Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Robust Genuine Multipartite Entanglement in Two Walker Quantum Walks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-walker discrete-time quantum walk with any initially entangled Bell coin state rapidly drives the generalized geometric measure of the four-partite coin-position system to its maximum value 1/2, and this near-maximal genuine…

desk verdict The local-unitary Lemma and N=4 analytics are solid, but the headline robustness claim rests on a single even-time snapshot, which the paper itself shows can misrepresent the dynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13338 v1 pith:C2DTVBAI submitted 2026-08-13 quant-ph

Sandipan Hazra , Tamoghna Das , Sougato Bose , Sonjoy Majumder This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords discrete-timequantumwalktwo-walkergenuinemultipartiteentanglementgeneralizedgeometricmeasurelogarithmicnegativityBellstatesHadamardcoinperiodicboundaryconditions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether genuine multipartite entanglement can be generated reliably by a minimal quantum walk: two non-interacting walkers, each with a coin and a position, prepared with an entangled Bell state in the two-coin sector. It claims that in the open-boundary regime, where the lattice is large enough that boundaries never matter, the generalized geometric measure (GGM) of the four-partite state $C_A, P_A, C_B, P_B$ rapidly approaches its theoretical ceiling $1/2$ and stays there. The ceiling is set by the two-dimensional coin space, and the amount of multipartite entanglement produced tracks the initial coin entanglement: numerically $\mathrm{GGM}_{\mathrm{final}} = 0.5(1-|\epsilon_1|)$. The result is claimed to be insensitive to which Bell state is used and to continuous deformations of the Hadamard coin, with a single exceptional point at the Pauli-$X$ coin where even-odd step parity makes the final-time value alternate between $0$ and $1/2$. If right, it means any initially entangled coin pair in a large two-walker walk acts as a generic converter of bipartite into genuinely four-partite entanglement.

What carries the argument

The generalized geometric measure (GGM), defined as $1$ minus the largest squared Schmidt coefficient over all nontrivial bipartitions, is the central quantifier: it detects genuine four-partite entanglement and has a proved upper bound $1/2$ here because the coin spaces are two-dimensional. The argument also rests on the product structure $U_{AB} = U_A \otimes U_B$, which forces inter-walker entanglement to remain zero and makes all multipartite entanglement arise from the initial coin-coin Bell correlations; on a local-unitary equivalence between Bell-state classes via $(\sigma_y)_{C_A} \otimes R_{P_A}$; and on the periodicity analysis of the walk operator for the $N=4$ cycle, whose four-step coin restoration underlies the periodic revival of GGM.

What would settle it

Compute the GGM at odd time steps (for example $t=51$) on the same $(\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2)$ grid used in the paper's final-time figure. If for generic $\epsilon_2$ the value at odd $t$ falls substantially below $1/2$ rather than remaining near $1/2$, the claimed robustness is an even-time sampling artifact; if it stays near $1/2$, the plateau is genuinely long-time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the open-boundary two-walker discrete-time quantum walk converts pre-existing bipartite entanglement in the coin sector into near-maximal genuine multipartite entanglement among the four degrees of freedom, and does so generically. Starting from any of the four Bell states as the two-coin state, the GGM of $|\Psi(t)\rangle_{AB}$ rises after the first step to its maximum $1/2$, and its lower envelope increases monotonically toward $1/2$, so late-time states keep GGM close to $1/2$. For the one-parameter Bell-like family, the final-time GGM obeys $\mathrm{GGM}_{\mathrm{final}} = 0.5(1-|\epsilon_1|)$, showing that initial coin entanglement is the resource setting the attainable level. Over the one-parameter coin family, the final-time GGM stays near $1/2$ for all $\epsilon_2$ except a narrow neighbourhood of $\epsilon_2 = \pi/4$, where the Pauli-$X$ coin forces $\mathrm{GGM}(t)=0$ for even $t$ and $1/2$ for odd $t$. The paper also proves that the four Bell states form two local-unitary equivalence classes with identical bipartite entanglement in every partition and identical GGM dynamics, and shows that the closed-boundary $N=4$ cycle gives exact period-4 revivals with a GHZ-like entanglement structure at odd steps.

Load-bearing premise

The robustness claim rests on treating the single even-time sample $t=50$ as representative of the long-time behaviour for every coin operator and initial state, although the paper itself shows the Pauli-$X$ coin alternates between $\mathrm{GGM}=0$ and $\mathrm{GGM}=1/2$ with time parity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Maximal genuine multipartite entanglement in this platform costs no inter-walker interaction: a Bell pair in the coin degrees of freedom plus free evolution suffices.
  • The final GGM is set by the initial coin entanglement, so tuning $\epsilon_1$ tunes the amount of four-partite entanglement.
  • Except for the Pauli-$X$ coin, small gate errors in the local coin do not degrade the multipartite entanglement, which matters for experimental implementations.
  • On a four-site cycle, the walk acts as a periodic Bell-to-GHZ converter, exchanging coin-coin entanglement and maximal GGM every four steps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: average the GGM over time or sample odd $t$; if the plateau near $1/2$ survives only at even times for generic coins, the robustness claim should be restated as a parity-stroboscopic effect rather than a long-time one.
  • The same mechanism should work whenever the local evolution couples a qubit coin to a larger position space, so analogous results should appear in one-dimensional walks with other unbiased coins and possibly in two-dimensional lattices, provided the walker does not meet boundaries.
  • For experiments, this suggests that the coin degree of freedom of a pair of photonic or trapped-ion walkers can serve as the entanglement source, so no direct walker-walker coupling is needed to produce multipartite entangled states of motion and internal state.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-walker discrete-time quantum walk on a one-dimensional lattice, treating the two coin and two position degrees of freedom as a four-partite system. Using logarithmic negativity for bipartite entanglement and the generalized geometric measure (GGM) for genuine multipartite entanglement, the authors analyze the dynamics in open-boundary (N > 2T) and closed-boundary (N < 2T) regimes for separable and Bell initial coin states. They find that in the open-boundary regime the GGM rapidly approaches its theoretical maximum of 1/2 and is largely insensitive to the initial Bell state and to continuous deformations of the local coin operator, except near the Pauli-X coin. The closed-boundary regime shows oscillatory behavior, with exact period-4 revivals on the four-site cycle. The paper also provides analytical results: a lemma and corollary establishing local-unitary equivalence classes among the Bell states, a theorem on identical bipartite entanglement within each class, an upper bound of 1/2 for the GGM, and an explicit derivation of the N=4 periodic dynamics.

Significance. If the robustness claim is fully established, the paper identifies a simple and generic mechanism for generating and sustaining near-maximal genuine multipartite entanglement in a non-interacting two-walker quantum walk, which would be of interest to quantum information and quantum simulation communities. The manuscript contains several genuine strengths: the analytical upper bound in Appendix A is correct and clearly derived; Lemma 1, Corollary 1, and Theorem 1 provide a clean local-unitary classification of the Bell-state dynamics; Appendix B gives an explicit and checkable demonstration of the period-4 revival on the N=4 cycle; and the GGM is computed directly from the time-evolved state without circular reasoning. The main weakness is that the central quantitative claim of robustness rests on numerical GGM values sampled at a single final time step, with no convergence, parity, or statistical analysis, and no code or data provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.B, Figs. 13-15] The central robustness claim—that the GGM is 'largely insensitive' to coin variations except near the Pauli-X coin—is supported only by final-time GGM values computed at a single even time step, t=50, for the (epsilon_1, epsilon_2) plane. The paper itself shows in Appendix C that for the Pauli-X coin the GGM alternates between 0 at even times and 1/2 at odd times (Eq. C2), which is direct internal evidence that a single even-time snapshot can qualitatively misrepresent the dynamics. The authors should provide evidence that t=50 is representative for all parameters, for example by showing odd-time final values, time-averaged GGM, minima over time windows, or a convergence analysis in T and N. Without such evidence, the quantitative claim of robustness over a 'broad parameter range' is not settled.
  2. [Section V.B, Eq. (35)] The relation GGM_final = 0.5(1 - |epsilon_1|) is presented as a numerical finding without derivation, error bars, or any dependence on N and T. This equation is then used to infer that the amount of generated genuine multipartite entanglement is determined primarily by the initial coin entanglement. As written, Eq. (35) is an empirical fit to a single-time-sampled simulation; it needs either an analytical derivation or a systematic numerical study including time-parity and finite-T convergence before it can support the paper's general conclusions about what determines the attainable GGM.
  3. [Section V.A, Fig. 12] The claim that all four Bell states produce identical GGM dynamics is supported only by numerical time series up to t=50. Lemma 1 and Corollary 1 prove equality within the two local-unitary equivalence classes, but the equality between the two classes is not derived. Since the abstract and Section VI assert insensitivity to the choice of Bell state, the cross-class equality should either be proved analytically or accompanied by a quantitative precision statement (e.g., the maximum observed difference over time) rather than presented as an exact identity from the figure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains an unbalanced parenthesis: '(OCA ⊗ OCB) ⊗ (I PA ⊗ I PB)' should be written without the extra opening parenthesis before OCA.
  2. [Section II.C, Eq. (9)] The notation |xA, xB : xA = xB = ⌊N/2⌋⟩_{P_A P_B} is nonstandard; it would be clearer to write |x0⟩_{P_A} |x0⟩_{P_B} with x0 = ⌊N/2⌋.
  3. [Lemma 1 proof, Section IV.A.2] The reflection operator is defined as R_PA = Σ_x |N−x⟩⟨x|_PA, but for an open-boundary lattice with N sites the state |N⟩ is not a basis vector; the definition should be adapted to the finite lattice, for example R|x⟩ = |N−1−x⟩, or the periodic identification used in the closed-boundary section should be explicitly invoked.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B19)] The ordering |i, j, k, l⟩_{C_A C_B P_A P_B} in Eq. (B19) differs from the main-text ordering H = H_C_A ⊗ H_P_A ⊗ H_C_B ⊗ H_P_B; please clarify the convention.
  5. [Fig. 15] Figure 15 has no colorbar or numeric scale relating color to the GGM value; adding one would substantially improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GGM is computed from the time-evolved state, and the robustness claim is a numerical observation; only a post-hoc fit and a non-load-bearing self-citation are present.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The state is evolved by Eq. (7) as |Ψ(t)⟩ = (U_A⊗U_B)^t |Ψ(0)⟩, and the GGM is computed directly from this state via Eq. (18); no fitted parameter enters the dynamics. Appendix A's upper bound GGM ≤ 1/2 follows from the Schmidt-rank bound λ²_max ≥ 1/2 for the CA : (PA CB PB) bipartition, so the observation that GGM approaches 1/2 is a nontrivial numerical result rather than a consequence of the measure's definition. Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 are analytic local-unitary equivalences that reduce the scan over Bell states, but they do not assume the robustness conclusion. The parameter scans in Figs. 13–15 evaluate the final-time GGM numerically; Eq. (35) is a post-hoc fit to those simulation data rather than a derived prediction, and it is not used to establish the headline robustness claim. Reference [36] includes a co-author of the present paper, but it is cited only as background on multi-particle quantum walks and is not load-bearing. The Pauli-X stroboscopic effect noted in Appendix C is an internal caveat about whether a single even-time snapshot represents the dynamics; this is a representativeness/correctness concern, not a circular reduction of the argument. No step of the paper's derivation is equivalent by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims do not introduce fitted model parameters; the only hand-chosen quantities are the simulation size N and final time T, which shape the robustness conclusion. The analytical part relies on standard quantum-information definitions and Pauli algebra. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Final evaluation time T = 50
    All final-time GGM robustness plots are evaluated at t=50; the paper does not show that the conclusion is independent of T or of time parity, and it explicitly shows a parity effect for the Pauli-X coin.
  • Lattice size N (robustness runs) = 101
    Chosen to satisfy N > 2T; no finite-size scaling is presented, so the open-boundary limit is only probed at one lattice size.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two walkers are non-interacting, so the evolution operator factorizes as U = U_A (x) U_B (Eq. 6).
    This factorization underlies the claim that product initial states create no inter-walker entanglement and that GME arises from initial coin entanglement.
  • domain assumption Both walkers start at the same central lattice site floor(N/2) (Eq. 9).
    The central start is used in Lemma 1 to let the reflection operator R_PA fix the initial position.
  • domain assumption Hadamard coin is the default local coin, and the one-parameter family Eq. (36) covers the coins studied.
    The robustness claim is restricted to this family; the Pauli-X dip is a special point in this family.
  • standard math Logarithmic negativity and GGM are valid entanglement measures for the four-partite state; the formulas in Eqs. (16)-(18) are standard results.
    The paper relies on established definitions from refs. [41,44] without reproving them.
  • standard math The Pauli and shift algebra in Lemma 1: H sigma_y = -sigma_y H and the reflection commutation relation for the shift operator.
    These identities are used in the proof of Lemma 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Genuine Multipartite Entanglement in Two Walker Quantum Walks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C2DTVBAI

@misc{pith2026260813338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Genuine Multipartite Entanglement in Two Walker Quantum Walks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C2DTVBAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13338}
}
abstract

Discrete-time quantum walks provide a versatile framework for investigating the generation, redistribution, and transport of quantum correlations in composite quantum systems. Here, we study the dynamics of bipartite and genuine multipartite entanglement in a two-walker discrete-time quantum walk on a one-dimensional lattice. By employing logarithmic negativity and the generalized geometric measure (GGM), we systematically characterize the redistribution of bipartite entanglement among different subsystem partitions and the emergence of genuine multipartite entanglement involving the two coin and two position degrees of freedom. We show that the entanglement dynamics are strongly influenced by the lattice topology. The open-boundary regime exhibits a monotonic redistribution of quantum correlations, whereas the closed-boundary regime gives rise to pronounced oscillatory behavior due to boundary-induced interference and recurrent wave-packet overlap. In the open-boundary regime, the GGM rapidly approaches its theoretical maximum value of $1/2$ and remains largely insensitive to the choice of the initial Bell state as well as to continuous variations of the local coin operator over a broad parameter range, except near the Pauli-$X$ coin. These results demonstrate that maximal genuine multipartite entanglement generation is a robust and generic feature of open-boundary two-walker discrete-time quantum walks, establishing them as promising platforms for engineering multipartite quantum correlations in quantum information processing and quantum simulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13338 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. One-dimensional lattice with periodic boundary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entanglement (in ebit unit) in various bipartitions and GGM (dimensionless) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online.) Time evolution of bipartite entanglement (in ebit unit) in various bipartitions and GGM (dimensionless) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Time evolution of bipartite entanglement (in ebit unit) in various bipartitions and GGM (dimensionless) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (Color online) Time evolution of the generalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Final-time (at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (Color online) Final-time (at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Time evolution of the generalized geometric measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The walkers never reach the lattice boundaries within T steps, and the dynamics is effectively identical to that on an infinite one-dimensional lattice

    Open-boundary regime (N >2T) In this case, the lattice size exceeds the maximum spread of the walkers during the evolution. The walkers never reach the lattice boundaries within T steps, and the dynamics is effectively identical to that on an infinite one-dimensional lattice

    work page

  2. [2]

    + ” and “−

    Closed-boundary regime (N <2T) Here, the lattice size is smaller than the maximum spatial extent of the walk. The walkers can traverse the entire lattice and encounter the boundaries during the evolution. As a result, finite-size effects become important and multiple paths interfere after wrapping around the lattice. For this case, the symbols “ + ” and “...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Since the evolution is governed by the joint unitaryUAB, given in Eq

    Separable Coin-Coin State The entanglement dynamics of a two-walker quantum walk with an initially separable coin-coin state has been investigated to some extent in [ 49]. Since the evolution is governed by the joint unitaryUAB, given in Eq. (7), which is in product form for the A : B bipartition, it is trivial to prove that there will be no bipartite ent...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Maximally Entangled Coin-Coin State In this section, we are going to investigate the genera- tion of bipartite and multipartite entanglement and its dynamical behavior, when the initial coin state is chosen to be the Bell singlet state, i.e., |ψ3⟩CACB = 1√ 2 (|01⟩ − |10⟩)CACB . In contrast to the separable initial state, the pres- ence of initial coin-coi...

    work page

  5. [5]

    As discussed in the previous section, the non-trivial contributions are coming from the CACB : PAPB and Cx : Px, x∈ {A, B}bipartitions

    Separable Coin-Coin State In this subsection, we look into the entanglement dy- namics when the initial coin state is separable, i.e., of the form |ψ⟩CACB = |ϕ⟩CA ⊗ |χ⟩CB , in the closed-boundary regime. As discussed in the previous section, the non-trivial contributions are coming from the CACB : PAPB and Cx : Px, x∈ {A, B}bipartitions. The plot of time ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    In contrast to the separable initial coin-coin case, the evolution now exhibits nontrivial quantum correlations across all sectors of the system

    Maximally Entangled Coin-Coin State Now we have investigated the entanglement dy- namics when the initial coin state is |ψ3⟩CACB = 1√ 2 (|01⟩ − |10⟩)CACB , in the closed-boundary region. In contrast to the separable initial coin-coin case, the evolution now exhibits nontrivial quantum correlations across all sectors of the system. As shown in Fig. 10(a), ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    of the number of time steps for the Bell states |Φ+⟩, |Φ−⟩, |Ψ+⟩, and |Ψ−⟩

    The lattice size is fixed at N = 101 (N >2T ), corresponding to the open-boundary regime. of the number of time steps for the Bell states |Φ+⟩, |Φ−⟩, |Ψ+⟩, and |Ψ−⟩. We observe that all four Bell states exhibit identical GGM dynamics in the open-boundary regime. This demonstrates that the generation of genuine multipartite entanglement is insensitive to t...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Comparing Eq

    Separable initial coin state We first consider the initial state |Ψ(0)⟩AB =|01⟩ CACB ⊗ |22⟩PAPB .(B1) Successive applications of the evolution operator UAB =S AB h (H⊗H)⊗(I PA ⊗I PB ) i (B2) yield 17 |Ψ(1)⟩AB = 1 2 |0033⟩ − |0131⟩ +|1013⟩ − |1111⟩ CACB PAPB (B3) |Ψ(2)⟩AB = 1 2 |−+00⟩ − |−−02⟩ +|++20⟩ − |+−22⟩ CACB PAPB , (B4) |Ψ(3)⟩AB =|+−31⟩ CACB PAPB ,(...

    work page

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Comparing Eq

    Bell-singlet initial coin state We next consider the Bell-singlet initial state |Ψ(0)⟩AB =|ψ 3⟩CACB ⊗ |22⟩PAPB ,(B10) where |ψ3⟩CACB = 1√ 2 (|01⟩ − |10⟩)CACB .(B11) The evolution proceeds as |Ψ(1)⟩AB = 1√ 2 (−|0131⟩+|1013⟩) CACB PAPB ,(B12) |Ψ(2)⟩AB = 1 2 h |ϕ+⟩CACB (−|02⟩+|20...

  2. [10]

    In both cases, the coin degrees of freedom are exactly restored after four time steps, whereas the position degrees of freedom are translated by two lat- tice sites modulo four

    General periodicity The above calculations show that the four-step recur- rence is independent of whether the initial coin state is separable or entangled. In both cases, the coin degrees of freedom are exactly restored after four time steps, whereas the position degrees of fr...

  3. [11]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Ve- dral, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1655 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2881 (1992)

    1992

  6. [14]

    C. H. Bennett and D. P. DiVincenzo, Nature404, 247 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Aharonov, L

    Y. Aharonov, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury, Phys. Rev. A48, 1687 (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    Farhi and S

    E. Farhi and S. Gutmann, Physical Review A58, 915 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Kempe, Contemporary Physics44, 307 (2003)

    J. Kempe, Contemporary Physics44, 307 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, E. Deotto, E. Farhi, S. Gutmann, and D. A. Spielman, Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , 59 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Shenvi, J

    N. Shenvi, J. Kempe, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A 67, 052307 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Portugal,Quantum Walks and Search Algorithms, 2nd ed., Quantum Science and Technology (Springer, Cham, 2018)

    R. Portugal,Quantum Walks and Search Algorithms, 2nd ed., Quantum Science and Technology (Springer, Cham, 2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    A. M. Childs, Physical Review Letters102, 180501 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    N. B. Lovett, M. Everitt, M. Trevers, D. Mosby, D. Stock- ton, and V. Kendon, Natural Computing11, 23 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    N. B. Lovett, S. Cooper, M. Everitt, M. Trevers, and V. Kendon, Phys. Rev. A81, 042330 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Kurzy´ nski and A

    P. Kurzy´ nski and A. W´ ojcik, Phys. Rev. A83, 062315 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    ˇStefaˇ n´ ak and S

    M. ˇStefaˇ n´ ak and S. Skoup´ y, Quantum Information Pro- cessing16, 72 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Ikken, P

    N. Ikken, P. Kumar, A. Slaoui, B. Kar, R. A. Laamara, M. Almousa, and A. A. A. El-Latif, Scientific Reports15, 44798 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Mallick, S

    A. Mallick, S. Mandal, A. Karan, and C. M. Chan- drashekar, Journal of Physics Communications3, 015012 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Arnault, A

    P. Arnault, A. Macquet, A. Angl´ es-Castillo, I. M´ arquez- Mart ´ ın, V. Pina-Canelles, A. P´ erez, G. Di Molfetta, P. Ar- righi, and F. Debbasch, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical53, 205303 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Nayak and A

    A. Nayak and A. Vishwanath, Quantum walk on the line (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0010117 [quant-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, Quantum Information Processing 11, 1015 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Schmitz, R

    H. Schmitz, R. Matjeschk, C. Schneider, J. Glueckert, M. Enderlein, T. Huber, and T. Schaetz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 090504 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Karski, L

    M. Karski, L. F¨ orster, J.-M. Choi, A. Steffen, W. Alt, D. Meschede, and A. Widera, Science325, 174 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, B. P. Lanyon, I. Kassal, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 153602 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Peruzzo, M

    A. Peruzzo, M. Lobino, J. C. F. Matthews, N. Matsuda, A. Politi, K. Poulios, X.-Q. Zhou, Y. Lahini, N. Ismail, K. W¨ orhoff, Y. Bromberg, Y. Silberberg, M. G. Thomp- son, and J. L. OBrien, Science329, 1500 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    H. B. Perets, Y. Lahini, F. Pozzi, M. Sorel, R. Morandotti, and Y. Silberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 170506 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Flurin, V

    E. Flurin, V. V. Ramasesh, S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. S. Martin, N. Y. Yao, and I. Siddiqi, Phys. Rev. X7, 031023 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Zhou, J.-W

    K. Zhou, J.-W. Xu, Q.-P. Su, Y. Zhang, X.-M. Yu, Z. Ma, H.-Y. Zhang, H.-Y. Shi, W. Zheng, S. Pan, Y. Kang, Z. Huang, C.-P. Yang, S.-X. Li, and Y. Yu, Phys. Rev. 19 Lett.135, 250601 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    C. A. Ryan, M. Laforest, J. C. Boileau, and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A72, 062317 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    G. Abal, R. Siri, A. Romanelli, and R. Donangelo, Phys. Rev. A73, 042302 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Carneiro, M

    I. Carneiro, M. Loo, X. Xu, M. Girerd, V. Kendon, and P. L. Knight, New Journal of Physics7, 156 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    S. K. Goyal and C. M. Chandrashekar, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical43, 235303 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Zhang, R

    R. Zhang, R. Yang, J. Guo, C.-W. Sun, J.-C. Duan, H. Zhou, Z. Xie, P. Xu, Y.-X. Gong, and S.-N. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A105, 042216 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Y. Omar, N. Paunkovi´ c, L. Sheridan, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A74, 042304 (2006)

    2006

  39. [47]

    P. K. Pathak and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A75, 032351 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    J. P. J. Rodriguez, Z. J. Li, and J. B. Wang, Quantum Information Processing14, 119 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    G. R. Carson, T. Loke, and J. B. Wang, Quantum Infor- mation Processing14, 3193 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    A. C. Orthey and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A100, 042110 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    L. H. Yao and S. Wald, Phys. Rev. E108, 024139 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Bhavsar, S

    J. Bhavsar, S. Shekhar, and S. Santra, Phys. Rev. A110, 052428 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Sen(De) and U

    A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A81, 012308 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Ambainis, E

    A. Ambainis, E. Bach, A. Nayak, A. Vishwanath, and J. Watrous, inProceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’01 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2001) p. 37–49

    2001

  48. [56]

    Mittal and Y.-P

    V. Mittal and Y.-P. Huang, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013124 (2026)

    2026

  49. [57]

    Peres, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    A. Peres, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Physics Letters A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  51. [59]

    Singh, R

    S. Singh, R. Balu, R. Laflamme, and C. M. Chandrashekar, Journal of Physics Communications3, 055008 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Z.-H. Bian, J. Li, X. Zhan, J. Twamley, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. A95, 052338 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Going beyond bell’s theorem (2007), arXiv:0712.0921 [quant-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. M. Chandrashekar, R. Srikanth, and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A77, 032326 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    Kendon and B

    V. Kendon and B. Tregenna, Decoherence in discrete quantum walks, inDecoherence and Entropy in Complex Systems: Selected Lectures from DICE 2002, edited by H.- T. Elze (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

    2002

  57. [65]

    Kendon, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 17, 1169 (2007)

    V. Kendon, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 17, 1169 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    Alberti, W

    A. Alberti, W. Alt, R. Werner, and D. Meschede, New Journal of Physics16, 123052 (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    Ahlbrecht, A

    A. Ahlbrecht, A. Alberti, D. Meschede, V. B. Scholz, A. H. Werner, and R. F. Werner, New Journal of Physics14, 073050 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Mittal and T

    V. Mittal and T. Sowi´ nski, Phys. Rev. A113, 012435 (2026)

    2026

  61. [69]

    Schreiber, A

    A. Schreiber, A. G´ abris, P. P. Rohde, K. Laiho, M. ˇStefaˇ n´ ak, V. Potoˇ cek, C. Hamilton, I. Jex, and C. Sil- berhorn, Science336, 55 (2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    Zhou, X.-W

    W.-H. Zhou, X.-W. Wang, R.-J. Ren, Y.-X. Fu, Y.-J. Chang, X.-Y. Xu, H. Tang, and X.-M. Jin, Light: Science & Applications13, 296 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Kitagawa, M

    T. Kitagawa, M. S. Rudner, E. Berg, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. A82, 033429 (2010)

    2010

  64. [72]

    Kitagawa, M

    T. Kitagawa, M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, M. S. Rudner, E. Berg, I. Kassal, A. Aspuru-Guzik, E. Demler, and A. G. White, Nature Communications3, 882 (2012)

    2012

  65. [73]

    Obuse, J

    H. Obuse, J. K. Asb´ oth, Y. Nishimura, and N. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. B92, 045424 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    A. M. Childs, D. Gosset, and Z. Webb, Science339, 791 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.