Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing Quantum Simulation

Simulation of Quantum Walks and Fast Mixing with Classical Processes

arXiv
Authors: Simon Apers, Alain Sarlette, Francesco Ticozzi

Year

2017

Paper ID

24699

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

85

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We compare discrete-time quantum walks on graphs to their natural classical equivalents, which we argue are lifted Markov chains, that is, classical Markov chains with added memory. We show that these can simulate quantum walks, allowing us to answer an open question on how the graph topology ultimately bounds their mixing performance, and that of any stochastic local evolution. The results highlight that speedups in mixing and transport phenomena are not necessarily diagnostic of quantum effects, although superdiffusive spreading is more prominent with quantum walks.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We compare discrete-time quantum walks on graphs to their natural classical equivalents, which we argue are lifted Markov chains, that is, classical Markov chains with added...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #24699 #78846 Analog quantum simulation of Sh... #78810 Secure Quantum Handshakes: Quan... #78802 Quantum Co-Design of Inhomogene... #78801 Constructing Large and Structur...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.