Spectral surgery and high-fidelity quantum state transfer in $XX$ chains

Alexei Zhedanov; Luc Vinet

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 26 references

Spectral surgery and high-fidelity quantum state transfer in $XX$ chains

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 By surgically removing the most nonlinear edge levels from a uniform XX spin chain's spectrum, the paper constructs an analytically defined chain that transports a qubit end-to-end with high fidelity while keeping the ratio of largest to…

desk verdict A genuinely new analytic spin-chain family with a useful coupling cap, but the printed weight normalization and RS formula don't reproduce the reported fidelities or ratios. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02321 v2 pith:SVL2UXXQ submitted 2024-12-03 quant-ph

Luc Vinet , Alexei Zhedanov This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81P6833C4542C0581P45 PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.-a

keywords spectralsurgeryXXspinchainquantumstatetransferhighfidelityKrawtchoukDarbouxtransformationq-ultrasphericalpolynomialscouplingstrengthratio

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 an inhomogeneous XX spin chain can be designed analytically, by excising the most nonlinear edge levels of a uniform chain's spectrum (a procedure called spectral surgery), so that a qubit placed at one end is transported to the other end with 'good enough' fidelity while the ratio of the largest to smallest coupling strengths stays capped. This chain interpolates between the homogeneous XX chain and the Krawtchouk chain that offers perfect state transfer but with quadratically growing coupling ratios. The paper gives closed-form formulas for the couplings, the spectrum, and the fidelity weights, and presents numerical estimates of the transfer infidelity δ for specific N and M. If the construction works as described, it removes a practical obstacle to implementing long spin chains as quantum wires, because the unrealistic end couplings of the Krawtchouk chain are no longer needed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spectral surgery transformation: from a uniform XX chain with M+1 sites, one iteratively deletes the two outermost eigenvalues of the spectrum by applying Darboux (Christoffel) transformations to the Jacobi matrix, leaving a chain with N = M−2j sites. The couplings of the surgered chain take the explicit form $J_l^{2}$ = $K^{2}$ sin(ωl) sin(ω(N+1−l)) / [cos(ω(l−N/2)) cos(ω(l−N/2−1))] with ω = π/(M+2), which interpolates between the uniform chain (M=N) and the Krawtchouk chain (M→∞). The underlying polynomials are the q-ultraspherical polynomials for q = exp(2πi/(M+2)), the q-analogues of ultraspherical polynomials, and the associated discrete weights w_s (3.8) feed the amplitude formula A(t) = Σ_s w_s (−1)^{N+s} exp(−ix_s t), which is how the fidelity δ is evaluated.

What would settle it

Compute the time evolution of the surgered chain with N=100, M=120 directly from the Hamiltonian using the explicit couplings (3.7) and check whether |A(0.51)| equals 0.95; if it does not match the reported δ ≈ 0.05, the analytic formulas or the stated transfer time are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that applying spectral surgery to the uniform XX chain — deleting the lowest and highest j eigenvalue pairs via iterated Darboux/Christoffel transformations — produces a chain whose remaining spectrum is the quasi-linear middle part of the uniform spectrum, so the perfect-state-transfer conditions hold only approximately. For the surgically modified chain with N sites obtained from a uniform chain of M = N + 2j sites, the paper derives coupling constants $J_l^{2}$ = $K^{2}$ sin(ωl) sin(ω(N+1−l)) / [cos(ω(l−N/2)) cos(ω(l−N/2−1))], with ω = π/(M+2), and the associated transmission weights (3.8). Substituting these weights into the amplitude formula A(t) = Σ_s w_s (−1)^{N+s} exp(−ix_s t), the authors report δ ≈ 0.05 for N = 100, M = 120 at transfer time T = 1/2 + 0.01, with a coupling ratio R_S ≈ 5 versus R_K = 25 for the Krawtchouk chain, and δ ≈ 0.05 for N = 1000, M = 1100 with R_S = 25 versus R_K = 250. The paper's conclusion is that these surgered chains are practical analytic candidates for high-fidelity state transfer in long chains, including uses as quantum registers or for circuit routing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Darboux/q-ultraspherical formulas of [15,16] correctly describe the surgically modified chain and that the reported transfer times T = 1/2 + ε with the tabulated ε values truly minimize δ, but the paper cites these formulas rather than proving them and does not describe the procedure used to find ε.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a fixed chain length N, increasing M moves the surgered chain from the uniform limit toward the Krawtchouk limit, monotonically lowering the fidelity deficit while reducing the coupling ratio below the Krawtchouk value.
The coupling constants, spectrum, and fidelity weights are given by closed-form trigonometric expressions, so any desired (N,M) pair yields an explicit chain without numerical optimization of the couplings.
At N = 1000 with M = 1100, the paper's formulas give fidelity deficit δ ≈ 0.05 and coupling ratio 25, ten times smaller than the Krawtchouk chain's ratio 250, suggesting long chains are practical.
Because the surgered chain remains persymmetric, the amplitude formula A(t) = Σ_s w_s (−1)^{N+s} e^{−ix_s t} holds, allowing direct analytic fidelity estimates for all times.
These chains can serve as quantum wires in circuit routing, replacing sequences of swap gates in constrained hardware architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not attempt to bound δ analytically as a function of M/N; a natural next step is to derive such a bound, which would replace the empirically tabulated scaling.
The same spectral-surgery recipe could in principle be applied to other integrable chains with non-uniform spectra, not only the uniform chain; the paper does not explore this generalization.
The reported ε values (0.01 or 0.005) are close to zero, so the transfer time stays near the Krawtchouk time T=1/2; whether ε can be chosen independent of N at fixed M/N is left open by the paper.
The 'good enough' threshold δ ≤ 0.05 is adopted without an error-correction or application-specific argument; a concrete application would determine whether this threshold is actually sufficient.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The short version: this is a useful analytic construction, but the printed formulas don't reproduce the reported numbers. The core idea — a family of spin chains that interpolates between the Krawtchouk chain and the uniform chain via spectral surgery — is genuinely new and worth knowing about. The explicit expression for the coupling profile and weights is elegant, and the coupling-ratio tradeoff is exactly the right thing to check for practical implementations.

The problems start with the weight normalization. Equation (3.8) with κ from (3.9) does not satisfy the stated condition (3.10). For M=4, j=1 (N=2), the formulas give weights (1/2, 1, 1/2) summing to 2; the actual weights from the 3-site Jacobi matrix are (1/4, 1/2, 1/4). Since the amplitude in (4.1) is linear in the weights, every δ(T) in Section 4 changes if the printed formulas are used literally. The authors must have silently used a corrected normalization; the manuscript doesn't say so. This is a reproducibility issue, not a mathematical one.

Relatedly, Eq. (3.14) for the coupling ratio RS gives about 1.7 for N=100, M=120, not the stated 5. For N=1000, M=1100 it gives about 3.7, not 25. Either the formula is a typo or the reported ratios come from a different definition. Either way, the displayed formula doesn't match the text.

The fidelity analysis is thin: three points for N=100 plus two for larger N, with no stated procedure for finding ε in T=1/2+ε, and the large-N examples omit ε entirely. The scaling claim would be more convincing with a reproducible algorithm and a few more points. None of this is fatal — the construction is analytically grounded and the fidelity numbers, if normalized correctly, are plausible — but the paper as submitted cannot be checked.

Who's this for? People working on quantum wires, photonic lattices, or anyone using spin chains for state transfer who cares about bounded couplings. The idea is solid enough to deserve referee time. I'd recommend sending it out, but insisting on corrected formulas, a described optimization routine, and consistent RS values before publication.

My take: the central construction holds up; the presentation needs fixing. That's a major-revision situation, not a reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies inhomogeneous XX spin chains obtained by spectral surgery on the uniform chain. It proposes an analytically defined interpolating family between the uniform chain and the Krawtchouk chain, with explicit expressions for the couplings and for the discrete orthogonality weights. The authors report numerical estimates of the state-transfer infidelity δ(T) for several chain sizes and claim that high-fidelity transfer can be achieved while keeping the ratio of maximal to minimal couplings much smaller than for the Krawtchouk chain. The central idea is attractive, but the printed formulas contain normalization and ratio errors, and the numerical procedure for selecting the transfer time is not fully documented.

Significance. If the formulas are corrected, the proposed construction would be a useful contribution to spin-chain quantum state transfer: it gives a fully analytic family of chains whose coupling profile interpolates between the uniform and Krawtchouk limits, and it addresses the practical problem of excessively large coupling ratios in long chains. The fidelity estimates are obtained from explicit spectral formulas rather than by fitting the couplings, which is a strength. However, the current numerical support is not reproducible as printed because of the normalization error in Eqs. (3.8)–(3.9) and the apparent typo in Eq. (3.14). The practical claims about long chains should therefore be regarded as plausible but not yet verified.

major comments (3)

[§3, Eqs. (3.8)–(3.9)] The weights are not normalized as claimed in Eq. (3.10). In the uniform limit j=0, the product in (3.8) reduces to sin^2(ω(s+1)), while κ from (3.9) equals (M+2)/4; hence w_s = 4 sin^2(ω(s+1))/(M+2), which is twice the value stated in Eq. (3.12) and sums to 2. Since the amplitude A(t) in Eq. (4.1) is linear in the w_s, every δ(T) value reported in Section 4 changes if the printed formulas are used literally. The normalization constant must be corrected and the numerical estimates recomputed, or the actual normalization used in the numerics must be disclosed.
[§3, Eq. (3.14)] The displayed ratio RS is inconsistent with the text and with Eq. (3.7). For N=100, M=120, ω=π/122, Eq. (3.14) evaluates to about 1.8, while the text reports RS≈5. A direct evaluation of Eq. (3.7) gives J^2_50/J^2_1≈5.6. The formula in (3.14) appears to have incorrect powers of the cosine factors; please correct it and verify the subsequent claims.
[§4, Eq. (4.5) and following] The procedure for choosing ε in T=1/2+ε is not described. The text states numerical values ε=10^{-2}, 10^{-2}, 0.005 without specifying the search method, the range, or the stopping criterion. For the N=500 and N=1000 cases, ε is omitted entirely. Because the scaling claim in the final paragraph rests on these numbers, the authors should provide a reproducible rule (for example, minimize δ(T) over ε numerically and state the grid) and list ε for every reported case.

minor comments (3)

[§3, Eq. (3.9)] The denominator of the normalization constant is ambiguous as printed: 'sin(ω(2k+1)) / 2 sin(ω(k+1))' should be written with parentheses, e.g. sin(ω(2k+1))/(2 sin(ω(k+1))).
[§1, Eq. (1.6)] The coupling formula J_l = K sqrt(l(N+1-l)) is written for l=0,1,...,N, but J_0 vanishes by the boundary condition; it would be clearer to state l=1,...,N.
[§4] The numerical results are given only inline. A small table listing N, M, j, ε, δ(T), and RS for all parameter sets would make the scaling behavior much easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fidelity claims follow from an explicit evaluation of the surgered-chain construction, with self-citations to prior independent mathematical results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The surgered chain is produced by the spectral-surgery/Darboux procedure taken from refs. [15,16]; these are prior mathematical results with stated assumptions (Chebyshev-to-q-ultraspherical transformations) and do not assume the target fidelity claim. The fidelity estimates are then obtained by evaluating the explicit persymmetric amplitude formula (4.1) with the explicit weights (3.8)-(3.9); the smallness of delta(T) is a computed consequence, not an input. The only adjusted parameter is the transfer time T = 1/2 + epsilon, which is a legitimate one-parameter optimization rather than a fit to the target. Citations to the authors' own earlier work are load-bearing for the construction but are not themselves justified by the present paper or by the claimed result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The apparent weight-normalization inconsistency and omitted epsilon values for the large-N examples are reproducibility/correctness concerns, not circularity, since they do not make any equation equal to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central formulas are imported from earlier work by the same authors (refs [15,16]); the only numerically tuned value is the time offset ε. The design parameters M and N are chosen by hand to meet the fidelity target.

free parameters (3)

ε (time offset) = 0.01 for N=100, M=110/120; 0.005 for N=100, M=150
Offset to the Krawtchouk transfer time T=1/2, chosen to minimize δ in (4.3).
M (parent chain size) = 110, 120, 150, 550, 1100 in examples
Size of the parent uniform chain; determines how much surgery is applied and controls the fidelity/coupling-ratio tradeoff.
N (surgered chain size) = 100, 500, 1000 in examples
Number of sites in the surgered chain; a design parameter.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Darboux/Christoffel transformations implement spectral surgery and preserve persymmetry
Used in Sec. 3 to justify that removing boundary eigenvalues from the uniform chain yields a valid persymmetric Jacobi matrix; result from ref [16].
domain assumption The q-ultraspherical polynomial formulas give the explicit couplings (3.4) and weights (3.8) for q a root of unity
Taken from ref [15]; the paper does not re-derive these formulas and they underpin the entire explicit construction.
standard math The amplitude formula A(t)=Σ ws(-1)^{N+s} exp(-ix_s t) for persymmetric chains
Used in Sec. 4 to compute fidelity; from refs [8,16].
standard math The spectrum of the uniform XX chain is x_s=-2 cos(π(s+1)/(M+2))
Standard result used in Eq. (3.1) and normalized in (4.4).
domain assumption Magnetic fields are absent (B_l=0)
Modeling choice throughout; the construction and fidelity results hold for this restricted family.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral surgery and high-fidelity quantum state transfer in $XX$ chains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVL2UXXQ

@misc{pith2026241202321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral surgery and high-fidelity quantum state transfer in $XX$ chains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVL2UXXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02321}
}

abstract

We consider an inhomogeneous $XX$ spin chain which interpolates between the Krawtchouk one with perfect state transfer and the homogeneous $XX$ chain. This model can be used to perform qubit state transfer with sufficiently high fidelity. The advantage of this model with respect to the Krawtchouk chain is that while maintaining high transfer fidelity, the coupling strengths are capped and do not become excessively large as the number of sites grows. The construction is fully analytic and is based on spectral surgery transformations of the homogeneous chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02321 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Profiles (3.7) of the coupling constants of the surg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

INTRODUCTION Perfect state transfer (PST) is a protocol that performs with probability one, the transport of a qubit in an un- known state from one location to another. The design, in terms of spin chains, of devices enacting PST without error inducing external controls has been initiated some 20 years ago [3] and is still the object of much attention. On...

work page
[2]

Spectral surgery and high-fidelity quantum state transfer in $XX$ chains

This model however only yields PST for chains that arXiv:2412.02321v1 [quant-ph] 3 Dec 2024 2 contain only 3 or 4 spins. For longer chains there are no times T for which relation (1.4) is verified. It was subsequently shown [1],[7] that inhomogeneous XX spin chains with PST for any number of sites N could be engineered by judiciously picking the coupling ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[3]

sufficient

TIME EVOLUTION OF A QUBIT INXX SPIN CHAINS As shown in [16], the dynamics of the inhomogeneous XX chain can be described by using the orthonormal polynomials χn(x) arising from the recurrence relation Jn+1χn+1(x) + Bnχn(x) + Jnχn−1(x) = xχn(x) (2.1) with χ−1 = 0, χ0 = 1. (2.2) It is convenient to introduce the monic orthogonal poly- nomials Pn(x) through ...

work page
[4]

spec- tral surgery

SURGERED HOMOGENEOUS XX CHAIN The spectrum xs of the uniform XX chain with Bk = 0, k= 0, 1, . . . , Mand Jk = 1/2 is xs = −2 cosω(s + 1), s= 0, 1, . . . , M, (3.1) where ω = π M + 2. (3.2) In Fig. 1 the essentially nonlinear (”red”) part of the FIG. 1. Spectrum of the uniform XX chain. Green color corresponds to the approximately linear part of the spectr...

work page
[5]

zeroth order approximation

FIDELITY ESTIMA TION Because the tridiagonal matrix J is persymmetric, the amplitude A(t) (recall (2.16)) of the quantum signal at the end of the chain can be calculated with the help of the following formula [16]: A(t) = NX s=0 ws(−1)N +s exp (−ixst) . (4.1) Note that for t = 0 we have A(0) = NX s=0 ws(−1)N +s = 0, (4.2) a consequence of the properties o...

work page
[6]

Albanese, M

C. Albanese, M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert, Mirror inversion of quantum states in linear registers , Physical Review Letters 93 (2004), 230502

work page 2004
[7]

Optimal dynamics for quantum-state and entanglement transfer through homogeneous quantum wires

L. Banchi, T. J. G. Apollaro, A. Cuccoli, R. Vaia, and P. Verrucchi, Optimal dynamics for quantum-state and entanglement transfer through homogeneous quan- tum systems , Physical Review A 82, 052321 (2010). arXiv:1006.1217v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[8]

Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dynamics: an introductory overview , Contemporary Physics, 48, (2007), 13 – 30

S. Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dynamics: an introductory overview , Contemporary Physics, 48, (2007), 13 – 30

work page 2007

Show all 26 references

[9]

Burgarth, V

D. Burgarth, V. Giovannetti and S. Bose, Efficient and perfect state transfer in quantum chains , Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical, 38 , 6793 (2005). arXiv:quant-ph/0410175v3

2005 arXiv
[10]

X. Chen, R. Mereau, and D. L. Feder, Asymptoti- cally perfect efficient quantum state transfer across uni- form chains with two impurities , Physical Review A 93, 012343 (2016). arXiv:1511.00038v1

2016 arXiv
[11]

Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials , Gordon and Breach, NY, 1978

T. Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials , Gordon and Breach, NY, 1978

1978
[12]

Christandl, N

M. Christandl, N. Datta, T. C. Dorlas, A. Ekert, A. Kay and A. J. Landahl, Perfect transfer of arbitrary states in quantum spin networks , Physical Review A 71 (2005), 032312. arXiv:quant-ph/0411020

2005 arXiv
[13]

Genest, S

V. Genest, S. Tsujimoto, L. Vinet and A. Zhedanov, Persymmetric Jacobi matrices, isospectral deformations and orthogonal polynomials , Journal of Mathemati- cal Analysis and Applications , 450 (2017), 915–928. arXiv:1605.00708

2017 arXiv
[14]

Godsil, S

C. Godsil, S. Kirkland, S. Severini, J. Smith, Number- theoretic nature of communication in quantum spin chains, Physical Review Letters 109 (2012), 050502; arXiv:1201.4822

2012 arXiv
[15]

Kay, Incorporating Encoding into Quantum System Design , Physical Review A 109, 042408

A. Kay, Incorporating Encoding into Quantum System Design , Physical Review A 109, 042408. arXiv:2207.01954v2

arXiv
[16]

Koekoek, P

R. Koekoek, P. Lesky, R. Swarttouw,Hypergeometric Or- thogonal Polynomials and Their Q-analogues , Springer- Verlag, 2010

2010
[17]

Kremer, V

D. Kremer, V. Villar, H. Paik, I. Duran, I. Faro, J. Cruz-Benito, Practical and efficient quantum circuit synthesis and transpiling with Reinforcement Learning , arXiv:2405.13196, 2024

2024 arXiv
[18]

E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson , The Finite Group Veloc- ity of Quantum Spin Systems , Communications in Math- ematical Physics 28 (1972), 251–257

1972
[19]

Perez-Leija, R

A. Perez-Leija, R. Keil, A. Kay, H. Moya-Cessa, S. Nolte, L.-C. Kwek, B. M. Rodriguez-Lara, A. Szameit, D. N. Christodoulides, Coherent quantum transport in photonic lattices, Physical Review A 87, 012309 (2013)

2013
[20]

Spiridonov and A

V. Spiridonov and A. Zhedanov, q-Ultraspherical poly- 7 nomials for q a root of unity , Letters in Mathematical Physics 37 (1996), 173–180. arXiv:q-alg/9605033v1

1996 arXiv
[21]

Vinet, A

L. Vinet, A. Zhedanov, How to construct spin chains with perfect spin transfer , Physical Review A 85 (2012), 012323

2012
[22]

Vinet, A

, L. Vinet, A. Zhedanov, Almost perfect state transfer in quantum spin chains , Physical Review A 86, 052319 (2012)

2012
[23]

W´ ojcik, T

A. W´ ojcik, T. Luczak, P. Kurzynski, A. Grudka, T. Gdala, and M. Bednarska, Unmodulated spin chains as universal quantum wires , Physical Review A 72, 034303 (2005). arXiv:quant-ph/0505097v1

2005 arXiv
[24]

W. Xie, A. Kay, and C. Tamon, A Note on the Speed of Perfect State Transfer, arXiv:1609.01854

arXiv
[25]

W. Xie, A. Kay, and C. Tamon, Breaking the Speed Limit for Perfect Quantum State Transfer , Physical Review A 108, 012408 (2023)

2023
[26]

Yung, Quantum speed limit for perfect state trans- fer in one dimension , Physical Review A 74, 030303(R) (2006)

M.-H. Yung, Quantum speed limit for perfect state trans- fer in one dimension , Physical Review A 74, 030303(R) (2006)

2006

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

INTRODUCTION Perfect state transfer (PST) is a protocol that performs with probability one, the transport of a qubit in an un- known state from one location to another. The design, in terms of spin chains, of devices enacting PST without error inducing external controls has been initiated some 20 years ago [3] and is still the object of much attention. On...

work page

[2] [2]

Spectral surgery and high-fidelity quantum state transfer in $XX$ chains

This model however only yields PST for chains that arXiv:2412.02321v1 [quant-ph] 3 Dec 2024 2 contain only 3 or 4 spins. For longer chains there are no times T for which relation (1.4) is verified. It was subsequently shown [1],[7] that inhomogeneous XX spin chains with PST for any number of sites N could be engineered by judiciously picking the coupling ...

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

sufficient

TIME EVOLUTION OF A QUBIT INXX SPIN CHAINS As shown in [16], the dynamics of the inhomogeneous XX chain can be described by using the orthonormal polynomials χn(x) arising from the recurrence relation Jn+1χn+1(x) + Bnχn(x) + Jnχn−1(x) = xχn(x) (2.1) with χ−1 = 0, χ0 = 1. (2.2) It is convenient to introduce the monic orthogonal poly- nomials Pn(x) through ...

work page

[4] [4]

spec- tral surgery

SURGERED HOMOGENEOUS XX CHAIN The spectrum xs of the uniform XX chain with Bk = 0, k= 0, 1, . . . , Mand Jk = 1/2 is xs = −2 cosω(s + 1), s= 0, 1, . . . , M, (3.1) where ω = π M + 2. (3.2) In Fig. 1 the essentially nonlinear (”red”) part of the FIG. 1. Spectrum of the uniform XX chain. Green color corresponds to the approximately linear part of the spectr...

work page

[5] [5]

zeroth order approximation

FIDELITY ESTIMA TION Because the tridiagonal matrix J is persymmetric, the amplitude A(t) (recall (2.16)) of the quantum signal at the end of the chain can be calculated with the help of the following formula [16]: A(t) = NX s=0 ws(−1)N +s exp (−ixst) . (4.1) Note that for t = 0 we have A(0) = NX s=0 ws(−1)N +s = 0, (4.2) a consequence of the properties o...

work page

[6] [6]

Albanese, M

C. Albanese, M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert, Mirror inversion of quantum states in linear registers , Physical Review Letters 93 (2004), 230502

work page 2004

[7] [7]

Optimal dynamics for quantum-state and entanglement transfer through homogeneous quantum wires

L. Banchi, T. J. G. Apollaro, A. Cuccoli, R. Vaia, and P. Verrucchi, Optimal dynamics for quantum-state and entanglement transfer through homogeneous quan- tum systems , Physical Review A 82, 052321 (2010). arXiv:1006.1217v1

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[8] [8]

Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dynamics: an introductory overview , Contemporary Physics, 48, (2007), 13 – 30

S. Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dynamics: an introductory overview , Contemporary Physics, 48, (2007), 13 – 30

work page 2007