self-citation circularity here, and Section 2.2's demonstration that the naive attraction rule is many-to-one is an independent, legitimate argument. However, the paper's central narrative—that unitarity constraints 'necessarily give rise to' boundary-memory and that the resulting dynamics show Page-curve-like behavior—reduces to the authors' construction. The manuscript explicitly admits the memory completion is non-unique and chosen as the simplest implementation, after which the name 'boundary-memory' is applied to that chosen degree of freedom. Likewise, the finite-memory clock and ejection rule are written directly into Eq. 5, so the freezing, entropy growth, and entropy decrease are consequences of the chosen ansatz, not emergent predictions. A separate correctness concern (not itself circularity) is that the asserted unitarity of Eq. 5 is not proven and appears false as written: for example, orthogonal inputs |0,0⟩|n−1⟩ and |−1,1⟩|n−2⟩ map to states with overlap 1/√2, and |0,0⟩|0⟩ has no preimage. That failure would invalidate the 'unitarity constraints' premise, but the circularity score here is based on the by-construction nature of the central claims. Overall, the paper is partially circular: the non-unitarity of the naive rule is genuine, but the advertised 'emergent' boundary-memory and Page-curve dynamics are the inputs, not outputs, of the model.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model's budget: one position lattice, one spin pair, and one ad hoc counter register. The counter and its transition rules are free inventions; the only genuinely derived element is the true observation that the naive attractive rule is many-to-one. The claimed necessity of the counter is undercut by the counter itself failing to render the map unitary.

free parameters (2)
  • boundary-memory size n = unspecified integer n ∈ Z^+
    Finite counter size chosen by hand; the entropy plateau and ejection time scale with n, and the infinite-memory alternative is explicitly rejected as a free choice (Section 2.3).
  • internal-region cutoff (separation ≤ 2 sites) = 2 lattice sites
    The freezing boundary is placed where particle positions 'may overlap or swap' (Section 2.2); a chosen rule modification, not derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hilbert space H = H_c ⊗ H_p ⊗ H_b with positions on the infinite lattice Z and unitarity demanded of a global shift operator.
    Section 2.1 defines x1,x2 ∈ Z; Section 2.2 requires the evolution to be unitary as a closed system.
  • domain assumption Coin operators may be omitted because they 'must act identically on both sides'.
    Section 2.2: relies on exchange symmetry restricting, not eliminating, the coin degree of freedom.
  • ad hoc to paper Reflection or stationary boundary modifications 'both still lead to non-invertible evolution'.
    Section 2.2: asserted by 'straightforward examination' with no demonstration; this unproven claim is what forces the memory introduction.
  • standard math A many-to-one linear map cannot be unitary.
    Section 2.2 demonstration; standard linear algebra, correctly used.
invented entities (1)
  • boundary-memory (counter register |d⟩, d ∈ {0,...,n−1})
    purpose: Restore one-to-one evolution when attracting particles enter the internal region
    No observable outside the model is predicted; the dynamics (freeze, count, eject at max, 1/√2 split at coincidence) are chosen as 'the simplest implementation' and admitted to be non-unique (Section 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent boundary-memory from unitarity constraints in a minimal two interacting quantum particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJC35IIC

@misc{pith2026260719870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent boundary-memory from unitarity constraints in a minimal two interacting quantum particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJC35IIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19870}
}
read the original abstract

We construct a simple model of two particles mutually attracting/repulsing in a one-dimensional lattice and investigate the corresponding dynamics. We show that enforcing reversible unitary evolution on a minimal direct-motion interaction rule necessarily gives rise to emergent boundary-memory and non-trivial dynamics. Remarkably, the resulting boundary-memory leads to event-horizon-like behaviour, entanglement between subsystem, and Page-curve-like entanglement dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram (a) attracting particles and the boundary-memory, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Entanglement between the two particles and the boundary-memory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Entanglement between the two particles and the boundary-memory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation,

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, “Goals and opportunities in quantum simulation,”Nature Physics, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 264–266, 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,”Quantum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental limitations of density functional theory,

    N. Schuch and F. Verstraete, “Computational complexity of interacting electrons and fundamental limitations of density functional theory,”Nature Physics, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 732–735, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases,

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimbene, “Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases,”Nature Physics, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 267–276, 2012. 13

    2012

  5. [5]

    Few-body physics with ultracold atomic and molecular systems in traps,

    D. Blume, “Few-body physics with ultracold atomic and molecular systems in traps,”Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 75, no. 4, p. 046401, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Many-body physics with ultracold gases,

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, “Many-body physics with ultracold gases,” Reviews of modern physics, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 885–964, 2008

    2008

  7. [7]

    Quantum simulation,

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, “Quantum simulation,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 153–185, 2014

    2014

  8. [8]

    An overview of quantum cellular automata,

    P. Arrighi, “An overview of quantum cellular automata,”Natural Computing, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 885–899, 2019

    2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A review of quantum cellular automata,

    T. Farrelly, “A review of quantum cellular automata,”Quantum, vol. 4, p. 368, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Quantum random walks,

    Y. Aharonov, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury, “Quantum random walks,”Physical Review A, vol. 48, pp. 1687–1690, 1993

    1993

  3. [11]

    Quantum random-walk search al- gorithm,

    N. Shenvi, J. Kempe, and K. B. Whaley, “Quantum random-walk search al- gorithm,”Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 67, pp. 523071–5230711, 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    Portugal,Quantum walks and search algorithms, vol

    R. Portugal,Quantum walks and search algorithms, vol. 19. Springer, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Spatial search by continuous-time quantum walks on crystal lattices,

    A. M. Childs and Y. Ge, “Spatial search by continuous-time quantum walks on crystal lattices,”Physical Review A, vol. 89, no. 5, p. 052337, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Universal computation by multiparticle quantum walk,

    A. M. Childs, D. Gosset, and Z. Webb, “Universal computation by multiparticle quantum walk,”Science, vol. 339, pp. 791–794, 2 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Universal quantum computing using single-particle discrete-time quantum walk,

    S. Singh, P. Chawla, A. Sarkar, and C. M. Chandrashekar, “Universal quantum computing using single-particle discrete-time quantum walk,”Scientific Reports, vol. 11, p. 11551, 12 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Quantum walks on a programmable two-dimensional 62- qubit superconducting processor,

    M. Gong, S. Wang, C. Zha, M.-C. Chen, H.-L. Huang, Y. Wu, Q. Zhu, Y. Zhao, S. Li, S. Guo,et al., “Quantum walks on a programmable two-dimensional 62- qubit superconducting processor,”Science, vol. 372, no. 6545, pp. 948–952, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Generalized teleportation by quantum walks,

    Y. Wang, Y. Shang, and P. Xue, “Generalized teleportation by quantum walks,” Quantum Information Processing, vol. 16, pp. 1–13, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Quantum network communic- ation with a novel discrete-time quantum walk,

    X.-B. Chen, Y.-L. Wang, G. Xu, and Y.-X. Yang, “Quantum network communic- ation with a novel discrete-time quantum walk,”Ieee Access, vol. 7, pp. 13634– 13642, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Entanglement transfer, accumulation and retrieval via quantum-walk-based qubit-qudit dynamics,

    T. Giordani, L. Innocenti, A. Suprano, E. Polino, M. Paternostro, N. Spagnolo, F. Sciarrino, and A. Ferraro, “Entanglement transfer, accumulation and retrieval via quantum-walk-based qubit-qudit dynamics,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 23, 2 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Quantum walk approach to simulating parton showers,

    K. Bepari, S. Malik, M. Spannowsky, and S. Williams, “Quantum walk approach to simulating parton showers,”Physical Review D, vol. 106, no. 5, p. 056002, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    A quantum walk simulation of extra dimensions with warped geometry,

    A. Angl´ es-Castillo and A. P´ erez, “A quantum walk simulation of extra dimensions with warped geometry,”Scientific reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1926, 2022

    1926

  14. [22]

    Open system approach to neutrino oscillations in a quantum walk framework,

    H. Sahu and C. Chandrashekar, “Open system approach to neutrino oscillations in a quantum walk framework,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 7, 2024. 14

    2024

  15. [23]

    Wang and K

    J. Wang and K. Manouchehri,Physical implementation of quantum walks, vol. 10. Springer, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Strongly correlated quantum walks in optical lattices,

    P. M. Preiss, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, P. Zupancic, Y. Lahini, R. Islam, and M. Greiner, “Strongly correlated quantum walks in optical lattices,” Science, vol. 347, pp. 1229–1233, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Topological bound states of a quantum walk with cold atoms,

    S. Mugel, A. Celi, P. Massignan, J. K. Asb´ oth, M. Lewenstein, and C. Lobo, “Topological bound states of a quantum walk with cold atoms,”Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 2, p. 023631, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Observing topological invariants using quantum walks in supercon- ducting circuits,

    E. Flurin, V. V. Ramasesh, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. S. Martin, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, “Observing topological invariants using quantum walks in supercon- ducting circuits,”Physical Review X, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 031023, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Protocol of a quantum walk in circuit qed,

    J. Q. Zhou, L. Cai, Q. P. Su, and C. P. Yang, “Protocol of a quantum walk in circuit qed,”Physical Review A, vol. 100, 7 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Quantum random walks: An introductory overview,

    J. Kempe, “Quantum random walks: An introductory overview,”Contemporary Physics, vol. 44, pp. 307–327, 2003

    2003

  21. [29]

    Quantum walks: A comprehensive review,

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, “Quantum walks: A comprehensive review,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 11, pp. 1015–1106, 10 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Random walks: A re- view of algorithms and applications,

    F. Xia, J. Liu, H. Nie, Y. Fu, L. Wan, and X. Kong, “Random walks: A re- view of algorithms and applications,”IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, vol. 4, pp. 95–107, 4 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Quantum walk and its application do- mains: A systematic review,

    K. Kadian, S. Garhwal, and A. Kumar, “Quantum walk and its application do- mains: A systematic review,”Computer Science Review, vol. 41, 8 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Quantum walk computing: Theory, implementa- tion, and application,

    X. Qiang, S. Ma, and H. Song, “Quantum walk computing: Theory, implementa- tion, and application,”Intelligent Computing, vol. 3, p. 0097, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Quantum walk on a line with two entangled particles,

    Y. Omar, N. Paunkovi´ c, L. Sheridan, and S. Bose, “Quantum walk on a line with two entangled particles,”Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 74, 10 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Repelling, binding, and oscillating of two-particle discrete- time quantum walks,

    Q. Wang and Z. J. Li, “Repelling, binding, and oscillating of two-particle discrete- time quantum walks,”Annals of Physics, vol. 373, pp. 1–9, 10 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Molecular binding in interacting quantum walks,

    A. Ahlbrecht, A. Alberti, D. Meschede, V. B. Scholz, A. H. Werner, and R. F. Werner, “Molecular binding in interacting quantum walks,”New Journal of Phys- ics, vol. 14, 7 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Two-particle coined-quantum walk with long-range interaction,

    C. Alonso-Lobo, M. Mart ´ ınez-Quesada, M. Hinarejos, G. J. D. Valc´ arcel, and E. Rold´ an, “Two-particle coined-quantum walk with long-range interaction,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 51, 10 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Gravitationally induced entanglement dy- namics between two quantum walkers,

    H. Badhani and C. M. Chandrashekar, “Gravitationally induced entanglement dy- namics between two quantum walkers,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 81, p. 454, 5 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Entanglement dynamics of two-particle quantum walks,

    G. R. Carson, T. Loke, and J. B. Wang, “Entanglement dynamics of two-particle quantum walks,”Quantum Information Processing, vol. 14, pp. 3193–3210, 9 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Two-particle quantum walks: Entanglement and graph isomorphism testing,

    S. D. Berry and J. B. Wang, “Two-particle quantum walks: Entanglement and graph isomorphism testing,”Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 83, 4 2011. 15

    2011

  32. [40]

    Page curve and symmetries,

    P. H. C. Lau, T. Noumi, Y. Takii, and K. Tamaoka, “Page curve and symmetries,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2022, no. 10, pp. 1–17, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Page curve entanglement dynamics in an analytically solvable model,

    S. Kehrein, “Page curve entanglement dynamics in an analytically solvable model,” Physical Review B, vol. 109, no. 22, p. 224308, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Page-curve-like entanglement dynamics in open quantum systems,

    J. Glatthard, “Page-curve-like entanglement dynamics in open quantum systems,” Physical Review D, vol. 109, no. 8, p. L081901, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Generalized hydrodynamic description of the page curve–like dynamics of a freely expanding fermionic gas,

    M. Saha, M. Kulkarni, and A. Dhar, “Generalized hydrodynamic description of the page curve–like dynamics of a freely expanding fermionic gas,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 133, no. 23, p. 230402, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Page curve and entanglement dynamics in an interacting fermionic chain,

    R. Jha, S. R. Manmana, and S. Kehrein, “Page curve and entanglement dynamics in an interacting fermionic chain,”Physical Review B, vol. 111, no. 23, p. 235140, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Thermodynamics of the page curve in markovian open quantum systems,

    J. Glatthard, “Thermodynamics of the page curve in markovian open quantum systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09082, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Quantum trajectories and page-curve entanglement dynamics,

    K. Ganguly, P. Gopalakrishnan, A. Naik, B. Kumar Agarwalla, and M. Kulkarni, “Quantum trajectories and page-curve entanglement dynamics,”Journal of Stat- istical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2025, no. 12, p. 123102, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Page curve like dynamics in interacting quantum systems,

    T. Ray, A. Dhar, and M. Kulkarni, “Page curve like dynamics in interacting quantum systems,”Physical Review B, vol. 112, no. 17, p. 174309, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Analysis of the two- particle controlled interacting quantum walks,

    D. Li, J. Zhang, X.-W. Ma, W.-W. Zhang, and Q.-Y. Wen, “Analysis of the two- particle controlled interacting quantum walks,”Quantum information processing, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 2167–2176, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Discrete-time interacting quantum walks and quantum hash schemes,

    D. Li, J. Zhang, F.-Z. Guo, W. Huang, Q.-Y. Wen, and H. Chen, “Discrete-time interacting quantum walks and quantum hash schemes,”Quantum information processing, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1501–1513, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Interacting two-particle discrete-time quantum walk with percolation,

    X.-Y. Sun, Q.-H. Wang, and Z.-J. Li, “Interacting two-particle discrete-time quantum walk with percolation,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 2485–2495, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Entanglement and interaction in a topological quantum walk,

    A. Verga and R. G. Elias, “Entanglement and interaction in a topological quantum walk,”SciPost Physics, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 019, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Information in black hole radiation,

    D. N. Page, “Information in black hole radiation,”Physical review letters, vol. 71, no. 23, p. 3743, 1993

    1993

  45. [53]

    Time dependence of hawking radiation entropy,

    D. N. Page, “Time dependence of hawking radiation entropy,”Journal of Cosmo- logy and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2013, no. 09, p. 028, 2013. 16

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.