Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 59 references

High-fidelity controlled-phase gates for distinguishable quantum walkers via extended interactions

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Distinguishable quantum walkers can implement any controlled-phase rotation at the plane-wave fidelity of bosons or fermions once interactions reach second neighbors, and the full circuit has lower error than the routing-gate architecture…

desk verdict Solid scattering physics and a genuinely new control knob for distinguishable-wave CP gates, but the architecture-level comparison leans on an untested lossless switchback. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09301 v1 pith:HV2MSW3W submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Gaia Forghieri , Matteo G. A. Paris This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881U05
keywords continuous-timequantumwalkcontrolled-phasegatedistinguishableparticlesmulti-neighborinteractionstransmissioncoefficientfidelityGaussianwavepacketsdual-railencoding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quantum-walk-based controlled-phase gates normally require identical bosons or fermions scattered on one shared path, and finite-size wavepackets plus routing gates spoil the fidelity. This paper argues that distinguishable walkers on separate parallel chains can do the same job once the interaction range reaches second-neighbor sites: the transmission amplitude becomes tunable to unit magnitude while the induced phase covers the full interval $[-\pi,\pi]$. For Gaussian wavepackets the fidelity loss factorizes into a magnitude part and a phase part, giving a quantitative optimization target; at the best worked point the interaction-induced loss is $3.79\times10^{-4}$. Because the distinguishable design avoids the four roundabout routing gates needed in the indistinguishable architecture, whose single-gate loss is $3.47\times10^{-3}$, the overall circuit error is competitive for practical implementation. The paper thereby turns multi-neighbor interaction engineering into a concrete resource for quantum-walk-based quantum information processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative-coordinate scattering Hamiltonian $H_r=\sum_r[2\cos(q/2)(|r\rangle\langle r+1|+\mathrm{h.c.})+w_r|r\rangle\langle r|]$, obtained from the two-particle tight-binding model after separating center-of-mass and relative motion. A distance-dependent potential of radius $C$ makes this a one-dimensional scattering problem whose transmission coefficient $T$ carries the gate: $|T|=1$ gives unit fidelity and $\arg T$ is the accumulated phase. The fidelity analysis then uses the derivatives of the logarithmic magnitude ($l_1,l_2$) and phase ($\theta_1,\theta_2$) of $T$ evaluated at the central relative momentum, yielding the factorized approximation $F\simeq|T(-q_r)|^2\exp[(l_1^2+2l_2)\sigma_k^2]\exp(-2\theta_2^2\sigma_k^4)$; the same derivative machinery, applied to the roundabout scattering amplitude $S_R$ of Ref. [34], gives the comparison loss quoted for the indistinguishable architecture.

What would settle it

Measure the fidelity of the path-exchange switchback alone, for Gaussian wavepackets with $\sigma=6$ and central momenta $\pm\pi/2$ on a dual-rail chip; if its loss is comparable to the $3.47\times10^{-3}$ per-roundabout loss, the distinguishable architecture's claimed end-to-end advantage is not real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For interaction radius $C=2$ and central momenta $q_1=-q_2=-\pi/2$, the paper derives the exact condition for unit transmission of two distinguishable walkers on parallel chains: $w_0 = \frac{2(w_1\nu-w_2)}{(w_1w_2/4-1)^2+w_1^2/4}$, where $\nu=w_2^2/4+1$, and shows the accumulated phase can be swept through $[-\pi,\pi]$ along this locus. The CNOT-relevant phase $\theta=-\pi/2$ is obtained with $w_0=-(2-w_2^2/2)$ and $w_1=4/(w_2-2)$. For finite Gaussian wavepackets the fidelity separates as $F\simeq|T(-q_r)|^2\exp[(l_1^2+2l_2)\sigma_k^2]\exp(-2\theta_2^2\sigma_k^4)$, where $l_i$ and $\theta_i$ are derivatives of the transmission magnitude and phase; this explains why the distinguishable case, with both magnitude and phase terms, loses more than the indistinguishable case, whose loss is purely phase-curvature. The numerical loss at $w_2\simeq0.6$ is $1-F\simeq3.79\times10^{-4}$, whereas a single roundabout routing gate loses $3.47\times10^{-3}$ and the four-roundabout indistinguishable circuit loses about $2.74\times10^{-2}$ in the product approximation, making the distinguishable architecture the better end-to-end choice.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the path-exchange "switchback" that returns the two distinguishable walkers to their original rails costs essentially no fidelity, while the indistinguishable architecture is charged for four single-particle routing gates (the "roundabouts"); if the switchback loses as much as one roundabout, the advertised end-to-end advantage disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any controlled-phase rotation $\exp(i\theta)$ can be engineered from distinguishable walkers by tuning the three C=2 interaction strengths, so a universal gate set does not require particle indistinguishability.
  • For Gaussian wavepackets, fidelity loss is controlled by the derivatives of the transmission coefficient; magnitude terms cost $\sigma_k^2$ while phase-curvature terms cost $\sigma_k^4$, so choosing interaction parameters that flatten $|T|$ and $\theta''$ near the central momentum is a concrete optimization strategy.
  • At the optimized point $w_2\simeq0.6$ the distinguishability-induced loss is $3.79\times10^{-4}$, order of magnitude smaller than the $3.47\times10^{-3}$ per roundabout gate, so the distinguishable architecture has lower error for the full CP circuit.
  • The same derivative-expansion formalism extends to longer-range couplings, where extra tuning parameters should reduce the loss further, and to multi-qubit circuits built from the CP module.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the switchback operation has a fidelity cost comparable to the roundabout gates, the numerical comparison inverts; a direct measurement of the switchback loss would settle the architecture question without altering the scattering formulas.
  • The fidelity factorization in Eq. (30) is generic for scattering-based two-qubit gates, so the derivative-expansion method could be reused for other dual-rail operations such as swaps and routing, not just CP gates.
  • Because the paper scans only the $\theta=-\pi/2$ locus in the $(w_0,w_1,w_2)$ space, a broader numerical search may find parameters with even lower finite-wavepacket loss than $3.79\times10^{-4}$.
  • Platforms with tunable distance-dependent interactions (coupled waveguides, trapped-ion arrays, Rydberg lattices) could test Eq. (61) directly by comparing the transmitted intensity and phase on two parallel chains; a mismatch at $\sigma\simeq6$ would indicate corrections beyond the narrow-momentum approximation.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies controlled-phase (CP) gates in a dual-rail continuous-time quantum walk architecture. It shows that distinguishable particles interacting through extended-range potentials (up to second neighbors, C=2) can achieve unit-fidelity plane-wave scattering and arbitrary induced phases by tuning the interaction strengths w0, w1, w2 along a derived locus (Eq. 61, Eqs. 63–64). For Gaussian wavepackets, the authors derive an approximate fidelity formula separating magnitude and phase contributions (Eq. 30), and numerically optimize the second-neighbor interaction to reduce the fidelity loss (1−F ≈ 3.79e-4 at w2≈0.6). They then compare the distinguishable-particle architecture, which avoids routing particles onto a common path, with the roundabout-assisted indistinguishable-particle architecture of Ref. [34], charging the latter four roundabout-gate losses and concluding that the distinguishable approach is competitive. The plane-wave scattering results and the fidelity-decomposition analysis are presented with closed-form expressions and numerical simulations.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper establishes a useful new control mechanism for quantum-walk-based gates: multi-neighbor interactions enable unit-fidelity CP gates with distinguishable particles, something not possible with on-site interactions. The explicit plane-wave solutions for C≤2, the unit-fidelity loci, and the analytical fidelity formula (magnitude vs. phase contributions) are concrete, falsifiable results. The numerical simulations are provided for finite wavepackets, and the paper ships machine-checkable formulas for the scattering amplitudes. The main weakness is that the architecture-level comparison rests on an asymmetric fidelity budget: the switchback operation required in the distinguishable architecture is not analyzed or costed.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IIIB1, Eq. (36), Table I] The quoted total fidelity loss for the roundabout-assisted CP gate is internally inconsistent. The text after Eq. (36) gives 1−F_tot,th ≃ 2.74e-2, which corresponds to 4 × 6.92e-3 (the theoretical per-gate loss in Table I). The numerical per-gate loss reported in Table I is instead 3.47e-3, which would give a total numerical loss of about 1.39e-2. The abstract and conclusions describe the roundabout losses as 'one order of magnitude' and 'nearly two orders of magnitude' larger than the interaction losses without specifying whether per-gate or total, or theoretical or numerical values, are being used. Please harmonize these numbers and state explicitly which quantity supports each comparative claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical slips: 'exhanging' (Sec. IIA), 'writte' (Appendix VA2), 'sontrarily' (Sec. IIIB1), 'explicitely' (Introduction), 'untiy' (Appendix VA2), 'the fidelity or Gaussian wavepackets' (Sec. IIIB), 'logarithmiq-magnitude' (Table I caption), and 'which which' (Sec. IIC). A careful proofreading pass is recommended.
  2. [Eq. (30) and Fig. 6] The analytical fidelity approximation has an absolute error of about 2e-4 at σ=6, which is comparable to the predicted fidelity loss of 3.79e-4 (see Table I). The paper acknowledges this in the appendix text, but the main text should explicitly state that Eq. (30) is indicative rather than quantitative at the simulated width, and that the quantitative conclusions rely on the numerical values.
  3. [Conclusions] The concluding statement that roundabout gates introduce losses 'nearly two orders of magnitude larger' than the two-particle scattering losses is overstated: using the numerical per-gate values in Table I, the factor is about 9.2 (one order of magnitude). Please adjust the wording to match the stated numbers.
  4. [Reference list] Reference [4] contains an unusual DOI '10.1103/svrb-b72k' that appears to be a placeholder; please verify the citation metadata.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained and the only imported scattering amplitude is external and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The plane-wave unit-fidelity condition for distinguishable particles is obtained by taking the exact C=2 transmission coefficient from Eq. (46), enforcing |T|^2=1 in Eq. (58), and solving algebraically to obtain Eq. (61); the CNOT-phase conditions in Eqs. (63)-(64) are additional algebraic constraints on the same scattering solution. This is a design condition derived from the model, not a fitted parameter later relabeled as a prediction. Likewise, the Gaussian-wavepacket fidelity formula in Eq. (30) is derived by Taylor-expanding the magnitude and phase of T_q(k_r) with Eqs. (66)-(67), performing the Gaussian integral in Eq. (68), and then checking the result against independent numerical time evolution in Fig. 6. The approximation is validated against simulation rather than assumed. The only imported scattering object is the roundabout amplitude S_R(k) from Ref. [34], quoted in Eq. (84) and used as an input to Eq. (89) for the roundabout fidelity loss reported in Table I. That amplitude comes from external prior work, is explicitly attributed, and is not the target result of this paper, so its use is not a self-citation chain and does not constitute circularity. The self-citations that appear, such as Refs. [5] and [27], occur in background statements about transport and entanglement and are not load-bearing for the CP-gate derivation. The strongest caveat is architectural rather than circular: Sec. IIA explicitly states that after the distinguishable-particle interaction the two walkers 'need to be switched back by exhanging the paths with each other,' but the paper never assigns a fidelity cost to that switchback operation. That omission makes the architecture comparison in Sec. IIIB1 incomplete, and the competitive margin would shrink if the switchback costs as much as a roundabout gate. This is a missing term in the error budget, not a circular reduction: the predicted distinguishable-gate fidelity in Eq. (30) does not assume the conclusion that the distinguishable architecture is competitive, and no equation is defined in terms of the result it purports to derive. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central derivation is self-contained except for the roundabout amplitude imported from Ref [34]. The main unaccounted assumption is that the path exchange required in the distinguishable architecture has negligible fidelity cost; this assumption is load-bearing for the comparison but is not analyzed.

free parameters (3)
  • Interaction strengths w0, w1, w2 = Along unit-fidelity loci, e.g. for θ=-π/2: w0 = -(2 - w2^2/2), w1 = 4/(w2 - 2) or 4/(w2 + 2); see Eqs. (63)-(64)
    These are engineered control parameters, not fitted to external data; they set the gate phase and unit fidelity.
  • Relative wavepacket width σ and final time t = σ=6, t=20, chain N=101
    Numerical simulation parameters chosen for small circuit size and validity of the narrow-momentum approximation; not fitted to a target result.
  • Central momenta q1 = -q2 = -π/2 = ±π/2
    Chosen so the single-particle band curvature vanishes, minimizing dispersion; a design choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Tight-binding single-particle Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor hopping and J=1
    Standard continuous-time quantum walk model; Sec IIB, Eq (3).
  • domain assumption Two-particle interaction diagonal in position basis, distance-dependent with finite range C
    Defines the interaction model; Sec IIB, Eqs (5)-(6).
  • standard math Plane-wave scattering ansatz and unitarity of S=T+R
    Used to solve the scattering problem; Sec IIB, Eq (9), Appendix VA.
  • standard math Gaussian wavepackets with narrow momentum distribution and Taylor expansion of T's magnitude and phase
    Basis for the analytical fidelity approximation; Sec IIC, Appendix VB.
  • domain assumption Roundabout gate scattering amplitude S_R(k) from Ref [34]
    Borrowed external result used to compute the indistinguishable-architecture fidelity; the comparison depends on this specific gate.
  • ad hoc to paper The path exchange ('switchback') after the distinguishable interaction has negligible fidelity cost
    Described in Sec IIA but never analyzed; the headline comparison assumes this cost is zero.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-fidelity controlled-phase gates for distinguishable quantum walkers via extended interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HV2MSW3W

@misc{pith2026260809301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-fidelity controlled-phase gates for distinguishable quantum walkers via extended interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HV2MSW3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09301}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the implementation of controlled-phase (CP) gates with quantum walks in a dual-rail encoding through the use of interacting particles. While previous proposals have focused on indistinguishable particles (bosons or fermions) to achieve unitary fidelity for plane-wave scattering, practical implementations require finite-size wavepackets and routing through single-particle gates, both factors that introduce unavoidable fidelity losses. We show that extending the interaction range beyond on-site or first-neighbor terms provides sufficient control over the scattering potential to engineer CP gates with distinguishable particles that match the ideal bosonic/fermionic performance. For finite Gaussian wavepackets, we derive analytical approximations for the gate fidelity in terms of the transmission coefficient's magnitude and phase derivatives. We find that while distinguishable-particle scattering alone exhibits slightly lower fidelity than the indistinguishable case, the overall architecture that we propose avoids the additional single-particle gates required for routing indistinguishable particles. The roundabout gates needed for the latter indeed introduce fidelity losses approximately one order of magnitude larger than the interaction-induced losses, making the distinguishable-particle approach competitive for practical implementations. Our results establish multi-neighbor interactions as a tool for quantum information processing with continuous-time quantum walks and provide quantitative guidelines for optimizing gate fidelities in finite-size systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Dual-rail implementations of a CP gate based on interacting quantum walkers, as described in the main text. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ideal CP gate performance for plane-wave scat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ideal CP gate performance for plane-wave scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Finite-wavepacket effects on the CP gate fidelity for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantities governing the Gaussian-wavepacket fi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fidelity of the distinguishable-particle CP gate as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Transmission probability of the distinguishable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Cavazzoni, L

    S. Cavazzoni, L. Razzoli, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Perturbed graphs achieve unit transport efficiency with- out environmental noise, Physical Review E106, 024118 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    walkers evolving on differ- ent parallel chains, for which the Hamiltonian in Eq

    Indistinguishable particles Up to now we have described the situation for dis- tinguishable particles, i.e. walkers evolving on differ- ent parallel chains, for which the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) acts on the two-particle Hilbert space. To pass to bosonic/fermionic walkers evolving on the same chain, one must impose symmetry/antisymmetry relations un- derthe...

    work page

  3. [2]

    4 that the fidelity loss is lower of almost an order of magnitude with respect to the minimum one from the distinguishable case

    Thus, we get an approximated fidelity of: F± ≃exp(−2θ 2 2σ4 k) =F phase(θ2).(33) Because the fidelity in this case has no magnitude contribution, and instead depends onσ 4 k at its higher order, we see in Fig. 4 that the fidelity loss is lower of almost an order of magnitude with respect to the minimum one from the distinguishable case. The phase discrepa...

    work page

  4. [3]

    However, sontrarily to the distinguishable case, the setup in Fig

    Fidelity of the roundabout-assisted CP gate The results reported above would lead one to believe that the distinguishable case is inevitably inferior to the bosonic or fermionic implementation of the CP gate. However, sontrarily to the distinguishable case, the setup in Fig. 1(a) for indistinguishable particles also requires two single-qubit gates acting ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Both the numerical and theoretical values of this fidelity are reported in Table I for|qi|=π/2and compared to the fidelities from Fig. 4(a). As one can see, the fidelity loss of the round- about gate in the presence of a Gaussian wavepacket is higher of approximately an order of magnitude with respect to the one for the scattering of distinguishable parti...

    work page

  6. [5]

    IIB1, the case of indistinguish- able particles can be straightforwardly derived from the results of the distinguishable case, by using the expres- sions ofRandTwritten above

    Indistinguishable particles As mentioned in Sec. IIB1, the case of indistinguish- able particles can be straightforwardly derived from the results of the distinguishable case, by using the expres- sions ofRandTwritten above. Thus, forC= 0(only bosons): S+ =− η∗ 0 +ξ ∗ 1 η0 +ξ 1 ;(48) forC= 1: S+ =−ξ ∗ 2 (ε0η∗ 1 −2) ε0η1 −2 , S − =ξ ∗ 2 η∗ 1 η1 ;(49) and f...

    work page

  7. [6]

    IIIA, the ideal fidelity of the CP gate for distinguishable plane waves is equal to the square modulus of the transmission coefficientT

    Unitary fidelity for distinguishable particles As mentioned in Sec. IIIA, the ideal fidelity of the CP gate for distinguishable plane waves is equal to the square modulus of the transmission coefficientT. Therefore, in order to achieve unitary fidelity with the distinguishable- particle architecture, one must tune the values of the in- teraction terms as ...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Indeed, defining the transmission prob- FIG

    Transmission probability for distinguishable particles While in the indistinguishable case total transmission always occurs after scattering, in the distinguishable case the presence of a finiteσk may modify the total transmis- sion coefficient. Indeed, defining the transmission prob- FIG. 6. Fidelity of the distinguishable-particle CP gate as a function ...

    work page

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    1(a), since they are a fundamental element of the architecture from Ref

    Fidelity of the roundabout gate Despite single-qubit gates not being the focus of this work, we report the same results for fidelity loss for the roundabout gates shown in Fig. 1(a), since they are a fundamental element of the architecture from Ref. [34] for indistinguishable ...

  2. [9]

    Consequently, both phase and magnitude variations contribute to the fidelity loss

    Notice that, unlike the two-particle scattering phase considered in the main text for indistinguishable particles, the roundabout gate pos- sesses a non-trivial momentum-dependent transmission amplitude. Consequently, both phase and magnitude variations contribute to the fidelity loss

  3. [10]

    1(a), one should evaluate the fidelity of the entire process from the total scattering amplitude associated with the logical|11⟩branch of the circuit, as shown in Eq

    Combined fidelity for the roundabout-assisted CP gate In order to evaluate the complete fidelity of the setup illustrated in Fig. 1(a), one should evaluate the fidelity of the entire process from the total scattering amplitude associated with the logical|11⟩branch of the circu...

  4. [11]

    Mülken and A

    O. Mülken and A. Blumen, Continuous-time quantum walks: Models for coherent transport on complex net- works, Physics Reports502, 37 (2011)

    2011

  5. [12]

    Annoni, M

    E. Annoni, M. Frigerio, and M. G. A. Paris, Enhanced quantum transport in chiral quantum walks, Quantum Information Processing23, 117 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Razzoli, M

    L. Razzoli, M. G. A. Paris, and P. Bordone, Transport efficiency of continuous-time quantum walks on graphs, Entropy23, 10.3390/e23010085 (2021)

    2021 doi

  7. [14]

    Finocchiaro, G

    S. Finocchiaro, G. O. Luilli, G. Benenti, M. G. A. Paris, and L. Razzoli, Optimal quantum transport on a ring via locally monitored chiral quantum walks, Physical Review E112, 10.1103/svrb-b72k (2025)

    2025 doi

  8. [15]

    Forghieri and M

    G. Forghieri and M. G. A. Paris, Engineering entangle- ment and transport in interacting quantum walks with tailored potentials (2026), arXiv:2606.17825 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  9. [16]

    L. Wang, L. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Quantum walks of two interacting anyons in one-dimensional optical lat- tices, Phys. Rev. A90, 063618 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    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, Science347, 1229 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    Tziperman, D

    O. Tziperman, D. Nabben, R. Ruimy, J. Holder, E. Nussinson, Y. Fang, A. Gorlach, D. Kazenwadel, A. Karnieli, I. Kaminer, and P. Baum, Two-electron quantum walks for probing entanglement and decoher- ence in an electron microscope, Nature Physics22, 763 (2026)

    2026

  12. [19]

    Benedetti, F

    C. Benedetti, F. Buscemi, and P. Bordone, Quantum cor- relations in continuous-time quantum walks of two indis- tinguishable particles, Phys. Rev. A85, 042314 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    Lahini, G

    Y. Lahini, G. R. Steinbrecher, A. D. Bookatz, and D. En- glund, Quantum logic using correlated one-dimensional quantum walks, npj Quantum Information4, 2 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    R. J. Chapman, S. Häusler, G. Finco, F. Kaufmann, and R. Grange, Quantum logical controlled-not gate in a lithium niobate-on-insulator photonic quantum walk, Quantum Science and Technology9, 015016 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    S. A. H. Gangaraj and D. T. Nguyen, Quantum pho- tonic gates with two-dimensional random walkers, Opt. Express33, 11264 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Herrman and T

    R. Herrman and T. S. Humble, Continuous-time quan- tum walks on dynamic graphs, Phys. Rev. A100, 012306 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    Ambainis, Quantum walks and their al- gorithmic applications, International Jour- nal of Quantum Information01, 507 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749903000383

    A. Ambainis, Quantum walks and their al- gorithmic applications, International Jour- nal of Quantum Information01, 507 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219749903000383

    2003 doi

  18. [25]

    Yan, Y.-R

    Z. Yan, Y.-R. Zhang, M. Gong, Y. Wu, Y. Zheng, S. Li, C. Wang, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y. Xu, C. Guo, L. Sun, C.- Z. Peng, K. Xia, H. Deng, H. Rong, J. Q. You, F. Nori, H.Fan, X.Zhu,andJ.-W.Pan,Stronglycorrelatedquan- tum walks with a 12-qubit superconducting processor, Science364, ...

    2019

  19. [26]

    Qiang, Y

    X. Qiang, Y. Wang, S. Xue, R. Ge, L. Chen, Y. Liu, A. Huang, X. Fu, P. Xu, T. Yi, F. Xu, M. Deng, J. B. Wang, J. D. A. Meinecke, J. C. F. Matthews, X. Cai, X. Yang, and J. Wu, Implementing graph-theoretic quan- tum algorithms on a silicon photonic quantum walk pro- cessor, Sci...

    2021

  20. [27]

    S. E. Venegas-Andraca, Quantum walks: a comprehen- sive review, Quantum Information Processing11, 1015 (2012)

    2012

  21. [28]

    Gräfe, R

    M. Gräfe, R. Heilmann, M. Lebugle, D. Guzman-Silva, A. Perez-Leija, and A. Szameit, Integrated photonic quantum walks, Journal of Optics18, 103002 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    Kadian, S

    K. Kadian, S. Garhwal, and A. Kumar, Quantum walk and its application domains: A systematic review, Com- puter Science Review41, 100419 (2021). 16

    2021

  23. [30]

    Candeloro, C

    A. Candeloro, C. Benedetti, M. G. Genoni, and M. G. Paris, Feedback-assisted quantum search by continuous- time quantum walks, Advanced Quantum Technologies 6, 2200093 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    Apers, S

    S. Apers, S. Chakraborty, L. Novo, and J. Roland, Quadratic speedup for spatial search by continuous-time quantum walk, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 160502 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Lugão, R

    P. Lugão, R. Portugal, M. Sabri, and H. Tanaka, Mul- timarked spatial search by continuous-time quantum walk, ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing5, 10.1145/3706064 (2024)

    2024 doi

  26. [33]

    Bottarelli, M

    A. Bottarelli, M. Frigerio, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum routing of information using chiral quantum walks, AVS Quantum Science5, 025001 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Ragazzi, S

    G. Ragazzi, S. Cavazzoni, C. Benedetti, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Scalable structure for chiral quantum routing, Entropy27, 10.3390/e27050498 (2025)

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Magano, J

    D. Magano, J. Moutinho, and B. Coutinho, On the quan- tum simulation of complex networks, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 058 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Forghieri, V

    G. Forghieri, V. Dubovitskii, M. A. C. Rossi, and M. G. A. Paris, Link prediction with swarms of chi- ral quantum walks, Advanced Quantum Technologies9, e70320 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Faccin, P

    M. Faccin, P. Migdał, T. H. Johnson, V. Bergholm, and J. D. Biamonte, Community detection in quantum com- plex networks, Phys. Rev. X4, 041012 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    M. S. Underwood and D. L. Feder, Bose-hubbard model for universal quantum-walk-based computation, Phys. Rev. A85, 052314 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Qiang, S

    X. Qiang, S. Ma, and H. Song, Quantum walk comput- ing: Theory, implementation, and application, Intelligent Computing3, 0097 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Gonzales, R

    A. Gonzales, R. Herrman, C. Campbell, I. Gaidai, J. Liu, T. Tomesh, and Z. H. Saleem, Efficient sparse state preparation via quantum walks, npj Quantum Informa- tion11, 143 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    A. M. Childs, Universal computation by quantum walk, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 180501 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    A. M. Childs, D. Gosset, and Z. Webb, Universal compu- tation by multiparticle quantum walk, Science339, 791 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Asaka, K

    R. Asaka, K. Sakai, and R. Yahagi, Two-level quantum walkers on directed graphs. i. universal quantum com- puting, Phys. Rev. A107, 022415 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    H.-Y. Guan, Y. Li, and X.-H. Deng, Photon-number con- served universal quantum logic employing continuous- time quantum walk on dual-rail qubit arrays, npj Quan- tum Information12, 17 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    M. J. Bremner, C. M. Dawson, J. L. Dodd, A. Gilchrist, A. W. Harrow, D. Mortimer, M. A. Nielsen, and T. J. Os- borne, Practical scheme for quantum computation with any two-qubit entangling gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 247902 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Wang and K

    J. Wang and K. Manouchehri, Physical implementation of quantum walks, Vol. 10 (Springer, 2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    A. Rai, G. S. Agarwal, and J. H. H. Perk, Transport and quantum walk of nonclassical light in coupled waveg- uides, Phys. Rev. A78, 042304 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    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, Multi-particle quantum walks on 3d integrated photonic chip, Light: Science & Applications13, 296 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    M. Gao, C. Sheng, Y. Zhao, R. He, L. Lu, W. Chen, K.Ding, S.Zhu,andH.Liu,Quantumwalksofcorrelated photons in non-hermitian photonic lattices, Phys. Rev. B 110, 094308 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Raymond, P

    A. Raymond, P. Cathala, M. Morassi, A. Lemaître, F. Raineri, S. Ducci, and F. Baboux, Tailoring quantum walks in integrated photonic lattices, Opt. Express33, 45869 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Zähringer, G

    F. Zähringer, G. Kirchmair, R. Gerritsma, E. Solano, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Realization of a quantum walk with one and two trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 100503 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Tamura, T

    M. Tamura, T. Mukaiyama, and K. Toyoda, Quantum walks of a phonon in trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 200501 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Huerta Alderete, S

    C. Huerta Alderete, S. Singh, N. H. Nguyen, D. Zhu, R. Balu, C. Monroe, C. M. Chandrashekar, and N. M. Linke, Quantum walks and dirac cellular automata on a programmable trapped-ion quantum computer, Nature Communications11, 3720 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    R. Côté, A. Russell, E. E. Eyler, and P. L. Gould, Quan- tum random walk with rydberg atoms in an optical lat- tice, New Journal of Physics8, 156 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    Khazali, Discrete-time quantum-walk & floquet topological insulators via distance-selective rydberg- interaction, Quantum6, 664 (2022)

    M. Khazali, Discrete-time quantum-walk & floquet topological insulators via distance-selective rydberg- interaction, Quantum6, 664 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    T. Chen, C. Huang, B. Gadway, and J. P. Covey, Quan- tum walks and correlated dynamics in an interacting synthetic rydberg lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 120604 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    N. E. Palaiodimopoulos, S. Ohler, M. Fleischhauer, and D. Petrosyan, Chiral quantum router with rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A109, 032622 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.